Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Walter Sloane Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

woinaroschy_1979 I've seen the '39, '92 and another TV series of Wuthering Heights. Each has it's qualities and flaws. When I watched the 2009 version for the first time, I was very pleasantly surprised that it was a very modern take on the situation between the characters. Heathcliff and Cathy were childhood sweethearts, with all that it entails, sex too. The relationship between Hetahcliff and Isabella Linton is also well pictured, even though the idea that Heathcliff tried to love Isabella (as he says) is really not at all in the book, nor characteristic of Heathcliff. Cathy is a very modern woman, who marries a man for his money and the comfort that it brings (at least that's the message I got, I never saw Cathy's love for Edgar), but loves and above all, desires, the rough, tough and wild bad boy Heathcliff. Actyually, Heathcliff is the one here that won't sleep with her later on, because she's married and she has slept with Edgar, thus betraying him. In the end, the story depicted becomes much too modern for my taste...it's going too far away from the book. Everything is too simple and superficial, the story is about a woman that made a bad choice and married the wrong man, and dies of heartbreak because of this, leaving the 2 guys to mourn for her. Heathcliff is upset of her betrayal and punishes her in his way, while also taking revenge on those that wronged him, but his character is a lamb compared to the devil Heathcliff is in the book. Cathy is also very different from the book, where she was strong, almost a tyrant with Heathcliff and Edgar, feared and loved. Here she's a teenage girl who doesn't know exactly what to do, is prone to her emotions, and at the mercy of Heathcliff and his whims. The series itself is not bad at all, acting, scenery, directing, and music are very good...but it's not a faithful adaptation of Wuthering Heights, more of a a "based on" thing. It's a "what if" kind of story (what if Heathcliff was in fact not that bad? what if Cathy was not that strong?). Kind of a good fan fiction... So, interesting to watch, probably won't be liked by the fans of the book.

Suzy I wasn't expecting to like this version because I actually dislike all the other adaptations, but my god, this is absolutely fantastic!! It's the sexiest and most entertaining Wuthering Heights I've seen. I've watched this film over 10 times. I love it to pieces. I thought it was superbly cast and the characters are so perfectly portrayed. Tom Hardy as Heathcliff was just..magnificent. He nailed that psychotic, bad boy role like no other. I found myself loving and hating him all at once. Now I can't imagine anyone else playing it. He's a fantastic actor. I wish more people knew of him in the States! Also the music in this version is so beautiful.

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.

kaitlyn-is-an-epic-win Though most people who watch this version have seen others, I'll give a brief, bare bones intro for those who don't know.Wuthering Heights follows the Gothic story of Catherine Earnshaw (Charlotte Riley) and Heathcliff (Tom Hardy). The story follows their unorthodox beginnings through the budding of their romance and follows the duo through a path of heartbreak, destruction, and revenge that will assuredly leave watchers (and readers for that matter) stunned. Be forewarned, Wuthering Heights is not a happy go lucky Pride and Prejudice or even Northanger Abbey for that matter, it is dark and rather depressing. ** Warning: Spoilers Below **That being said. I truly enjoyed this version. The score was elegant, the cinematography fitting for each scene, and the costuming original as well as slightly modernized (though still a period drama). However, I believe that the crown jewel of this production is Tom Hardy.Tom Hardy simply looks the part. Heathcliff is supposed to be a gypsy, a ruffian, someone who can intimidate and be downright nasty. Hardy's physique is broad and brutish looking. He has none of the refined elegance of the Edgar Linton or Hindley Earnshaw (for that matter). He simply looks like a brute. He is, however, attractive (allowing him to be a plausible romantic interest) in a way that is overwhelmingly masculine and strong. His voice is gravelly and raspy, allowing it to be attractive and masculine when necessary and venomous and threatening at other times. Hardy also brings a dark comedy to the role of Heathcliff that makes his character even more (dare I say it) likable. Phrases that could be uttered with anger and blood lust are sometimes uttered with an almost sarcastic air, a sickly satisfied smile on his face. The bottom line: Hardy can be both an uber masculine heartthrob and a dark, violent, and bitter monster. Bravo.Charlotte Riley does well as Cathy. She is obviously passionate and rebellious, but doesn't have the spoiled-ten-year-old temper tantrums. Riley's chemistry with Hardy is excellent and their scenes are always amazing. However, Cathy seems to switch her affections to Edgar Linton rather suddenly and with, seemingly, little motive. This, however, is not Riley's fault, but the screenwriter's. Riley does a great job of escalating Cathy's hysteria at Heathcliff's rejection of her upon his return. By the end of the film, I found myself really liking her.Other versions don't cut it for me. I mean, Joseph Fiennes as Heathcliff? He simply is not intimidating enough or dark enough to be Heathcliff. Fiennes's Heathcliff is a lighter, Hollywood Heathcliff that is not the Heathcliff we know and love. Similarly, I adore Laurence Olivier, I really do, but I don't find him rugged and raw enough to be Heathcliff. However, I must say I do enjoy the film a lot though they disregard the second half of the novel. Though this version (2009) is my favorite, the 1998 version with Robert Cavanah is rather good, though a big part of that opinion is Matthew Macfayden's Hareton.Speaking of which, Hareton in this version was not my cup of tea at first, though he did grow on me. Perhaps it was the fact that he wasn't as resentful of Heathcliff as I felt he should be. Sarah Lancashire did an excellent job as Nelly, though her role was not as large because Lockwood's character was eliminated. Burn Gorman is a Hindley you simply love to hate. He combines superciliousness with wickedness and a cruel spirit. Rebecca Night does well with her role (Cathy & Edgar's daughter Catherine), though she is more rebellious than she is in the book.Overall, this series is dramatic and slightly modernized. Be prepared for a few sex scenes, about which I have an opinion for those who claim the sex scenes were unnecessary. In the book, Heathcliff and Cathy spend lots of unsupervised time on the moors... unsupervised. Teenagers in love are not going to be playing tag and making macramé bracelets alright. In the mid 1800s, it would not be acceptable to blatantly state that two unmarried people were physically involved. It's left to the reader to fill in the blanks as to how their alone time was spent. As I said, I doubt they were writing sonnets and drinking tea (mind you, this is not Austen). Besides, if you have Tom Hardy, why not make use of his sex appeal? So if you are willing to overlook some plot changes, omissions, as well as additions, then take a gander at this version. If you are looking for a film that is a perfect transcription from book to screen, you may want to reconsider watching this.