Wuthering Heights Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Foundling Heathcliff is raised by the wealthy Earnshaws in Yorkshire but in later life launches a vendetta against the family.
| Tom Hardy | Heathcliff |
| Charlotte Riley | Cathy |
| Andrew Lincoln | Edgar Linton |
| Sarah Lancashire | Nelly |
| Burn Gorman | Hindley |
| Rosalind Halstead | Isabella |
| Rebecca Night | Catherine |
| Tom Payne | Linton |
| Andrew Hawley | Hareton |
| Kevin McNally | Mr. Earnshaw |
| Des McAleer | Joseph |
| Shaughan Seymour | Doctor Kenneth |
| Sia Berkeley | Frances |
| James Harper | Vicar |
| Barnaby Kay | Saul |
| Coky Giedroyc |
7.90 out of 10 (102 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Wuthering Heights
posted on 31 Aug 2009Before watching this movie, I had never read the book or seen any other movie versions, and had no idea what the story was about. I didn't know what I was missing all these years. It inspired me to actually read the book. There are some differences between the book and movie, and some things have been rearranged, but the overall theme of Cathy and Heathcliff's love for each other, is powerful in both the book, and this movie version. It is not a happy story, and I felt so sad at the end, but I still loved it. It was so realistic to me I had to remind myself that it was based on a fiction novel, and these were not real people. I also enjoyed the music, and felt it set the overall mood. I think all the cast were perfect in their roles, and I can't imagine anyone doing a better job as Heathcliff than Tom Hardy. Charlotte Riley plays Cathy and is such a natural beauty that it is easy to believe the undying love that Heathcliff has for her. I would have loved it to be longer, to include some things from the novel that were left out, and I didn't see the need to change the way Heathcliff dies, but overall I loved it. It is sad and haunting, and yet I have watched it several times. It deserves five stars and more!!
Passion gone wild
posted on 31 Aug 2009If you're missing passion in your life, watch this movie! I've read the book several times as young as 16 and watched two other movies of this story. I must say that this is my favorite. I feel Heathcliff's pain and understand his anger better. Tom Hardy does an incredible portrayal of Heathcliff. All of the actors are perfect for their parts. I also like the interjection of a little history about Emily Bronte at the beginning and between the two parts. I think it's a wonderful rendition of Wuthering Heights!
Just Not My Favorite Adaptation...
posted on 31 Aug 2009I believe this 2009 adaptation captured the essence of Emily Brontë's novel better than the 1992 adaptation. However, the 1998 is still my favorite. However, I am NOT saying this adaptation was very different from the 1998. (In many respects, the films are nearly identical. Most of the same scenes are shown in each adaptation.)
None of the adaptations could be considered true miniseries where the novel is acted out in entirety. (I an certain many people would find that boring.) Therefore, I am not writing this review as a critique of how well this film or any other film can substitute for reading the novel. What I am saying is that I think the 1998 Masterpiece adaptation is better in telling in the story.
My Main Reasons:
1.
While this adaptation is slightly longer, I don't really think it developed minor characters any better than the 1998. (It does possibly develop Joseph's character slightly more but not Nelly's.)
2.
Some scenes in the 1998, for example, Heathcliff hanging a dog by the hook or trashing Thrushcross Grange after Linton's death showed Heathcliff's hate, grieve, etc. better than the alternative gambling scenes in this 2000 film.
3.
The conclusion of this film is a letdown. The 1998, and even the 1992, end better than this film. In this adaptation, I feel I am being led to think, "Now Heathcliff is dead and can be with Catherine" rather than focusing in Catherine II's future and happiness.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
I am not saying I do not recommend this film. Certainly, for someone who loves Emily Brontê's "Wuthering Heights" and enjoys watching film adaptations. this individual can probably find something in the film he or she likes. I know that the film was interesting to watch once, if not simply to compare with previous adaptations.
However, for the adaptation I would most like to watch MORE THAN ONCE, the 1998 adaptation (not the 2009) is my choice.
Horrific.....really awful.....
posted on 31 Aug 2009I own the Orla Brady, late 1990's version of this from the BBC, and I absolutely love it! And I just as vehemently HATED this version. The male lead I saw in The Virgin Queen a few years ago, and he was fine as Robbie--not inspiring, but ok. In this, he is wooden. The female lead is new to me, but I did not care for her, either. I felt the residence used for Wuthering Heights was too grand, not at all appropriate. I hated the music score, or what I remember of it anyway. I have seen other projects (perhaps The Virgin Queen was one of his?) by this director, and I liked them. This I completely disliked and had difficulty sitting through.
probably an unpopular opinion, good enough adaptation.
posted on 31 Aug 2009There is an older version of this movie that I loved watching as a young girl, so I was excited to rent this one when I found out about it. It really had me re-examining what I originally thought the tragedies were: death, social-injustice, and abandoned love.
Wuthering Heights focuses on Catherine and Heathcliff, two main characters of Bronte's book who have a fundamentally unhealthy, self-centered, obsessive fascination with eachother.
There were just so many things that bothered me this time around.
1.The expendability of the welfare and emotional well-being of secondary characters.
2. How Heathcliff couldn't get past his hateful mentality to choose not to make those around him miserable. Instead, he is as bad as his own tormentors (and worse) terrorizing not only them, but also innocent people who have done nothing to him.
3. Heathcliff offering little to no genuine compassion or forgiveness to anyone (namely besides Catherine). Even when he was shown compassion throughout the story (i.e, being adopted by Mr. Linton, recieving presents from Mr. Linton, being loved by Catherine, Nelly, and Linton. Sure, he was treated horribly. He still could have had it much worse though).
4. Catherine's dependancy upon Heathcliff. Prioritize a man over the well-being of her own child?
5. Catherine is doted upon by almost all of the male figures. She can make mistakes(i.e publically disrespect and humiliate her husband in his own home, run around like a banshee in an conservative age where males and etiquette had authority, and marrying a man she didn't love for the comfort of his money). She uses people and disrupts almost everyone's life because of their love affair and manages to live a life free of the stress of wondering where her next meal would come from or where she would sleep. Yet when Isabella makes the same mistake, she is shown no mercy at all.
It seems like the tragedy is that their relationship is existing at all. Although I no longer find the story appealing, I will admit that Emily Bronte wrote a good tragedy. The movie was good enough/okay.
True to the spirit & themes of the Book
posted on 31 Aug 2009As someone who has studied Wuthering Heights at University level, works as a Librarian and read the book many times I consider this film version to be the best I have seen. Though it departs from the plot at times it still comes closest to the the themes and tone of Emily Bronte's work. I can, in fact, understand and accept all of the changes. Even the altered ending doesn't detract - in the novel Heathcliff yearns for death so he can be with Cathy - and having him shoot himself resolves some of the problems presented by the concept of a strong man in his prime willing / starving himself to death in a matter of days.
The only reason for not giving it 5 stars is the curious ommission of most of the powerful dialogue from Cathy's death scene. The actors playing Cathy and Heathcliff would certainly have been able to do it justice. Particularly Tom Hardy, who was brilliant and "nailed" Heathcliff. I will be suprised if any actor in the future does a better job
Remakes
posted on 31 Aug 2009I love the English classics and eagerly anticipate all of their remakes, but this version of "Wuthering Heights" was exceptional! Absolutely beautiful to watch and listen to. The soundtrack was reminiscent of England's production of "HEATHCLIFF" starring Cliff Richard. Very pretty.
Another Way to See It
posted on 31 Aug 2009The beauty of the Masterpiece Theater production of Pride and Prejudice (with Colin Firth) is that it was so "spot on". For most, it is the definitive production of Jane Austen's most famous novel and makes thinking of Darcy in any other way almost next to impossible.
But interpretating a great novel and its iconic characters in a different way is the fun of it all. What did Emily Bronte really mean by it, and did she herself know? Do we know more than the author; or did the author know more than us? As Heathcliff says here, "Where's the harm in it?" If one has done their homework and has read the original, enjoying other possibilities or even taking literary license is all the more compelling and revealing. So this newest rendition of Wuthering Heights, while less faithful to the novel, is all the more enjoyable for being so.
The sreenplay's author has taken liberties with the story that strike a chord. The DVD version is more enjoyable and does far more justice to Hardy's Heathcliff than TV version with its awkward and unbalanced separation a week or two apart.
I had never knowingly seen Tom Hardy before and, therefore, could not compare his Heathcliff with any of his other work. There is no question that his performance dominated the production and, all the more so because Cathy, as portrayed by Riley, was more waiflike than the novel portrays her.
Hardy's Heathcliffe is dark and vengeful to be sure. But his Heathcliffe is a also a product of repeated and devasting loss, abuse, self-loathing, and self-protection. He and Cathy are starcrossed characters as much or more than they are products of free will. As Heathcliffe says here, "I could have been a good man".
Heathcliff may be hateful and vengeful. But Hardy plays him throughout with humanity. For those seeking to look at the story in a different way, his Healthcliff is vulnerable, tragic, redeemable and truly victimized. Perhaps not Bronte's portrayal exactly, but another view and way to continue to enjoy a great story of the ages.
WRONG Item on Display!
posted on 31 Aug 2009Not a review of the item but a comment on this page. This product page displays a cover for the 1999 version instead of the 2009 production. Very confusing for shoppers since there is no real description of cast etc. to determine what movie version they're selling here.
Wonderful Production, But...
posted on 31 Aug 2009Wuthering Heights was one of my favorite novels from my youth. I never particularly appreciated the Olivier film because Olivier himself did not in the least fit the physical conception of Heathcliff my mind had created when I read the novel. Tom Hardy, however, mostly certain DOES play the perfect incarnation of Heathcliff: His performance is passionate and exceptional, and he has a deep, powerful, resonant voice that reminds me of what I first noticed about the late Heath Ledger. Hardy portrays Heathcliff as I think Bronte might have envisioned him: Darkly handsome, powerful, dangerous, an undercurrent of evil obsessed with vengeance, a commanding and compelling presence in every single scene, and strongly sensual beneath it all. Unfortunately, I did not not feel Charlotte Riley was the right actress for Cathy because she simply did not match Hardy's intensity and presence. Riley is lovely and a good actress, but somehow she did not come across believably as the type of woman to inspire such undying passion in Heathcliff. She seemed too conventional and reserved to appeal to him, and the various scenes portraying Cathy and Heathcliff running about the hills together was just too tame and was unconvincing as any sort of proof of her wilder side. Cathy needed to be played by someone with an undeniably wild and uncontrollable nature such as we see in actresses like Angelina Jolie, for example. Cathy needed to be shown as unconventional and wild, and that simply did not come across as Riley and this production portrayed her. Heathcliff needed a Cathy who was a match for himself in feminine form, a woman who was a force of nature, so to speak. Riley was just too tame. The actress who portrayed Cathy's daughter Catherine actually seemed a bit stronger character compared to Cathy, but even she was a too mild in my opinion. Other characters in this film were well done, however.
It had been a very long time since I read Wuthering Heights, and I also noted that in this production the way the story line jumped about with the timeline was a bit confusing, and it took awhile before I remembered the details original story and how all the characters related to each other. If I'd never read the book I would have been quite confused about the relationships. For example, Heathcliff's son Linton appears early on, but I'd forgotten exactly who he was and who his mother was and what the circumstances of his life were. All in all, I think Masterpiece Theater would have done better to make this longer by another 2-hour episode, just to flesh out all the missing details that were glossed over a bit too much for continuity.
Despite the flaws, this production was absolutely gorgeous and the accompanying music was perfect to set the mood, and it was very compelling to watch. Good enough that I've ordered the film to re-watch it, mainly because of Hardy's wonderful performance. He really was the perfect Heathcliff, the one I've imagined all my life.
For those who haven't read the novel, this really is one of the most intense love stories ever written. The author Emily Bronte wrote only this one novel, which was published in 1847, only about a year before her death at age 30. The nature of the story supposedly created quite a flap in British society at the time it was first published.
Never read the book, but will now!
posted on 31 Aug 2009To be honest, I had never heard of this novel or author before seeing the special on PBS. And to be brutally honest, I just don't have the attention span to read novels or watch movies all the way through (which would explain the former). But this movie grabbed me from the opening scenes and never let go. Before I knew it, I was lamenting that I had to wait a week to see the conclusion. Not a minute of time was wasted.
The underlying theme of a lifelong relationship based on true love being trumped for a relationship based upon financial stability or social standing is nothing new, but the intensity of the passion and agony conveyed by the actors in this adapted screenplay was painful and palpable. The dramatic lighting, landscapes, and top-notch cinematography just add to the aura. I've never seen a movie that describes the two cliches, "love hurts" and "life isn't fair," better than this one.
But of course, there wouldn't have been a screenplay if it weren't for the novel. And that's where I have to give this movie the biggest credit - it inspired me to actually go out and buy the novel so I could read the story in the author's very own words. Of course, Emily Bronte gets all the credit, and even though the Masterpiece Theater version of the screenplay isn't as true to the novel as many purists wished it were, it won't matter to viewers who have never read the book. Masterpiece Theater told this story in a way that was very moving and personable to me, while introducing me to a classic piece of European literature which I would have had no interest in pursuing had I not seen their screenplay. And that's the beauty of it - I now have both the screenplay and novel versions to enjoy. I can combine what I like best about the two versions and make my own unique version.
Finally, I think it would be a tragedy not to use Masterpiece Theater's adaptation to introduce "Wuthering Heights" to anyone unfamiliar with Bronte's novel based solely upon the three very brief, hardly-nude sex scenes. The "explicitness" of the scenes pales in comparison to what kids can see on TV during daytime and primetime TV. Furthermore, I think they will be helpful for people unfamiliar with the novel to clarify the quality of the intimacy between the characters. What happens in public and what happens in private can be two very different things The screenwriter could have just broke to the next scene as soon as the the characters closed the bedroom door (and left me guessing), but because they chose not to lock me out, I knew for certain that:
1. Catherine and Heathcliff both enjoyed their intimacy and were indeed able to consummate their relationship with each other even though they weren't married together. Both had clothing on.
2. Catherine did not enjoy her intimacy with Edgar who rushed to have sex with her after Heathcliff returned. This scene also left no doubt in my mind that the child Catherine would later carry could definitely be Edgar's and not just Heathcliff's (after all, Catherine had rendezvous with Heathcliffe after Catherine had committed to Edgar - potentially raising doubts as to the father). This scene also had the most exposed skin and it was only of Edgar's hairy back. Catherine had a gown on.
3. Neither Heathcliff or Isabella enjoyed their intimacy which Heathcliff clearly used as an act of revenge as he could not bear to look at Isabella's face during their intimacy. Both had clothing on.
The above is not of consequence for those who have read the book before seeing this particular adaptation, which is why they may view the scenes as inconsequential parts of the screenplay. But because this screenplay was my first exposure to the novel, and given the non-linear storyline which can make it hard to follow at times, the scenes above added to the intense senses of love, loss, and hate which the characters felt, the actors portrayed, and I the viewer experienced.
What a great discovery of a brilliant novel and author! Thanks Masterpiece Theater!
I quite fell in love!
posted on 31 Aug 2009I have always meant to read the original version of Wuthering Heights, but have not yet. When this adaptation appeared as a two-part series on Masterpiece Classic, I jumped at the chance to acquaint myself with the story.
The actors are gorgeous and emote a passion which was almost palpable. When I watched this a second time (after knowing the storyline), the part in the beginning where Heathcliffe reflects on his life while catching a glimpse of the young Catherine in the window, made me weep. The sex scenes were brief, not gratuitous, and done in good taste. I truly appreciated them!
I do not embrace "trash tv" (as a previous reviewer described). Rather, I am thankful for this version as I now endeavor to search out the original story, and am eager to watch as many different film versions as I can find. Thank you BBC!
Ghastly
posted on 31 Aug 2009This ill-conceived, embarrasingly executed and generally dismal butchering of a literary masterpiece wasn't worth the 1 star rating I gave it, but zero star ratings aren't an option with Amazon reviews (perhaps they should be).
Where to begin - unforgiveably bad, wooden acting, bad pacing, worse screenplay, no direction, zero character development. I can't recall a more dislikable and evil character than Tom Hardy's Heathcliff(necrophilia?) or a more grating and obnoxious Catherine than Charlotte Riley, whose overall amateurish performance and often embarrassing histrionics seem more befitting an elementary school play, prompting one to wonder what she did with the money her parents gave her for acting school.
In the end, we don't care two pins for the fate of this star-crossed pair because they are truly self-absorbed and utterly unlikeable characters whose emotional connection and obsession with each other is never successfully established nor in any way believable.
And as far as character development goes, this entire mess is completely devoid of it (case in point - Hareton shows up as an adult somewhere towards the end and, though there was never any back story on the connection between Hareton and Healthcliff, you're expected to "get" the former's devotion to this twisted madman and well up with emotion when he flings himself sobbing on Heathcliff's corpse in the final scene. Ummmm.....no. Not buying it. The silly black eye makeup on Tom Hardy's face and gory splattering of fake blood everywhere just serves to underscore the absurdity of it all.
Clearly this ghastly reinterpretation was intended to pander to a considerably less discerning audience - a generation raised on trash TV.
Not your mother's Heights
posted on 31 Aug 2009This adaptation is a fresh rendering that focuses on the complex passions of the two main characters. As a former college professor, I found it difficult to engage my students in reading the novel instead of Cliff's Notes. I think this film version of the novel would definitely inspire those not used to reading 19th century lit to attack the novel with new eyes. I say fresh rendering because the torrid love/hate relationship between Heathcliff and Cathy is the core of the film. It is also about abandonment, including Cathy's. The film is not burdened by the triple narratives of the book. The novel is a Gothic one, but the film dispenses with the supernatural elements that would seem distracting if included. Heathcliff's plea to the dying Cathy to haunt him so they can still be together, Cathy's plea that he let her die in his arms,imagining that she would be tossed out of heaven for loving him too much, the etchings on the wooden wall reading Catherine Earnshaw, Catherine Linton, Catherine Heathcliff, all of these hint at the resignation of the lovers that their lives together are doomed.
I am appreciative of the inclusion of carnal scenes, implicit and explicit, that are merely intimated in the novel. Heathcliff and Cathy tearing each other apart on the crag where they had earlier "lay with each other" and Heathcliff's anguished lovemaking to Isabella where he attempts to feel Cathy's body instead of his wife's. "Turn your face away," he tells her.
I thought the actors wonderful. Tom Hardy's embodiment of the brooding, obsessive Heathcliff is remarkable and the newcomer playing Cathy very good despite shrinking a bit in Hardy's tour de force.
Purists will probably not endorse this version, but it is far and away the best film to capture the essence of the novel, the raw, violent passion between the lovers which is the lynchpin of the story.
Loved it, but...
posted on 31 Aug 2009I loved this movie when I just recently watched it on pbs. I had read the book about three days before the first part was aired on television, so I could compare the movie fairly to the book. I truly enjoyed this movie so much. The love between Heathcliff and Cathy is truly heartbreaking. I couldn't believe how well the actors in this movie portrayed their characters personalities.
But the fact is that this version is not close to the plot line of the book at all. There are so many little details, and big events that differ very much from what Emily Bronte wrote about. I really didn't mind them that much though except for the story between Hareton and Catherine. I actually liked the way that this movie was put together except for Hareton and Catherine. In the book Catherine despises Hareton with a passion. She can't stand him because she believes him to resemble Heathcliff. She really is quite nasty towards him until the end when she realizes that she loves him. In the movie it is quite the opposite. She is quite kind towards Hareton, and she doesn't despise him in the least. She probably says two unkind things to him in the whole movie when there should have been a lot more.
I much prefer Emily's take on the love between Catherine and Hareton. Because of the fact that Catherine is so unbelievably harsh to Hareton, and she scolds him whenever he gets near her, it makes the end result so much better. Since she is so bent on hating Hareton, and then when he vows he will have nothing to do with her, she realizes how foolish she was thinking that she hated him when she actually loved him more than anything.
I highly suggest that you buy this film because it is a wonderful movie. But if you want a version that is close to the story I wouldn't go with this one. I personally haven't seen the other versions but I bet that they are very close to the original plotline. So I give five stars to the story between Cathy and Heathcliffe, but I give three stars to the story between Catherine and Hareton.
Very Worthwhile Adaptation
posted on 31 Aug 2009This version is extremely satisfying as I found the acting very realistic and believeable, with every scene powerfully executed with full emotion by all the actors. Cathy is quite naive but that is to be expected as she is so very young and can't fully comprehend the long term consequences of her actions/choices. Heathcliff is permanently scarred with abandonment from his youth and together these two form an unbreakable bond early in life that one can undoubtedly see in the few scenes of tenderness exchanged by the two. I enjoyed the "liberties" taken with this adaptation as this created an aura of realism unlike any of the others up to this point. One might say the love scenes were unnecessary but the viewer witnesses intimacy of both tenderness and desperation...one feels so very right, the other so pointless, yet they occur.
Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley were perfect together and the supporting cast acting was strong and memorable.
- 1
- 2
Super
posted on 31 Aug 2009By far the best adaptation of this novel I have seen.
Th eacting, cast and set s are wonderful. The best thing is that Heathcliff comes of as a complex character, not a violent brute. Charlotte Riley is great.
Well worth seeing....