Wuthering Heights

2012 "Love is a force of nature"
6| 2h4m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 09 April 2012 Released
Producted By: Goldcrest
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: https://www.curzonartificialeye.com/wuthering-heights
Synopsis

Yorkshire moorlands, northern England, in the late 18th century. Young Heathcliff, rescued from the streets of Liverpool by Mr. Earnshaw, the owner of Wuthering Heights, an isolated farm, develops over the years an insane passion for Cathy, his foster sister, a sick obsession destined to end tragically.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with AMC+

Director

Producted By

Goldcrest

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.
Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.
Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
raypowell I didn't like this adaption of Wuthering Heights and the only saving grace for me was Shannon Beer playing the young Cathy. In some scenes you could see her wilful mischievous demeanour.I couldn't see any bonding between the main characters, and Heathcliff was too moody. I couldn't see how Cathy would fall in love with this person.
epincion Yes I know the Emily Bronte novel deals with a dark subject of a man driven to virtual madness by boyhood mistreatment and his perceived betrayal by a woman whom he loved but for me this film was a terrible interpretation. It was woodenly acted and given the wonderful language of the novel the script here was a joke. Disturbingly there was gratuitous killing of animals seen on film and this is simply unacceptable. Technically the film was very often annoyingly jerky (imagine the film from a hand-held camera on horseback) and essentially all night time scenes far too dark to see. Yes the reality of the era was that in poor stone farm houses it would have been very dark and dingy but with modern digital cameras such 'natural light' scenes can be enhanced so that the audience can see -as was well shown in the recent excellent BBC Wolf Hall series. I was excited at the thought of a major role in a classic of English literature going to a non-white actor and that was the one good thing I can say but everything else was dreadful. Don't bother is my advice.
keishuusakka What the did with the ambient (decoration, costumes, lighting) was fine and even making Heathcliff a black person instead of a "gipsy" would have work out... but the script and the characters were so effing messed up that didn't seem to be faithful to the essence of the novel. What the hell is wrong with Heathcliff's reactions? Where is the hate and the thirst of revenge? Hindley calls him a "thieving n*gger" and he doesn't react, his "revenge" is just buying the farm. Edgar Linton kicking the sh*t outta him.. really? There are also a couple of scenes with Isabella (Heathcliff biting her lip and licking her ear) that seemed simply odd. The cruelty towards the dogs is unnecessary too. The omission of the "I'm Heathcliff" speech is the worst part... I get it, it's not supposed to be exactly as the book, since it's an adaptation but what they did here, is a slaughter. Really, they tore apart the story.
dbh850 First, it's been MANY years since I read the book. It is not a book I plan to read again... too dark and depressing.That said, I felt, with all its flaws that have been pointed out here, the film did a fine job conveying the mood of the book. Dark, hopeless, despair... all of that. I always wondered about that Bronte sister... what was her emotional state most of the time?I found the dark, foggy, muddy location to be perfect. And the actors really got filthy - they lived in mud. That's how it would have been there. I disliked the animal cruelty, but I'll give it a pass, as it probably is realistic for the times and for people in such ongoing despair. But I did fast forward through those scenes. I don't need to see that and I cannot understand why the filmmaker felt compelled to put them in there. And Heathcliff walking away at the end whilst that boy hung those dogs? Wow. That was very off-putting.I felt the actors were splendid. Every one of them inhabited their character with brilliant skill. I felt the direction was perfect. Some may find the time spent on shots of the surrounding moor to slow the whole thing down too much, but for me, it fit the mood.The wild characters fit my memory of the book. Cathy was as fickle, selfish, cruel, and passionate as I felt she was in the book... which I read decades ago, so memory can certainly be wrong.I loved the black Heathcliff. Although he certainly was not black in the book, I felt that was a creative re-imagining. I sat through the film whilst working on paperwork. I had no interest in investing in intently watching. The book had nothing positive in it for me, and I dislike depressing stories. I felt the film represented the mood, tone, and message - if you will - of the book. I wasn't crazy about it... but I didn't like the book, so it seems to fit.I vote an 8 because of these things. I knock 2 points off just because I dislike the story.