Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Executscan Expected more

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

thepanda0423 I actually came across this version, by mistake, a lucky mistake! I grew up in the 70's watching the yearly airing of the 1939 version w/ Mom on a Sunday afternoon. (She's gone now, great memories!). I knew of no other version, then I saw the 70's Dalton version & was upset w/ the "butchery" of it, (until my aunt told me that the "butchered" one was the '39 version)! I still don't like the Dalton version, to me, he & Marshall lacked the appeal that Oberon & Oliver had. Then I saw the '92 Fiennes version & loved it, it's the 1st time I saw the entire "book version". Recently, I came across two, 2011 remakes, 1 w/Howson, & 1 w/Rosmer. The Howson version I thought was like Romeo & Juliette, w/DiCaprio, (which I hated, So I didn't bother w/it,). Today it was on TV, I only saw the last 1/2, aside of his killing rabbits,(again and again!) & the characters looking like they need baths, it was OK, 5/6 stars. DVR's set for next week, I'll decide than. Anyway, Amazon Prime, had a PBS/Rosmer version, watched it & loved it! Unlike the '70 & '92 versions both 2011 remakes had attractive actors playing the characters, (Lol, I think that helps getting into the romance of the story instead of unattractive ones that make me cringe when the kiss!) I.M.O. the PBS/Rosmer version topped the Fiennes version! Enjoy!

MissSimonetta This 2009 adaptation of Wuthering Heights appears to be the most popular, at least at the time of this writing. It's not hard to see why: Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley have fabulous chemistry as the ill-fated lovers, and the locations used are just gorgeous. The atmosphere is great with an almost eternally gray sky and lots of desaturated color, making the few rich tones used really pop.Tom Hardy is easily the best cinematic Heathcliff I've seen to date. He's brooding, passionate, angry, and manipulative. He's a monster, yet also strangely sympathetic. The supporting cast is fantastic. I love Andrew Lincoln as Edgar and the actors who portrayed Cathy II and Hareton were adorable.Still, there are a few weak points which keep this WH from being great. Charlotte Riley is not a great Catherine, as she plays it too sympathetic. Catherine is selfish and even cruel, and Riley does not come across that way. The writing deserves part of the blame for that as well, giving Catherine some of Nelly's lines about how Heathcliff should not seek vengeance, as that's God's place. Could you see the Catherine of the novel doing such a thing? Also, the structure is confusing, especially for those who've never touched the book. We skip from the middle of the second generation to the first and then back, which is jarring.This one's popular for a reason. Wuthering Heights fans will likely enjoy it.

drarthurwells The original 1939 classic movie of Wuthering Heights, with Olivier and Oberon, is excellent for its time. However, this version only depicts the basic plot. Newer versions are more elaborate.This story centers on Heathcliff and is about deep love between Heathcliff and Cathy, love lost, Heathcliff's bitter and deep anger over this, Heathcliff's blame for the love loss on the Cathy as well as on class exclusion, and revenge toward all those involved in the lost love. An essential element is for the movie to depict Heathcliff's bitterness and immense vengeful anger. Now in order for the immense anger to be explained, the prior deep love between Heathcliff and Cathy must be fully depicted. I think the 1992 and 2009 movie versions are the best. Both are excellent but both are flawed.The 1992 version with Ralph Fiennes is better organized and time-sequenced. This version emphasizes the bitterness, anger and vengefulness of the main character, Heathcliff, as superbly depicted by Fiennes. The flaw is that the early love between Cathy and Heathcliff is shown in a skimpy and summary manner. This is a flaw since this deep love needs a full and detailed portrayal in order to explain Heathcliff's later deep bitterness. As a result Fiennes' Heathcliff is a terrible fellow whose behavior is somewhat inexcusable. The 2009 version with Tom Hardy is slightly convoluted, and lightens Heathcliff's vengefulness (making Heathcliff more of sympathetic character to the viewer), which is a flaw compared to the 1992 Fiennes version that properly displays Heathcliff's revenge. However, the 2009 Hardy version does portray the early love between Heathcliff and Cathy with due elaboration (which is lacking in the 1992 version). As a result Heathcliff is more of a tragic figure than a villain.An ideal version would be the 1992 Fiennes version, with the deep vengeful anger as Fiennes displayed, but that also fully depicted the love as did the 2009 Hardy version.Both the Hardy 2009 version and the Fiennes 1992 version are excellent but I prefer the 1992 version as the best available.

wcashley I loved this version. Tom Hardy is a genius, and his Heathcliff has stayed with me long after the film finished. Charlotte Riley is also very good, as are the other cast members. I've read the comments about Heathcliff and Cathy having sex, and this being a diversion from the original book, however, Emily Bronte makes it clear in her text that Heathcliff and Cathy spend many unsupervised hours on the moors together. This in itself was shocking in the days when every unmarried young lady required a chaperone, but I think Emily was leaving it up to us, the readers, to decide what Heathcliff and Cathy did with their time together. I think the interpretation in this film is a valid one. Tom Hardy's musings at the end, on his life, and on the possible futility of his revenge were very convincing and haunting. This is a film you won't forget in a hurry.