FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

vanyadolly I haven't seen every Wutherign Heigths adaption, but I have seen a lot of them and this one is at the bottom of my list for now. What do you get when you strip a gothic novel of all of all of its mystery and ethereal romanticism? Turns out that the result is a rather tame and uninspiring drama. Ironically this one just comes across as more melodramatic without the proper framework to soften the heightened emotionality and the flowery language, especially as they're acted out by out by actors in their forties. The result was downright hilarious at times when it wasn't plain distracting. There was nothing about this adaption that said Wuthering Heights to me, it could have been any old movie. It has none of the complexity or atmosphere of the book, and on top of that they saw fit to rewrite the characters to a point where they have little in common with their original counterparts. Adaptions seem to have a hard time finding a good balance between Cathy and Heathcliff to make them feel like two halves of the same soul rather than allowing one to overpower the other; whether that's reducing Cathy to the innocent victim of Heathcliff's abuse (2009 mini-series) or making Heathcliff childish and downright pathetic (this movie).I haven't been able to find a perfect film adaption yet, but I wouldn't recommend this one. If you love the book or if you're looking for an adaption that captures it's spirit, I'd recommend the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton for the first generation, or the 1992 version with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche. Even the 2009 mini-series with Tom Hardy did a better job with the supporting characters.

howlah **ONLY LAST 2 SENTENCES SPOIL** OK, to start with I thought this was very well cast in terms of the way they look~ pretty much like I imagined (though not the best acting at points~ perhaps because the actors probably didn't actually read the book).. well apart from Heathcliff; which is only to be expected, as he is such a controversial character.I also wanted Joseph a bit less clean-cut than he was in the film.I thought Heathcliff should've been played by a non-Caucasian instead of a Cavanah with heavy bronzer. However he looks wild enough, just not attractive enough for me... Haerton WAS hot, which was what I wanted, and his troll-deep voice was suiting and funny at times as it was so fitting whether intentional or not.They only had 2 actors for Heathcliff, Catherine, and Hindley, and 1 for Edgar, Isabella and Nelly. This was tolerable for Hindley, Nelly, Edgar and Isabella, because Nelly's in her later years and their looks usually don't change, Hindley disappears for college to return older, and Flora and Crispin look young enough to pass off as teens. The adult actors for Heathcliff and Catherine were just a little too old to come in the bird nest scene.Now the pace: This film starts a little boring.. but it does get a lot better. But if you have read the book, you will find the movie is slow-moving in some places but flies past some parts a bit too fast. I wish they had just kept the same pace.If setting is important to you, you won't be disappointed.The relationships between the characters were pretty well portrayed, for example Catherine-Heathcliff was quite sweet. The rating 6.7 is pretty dead on.**Spoiler below** What I didn't like was Haerton and Cathy's relationship. Cathy was just a bit too quick to get into it. (/spoiler)

morgana-31 I came across this on DVD last weekend. I had been looking for the mini-series I had seen on TV a good 25 years or so earlier and mistook this one for it. (I had no idea who was in the mini-series; and bad eyesight prevented me from reading the small print on the box.) Well I had no regrets. As a hater of the half told stories of a couple of previous versions I had seen, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll agree with everyone else that Cathy and Heathcliff aged faster than in the book and that Nelly Dean should have been younger, but that did not detract from the story. And Heathcliff was depicted as a rogue, not a romantic hero; and Cathy was a twit. I felt no sympathy for her because she made her choice and got what she deserved. I do wish they had done more with Cathy 2 and Linton though. Their rather grating personalities were all but lost in this version. But at least they were IN this version. I had to watch it on a portable mini DVD player because my big telly is in for repairs, but this will be the first thing I watch when I get it back.

jack-smales Emily Bronte would have been proud of this version of Wuthering Heights.While it is rather rushed,it makes up for it by sticking to the nature of the story.It still bears resemblance to the book. Orla Brady was a superb Cathy.She looked and acted just the way she should.Robert Cavangh did not really look like a good Heathcliff,but his acting was good and I suppose that is what mattered.POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEADThe part where Cathy and Heathcliff were children was rushed.They were still children when Cathy stayed at the Lintons and so were Edgar and Isabella,but here they were all adults.Also Nelly was an adult all through the film,but she was supposed to be a child.I think what they should have done was have 2 young actors for Cathy,Nelly and Heathcliff and young actors for Edgar and Isabella.I also think that the Christmas bit was not how it should have been.Anyway,this is a very accurate version and sticks to the nature of the story.I think if it did not it would have been awful. This is a superb version.