Again, adapting a period classic to a modern-day, millenial audience to the point going as far to add contemporary themes, language and music is just a big fat cardinal sin, to put it kindly. It just shows to me that you do not appreciate the original, classic, period novel and its themes, and therefore should not be allowed to adapt such a masterpiece if you are gonna just go and ruin it and undermine it like that, especially contemporizing it like that. It is one thing to get the story wrong but contemporizing it is another. The amount of swearing was just unneccessary and absolutely ridiculous, as not only of course was there no cursing from the book, but swearing with the F words and N words etc. was very unrealistic to portray in the 18th century. It is simply not something that would have been in such a fashion back then, if even existent for that matter. It was rather just a chance for them to desperately come across as all dramatic and intense in their own "contemporary" kind of way. I should also add the contemporary music that was played throughout, completely ruining and eliminating the whole classic, historical, traditional theme.
One thing I recall watching and feeling very irritated about was the lack of dialogue and shaky camera. The lack of dialogue made it just really hard to concentrate and follow, just makes you really impatient and was therefore lacking in action and structure, like what was the need really? Was it again another attempt to come across as all unique and clever? The shaky camera also made it really hard to concentrate and follow, like it was just some sort of ammateur production by school kids for a school project or something, or some weird kind of documentary rather than an actual film. It therefore failed to keep you gripped or anything with the kind of pace this ultimately created.
I remember what really angered me the most was showing Cathy and Heathcliff AS KIDS acting all sexual together, stripping off even! Not only is it all wrong for them to show sex/sexual scenes in any adaptation of Wuthering Heights, but when they were only about 12 as well! I think they thought, like a lot of modern-day productions do, the more disturbingly erotic the better, despite the fact erotica was never a part of Wuthering Heights.
The acting was very poor, at best. Young Cathy just annoyed me with just how awful her acting actually was, coming across as really annoying and unlikeable. The script as a result was of course sorely lacking at best and abysmal at worst. However I would mostly like to signify, when discussing my negative reaction towards the contemporization of the whole thing, how they not only made Heathcliff black, but suddenly, "cleverly" introduced the issue and theme of racism directed towards him as a result. This is of course a concept which NEVER existed in the original Emily Bronte novel at all, being most irrelevant and incongrous. Heathcliff was described as being "dark" which was never meant as black of course though, just dark/brown in skin tone; tanned/olive skinned. It was of course a completely unrealistic theme to introduce here given that black people living in Yorkshire in the kind of position Heathcliff was would have been mostly if not completely non-existant in the 18th Century, nor was there such an issue of racism taking place in that particular context. This was most palpably another significant example of contemporization by trying to be politically correct, something that is a real ruination indeed of what is supposed to be a period classic, knowing that political correctedness is all our modern-day, snowflake generation is about nowadays.
One more thing: Hindley a skinhead? Such a hairstyle was most simply NOT in fashion back then, in the 18th century, to the point it for sure did not exist! Yet another example of ridiculous contemporization from this film, completely ignoring actual historical fashions and elements of that particular time period.
To sum it up, dire and atrocious would be my best way to describe it in two words. It makes me all the more mad when I see that it received generally positive reviews, mostly from critics I think though, even referring to it as a "beautiful beast of a movie." I wonder if those critics are actually fans of the original Wuthering Heights, or just like this in general for the film it was, or weren't fans of the original Wuthering Heights and much preferred this version with its more contemporary approach to it, being in the snowflake, politically correct generation they are?
One thing I recall watching and feeling very irritated about was the lack of dialogue and shaky camera. The lack of dialogue made it just really hard to concentrate and follow, just makes you really impatient and was therefore lacking in action and structure, like what was the need really? Was it again another attempt to come across as all unique and clever? The shaky camera also made it really hard to concentrate and follow, like it was just some sort of ammateur production by school kids for a school project or something, or some weird kind of documentary rather than an actual film. It therefore failed to keep you gripped or anything with the kind of pace this ultimately created.
I remember what really angered me the most was showing Cathy and Heathcliff AS KIDS acting all sexual together, stripping off even! Not only is it all wrong for them to show sex/sexual scenes in any adaptation of Wuthering Heights, but when they were only about 12 as well! I think they thought, like a lot of modern-day productions do, the more disturbingly erotic the better, despite the fact erotica was never a part of Wuthering Heights.
The acting was very poor, at best. Young Cathy just annoyed me with just how awful her acting actually was, coming across as really annoying and unlikeable. The script as a result was of course sorely lacking at best and abysmal at worst. However I would mostly like to signify, when discussing my negative reaction towards the contemporization of the whole thing, how they not only made Heathcliff black, but suddenly, "cleverly" introduced the issue and theme of racism directed towards him as a result. This is of course a concept which NEVER existed in the original Emily Bronte novel at all, being most irrelevant and incongrous. Heathcliff was described as being "dark" which was never meant as black of course though, just dark/brown in skin tone; tanned/olive skinned. It was of course a completely unrealistic theme to introduce here given that black people living in Yorkshire in the kind of position Heathcliff was would have been mostly if not completely non-existant in the 18th Century, nor was there such an issue of racism taking place in that particular context. This was most palpably another significant example of contemporization by trying to be politically correct, something that is a real ruination indeed of what is supposed to be a period classic, knowing that political correctedness is all our modern-day, snowflake generation is about nowadays.
One more thing: Hindley a skinhead? Such a hairstyle was most simply NOT in fashion back then, in the 18th century, to the point it for sure did not exist! Yet another example of ridiculous contemporization from this film, completely ignoring actual historical fashions and elements of that particular time period.
To sum it up, dire and atrocious would be my best way to describe it in two words. It makes me all the more mad when I see that it received generally positive reviews, mostly from critics I think though, even referring to it as a "beautiful beast of a movie." I wonder if those critics are actually fans of the original Wuthering Heights, or just like this in general for the film it was, or weren't fans of the original Wuthering Heights and much preferred this version with its more contemporary approach to it, being in the snowflake, politically correct generation they are?