User Reviews

This is an unfairly maligned adaptation. True, if you judge it against more famous adaptations (e.g. the 1939 version), the first half of the film feels inadequate. However if you hold on in there, you'll get the second half of the book, revealing a plethora of themes Emily Bronte was exploring that are non-existent in the other films and revealing the novel's dark cruelty. Why previous adaptors chose to turn the film into a simple love story can be put down to sexism; had it been written by a man, the filmmakers would accept the brutal aspects of the book but of course a Victorian woman could never write such shocking things. For those who only know the story from previous adaptations or the brilliant Kate Bush song, it is a saga of hatred. Being rejected by his childhood love/adopted sister/soulmate Cathy Earnshaw (Juliette Binoche) when she chooses to marry prim Edgar Linton (Simon Shepard). Heathcliff vows vengeance on the Lintons by marrying Edgar's sister Isabella (Sophie Ward) and then also torturing Cathy and Edgar's daughter, Catherine Linton (Juliette Binoche- again!).

The film's mistake is that it is too tentative in the first half. Director Peter Kosminsky still wanted to give viewers the conventional love story that they knew and loved so he made the first half quite gentle in order to mitigate the darker second half. Unfortunately it means that Cathy and Heathcliff's relationship is not tempestuous enough. The famous declarations- "I AM Heathcliff", "I cannot live without my soul"- are spoken quietly and demurely.

Others have mentioned Binoche's excessive giggling, which doesn't convince me that she's seventeen but rather that she's under the influence. The criticisms of her accent is unfair; she has a clear French twang but it's hardly up there in the Hall of Bad Movie Accents. Fiennes' Yorkshire accent is far worse, sounding as if he'd learnt it through watching Postman Pat episodes. His initial niceness is overdone; Heathcliff is a gentle nature-loving soul who we cannot imagine why anyone would be so mean as to beat him as his adoptive brother Hindley (Jeremy Northam) does. Binoche is far too girlish as Cathy, who is essentially a tomboy and whose wild nature makes her identify with Heathcliff.

Things only really get going when Heathcliff returns, allowing Fiennes to drop the awful accent. Kosminsky keeps the novel's framed narrative, with tenant Mr Lockwood arriving at Wuthering Heights and meeting Heathcliff and Cathy II, who he mistakes to be Heathcliff's wife. If you are unfamiliar with the novel, it may be best to locate a family tree as a handy guide. Don't worry though; Emily Bronte meant the family tree to be messy and confusing. That is why I think the double-roling of Binoche as mother and daughter works. It shows how Heathcliff sees Cathy everywhere and adds a perverse sexual tension as well. Binoche is much better as the daughter and Fiennes is stronger as older Heathcliff.

One of the good things about the adaptation is its fidelity to the novel. Using much of the novel's original dialogue, we get a truer picture of Heathcliff's cruelty. It is hard to argue that Heathcliff isn't really that bad when he beats his wife, calls her an 'abject thing' and says she 'degenerates into a mere slut'. Fiennes refreshingly doesn't try to make Heathcliff sympathetic or gloss over his actions; rather he plays a torturer who is tired of tormenting yet unable to stop himself. Heathcliff could have left the second generation alone but instead he punishes them and plays with them like chess pieces.

Whilst I do like the perversely seductive evil of Fiennes' interpretation (his performance here is what got him the role of Amon Goth in Schindler's List), like Olivier he is a little too refined to play early Heathcliff. We can never really buy him as savage; in the book, he is characterised almost like a creature rather than a human. This is why to an extent readers pity him. However Fiennes' Heathcliff is suavely evil.

The inclusion of the second half of the novel is really what recommends this film and why fans of the novel should put it top of their list of adaptations to see. Bronte did not include the main characters' children to be cute or to drag out the story. It gives the story more impact, making the film a saga of one man's bitterness rather than a doomed love story. The film keeps the wonderfully atmospheric ending of the novel and shows through the second generation that the conflict may be resolved and that the things dividing Cathy and Heathcliff will not divide this second generation. Other film adaptations ignore this small ray of optimism and hence the novel is remembered as a big misery fest. First timers to the story may find themselves lost; Wuthering Heights is an odd tale even in the generic film adaptations. The relevance of the second half may not be instantly apparent to them and will certainly be confusing if they come to it with preconceptions of the story. However a re-watch brings new subtleties and nuances that aren't present in the other film adaptations (bar elements of the dreadfully dull 2011 version).

Ironically in order to see the true nature of the story, you have to watch two flawed films (1992 and 2011). One day someone will get it right- hopefully the 1992 film has opened up doors for future films to tackle both generations.

It was with some trepidation that I sat to view a film version of 'Wuthering Heights' (made in 1992), especially one that called itself 'Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights'. Such titles from Hollywood are by norm the outcomes of copyright wrangles with little intention if any of actually paying homage to the original source, and more likely to defile their memory. This is, I warn you an unqualified review since I have read only a small part of the book (I'd started on it but it seemed too dark and insane to read en route to work, I promise I'll get back to it), but I'll say one thing: I've seen a very good film.

As expected the story essentially deals with the doomed romance between Heathcliff and his foster sister Cathy and the trail of human destruction wreaked by the former when he feels that the world has cheated him of his companion. The film is shot in close communion with the elements of nature that help to accentuate the raw passions that fuel its narrative. Color is an integral part of the screenplay, be it the warm hue of sunshine that plays on Cathy's innocent countenance in happier moments or the sepulchral black outfit that is Heathcliff's identity in the stormy sections. Music (Ryuichi Sakamoto) flows like a moor wind segueing through the various parts of the film, returning periodically to its distinctive title theme.

This is in no way your standard Hollywood costume romance and no small measure of the credit goes to the actors. Juliette Binoche (Cathy Earnshaw/Catherine Linton) is the pearl of the casting and as the object of Heathcliff's obsessions she is almost a justification for his vengeful acts. Her performance is this simmering pot of innocent charm and searing passion and it is difficult to come out of this film without being utterly touched by her delicate, yet compelling air. Ralph Fiennes' Heathcliff seemed a bit stiff in the opening scenes but picks up steam quickly (warmed, I assume by Cathy's love) and is stunningly savage when the film rushes headlong into its darker sections, reviving the memory of those qualities that made us wake up to his Amon Goeth (Schindler's List).

The film contrary to expectations does not flinch away from the more cruel aspects of the story (although whether to the novel's extent I cannot say). Heathcliff is not at any point of the plot a nice man to know, and the more we know him the less we like of him. He is an animal that stops at nothing to get what he wants and destroy what he can't get.

There are flaws, yes. The parts dealing with their youth seem glossed over and less credible. The Bible-reading Joseph is a mere comic cameo and Hindley Earnshaw not as spiteful as he seemed of what I'd read in the novel. Hareton (Hindley's son), a Heathcliff clone to match Cathy's daughter Catherine, appears to have been played by a magna cum laude of the Charlie Sheen School of Acting for the Bewildered. The character of Lockwood (whose entry into Wuthering Heights commences the novel) is dealt with carelessly and could have been altogether dropped from the narrative. The climax seems a letdown (Heathcliff shown to join the spirit of Cathy in a brightly lit unknown after-abode) and rather abrupt, but better abrupt than tediously drawn out. For God-knows-what reason, the plot is revealed as a narration by a hooded monk-type played by Skinhead O' Connor (restricted, thankfully, to the opening and closing sections of the film).

Still the good parts of this film far outshine its failings and I hope that those who have read the complete novel will be able to agree that this is one amongst few films based on a classic book that can be watched without cringing in embarassment.

I have read Wuthering Heights, and fallen in love with it; this is the first (and only) movie version of it I've had the opportunity to watch so far, and, sadly, I cannot say I'm satisfied.

The directing is mediocre at best, with awkward results altogether, and the film overall fails miserably at both conveying the overwhelming, passionate emotion the written masterpiece is practically based upon and, despite all obvious efforts, achieve its ethereal darkness and cruelty. The story does not flow naturally (or, rather, it's too rushed), and, as can be expected from any movie adaptation, there are plenty of plot cuts to drive any fan of the original novel mad. This last aspect, however, could be easily excused, were the former absent; however, they are not.

As for the acting, I always imagined Juliette Binoche had a lot of potential to make a good Catherine, and was deeply disappointed to find it was not, by any means, fully explored. Indeed, Binoche's Cathy is not half as wild, passionate and crazy as she could and should have been -- instead, she remains pretty much the same throughout the movie: so emotionless that, eventually, it becomes annoying and frustrating; certainly, a great enough part of her strong personality is there, but many other aspects of her complex character were more or less neglected. While Ralph Fiennes makes a decent Heathcliff, and a handsome, tortured one at that, with an already expected climax in the scene immediately after Catherine dies (where else, right?), I still can't forgive the producers for a certain detail in his countenance: surely, he had a gorgeous, piercing -- sometimes verging on mad -- pair of blue eyes, but, as anybody who's read the novel will know, they should, even for symbolical reasons, have been black; furthermore, his portrayal shares some of the female lead's faults, including, sadly, an inexcusable lack of emotion and expressiveness throughout most of the film. The supporting cast was tolerable; then again, most secondary characters had so little screen time that I can hardly judge (character development was practically nonexistent in this movie; I wonder whatever happened to Edgar's likable, tender ways, or his special relationship with his daughter: two examples among the many aspects that were either neglected or badly mistreated in this adaptation). Ellen Dean and Joseph looked a lot different from what I expected, but that's a merely personal opinion, and therefore doesn't count.

Most people acclaim the film's soundtrack; it did have its good moments, particularly after Catherine's death, but I didn't find it astounding in any way. In fact, I think the movie is somewhat lacking in the sound department, which is one of the factors that makes it so weak emotionally, since the acting doesn't make up for it.

From the awkward way the story is told, to the plot holes, to all the aforementioned flaws, I was, all in all, disappointed in this film. The title of this comment may, however, have come out a little harsher than I intended it to: Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights is still a viewable (and, at times, enjoyable) movie, for both readers and non-readers; although the former may (or may not) be more or less unsatisfied with it, depending mostly on their take on the novel and how fond they are of it, and the latter are likely to find themselves lost a little too often, since very little is explained concerning the plot (in short, it's not made clear how the characters come to feel the way they do at virtually any time), making it difficult to follow and enjoy. It is not, in any way, an insult to its written counterpart, and takes good advantage of most of its best quotes, but surely doesn't come anywhere near its greatness and intensity.

In conclusion, while I don't regret viewing the film, I'm strongly convinced I won't be going out of my way to watch any other movie version of this classic ever again.

As I am a writer, very seldom am I at a loss for words. Yet now, I can find none suitable. I have written many reviews, in many places, for quite a long time. Yet, never, in all of that time have I sat down to write my thoughts immediately after watching a film. Still, I sit here now, trying vainly to describe what I am feeling. What this movie has MADE me feel.

The story of Heathcliff and Cathy is not about love as most know it. It is MORE than love. It is a fusion, a union of two souls separated by society and circumstance, yet bonded so completely that even death could not sever them. Love beyond pain, beyond place, beyond reason.

Never has an adaptation brought this classic Victorian novel so completely to the screen. That, in itself, is high praise. Wuthering Heights had been made 14 times before this, the 1992 incarnation. It is the only version to tell the complete story in all of its dark detail. It is also the LAST time, to date, it has been made. And that should be the highest praise of all.

Why? Because there is no need to do it again. It cannot be improved upon beyond this. Yes, the movie can be a bit confusing, even abrupt in the plot shifts for those who have never read the book. But for those who have: Anne Devlin treats her screenplay with reverence for Emily Bronte's novel. Many whole scenes are intact, the dialog exactly as written originally. The scenery was breathtaking. And the house, the Heights itself, was perfect. Still standing there, after centuries, keeping its own secrets in the silence of its stones.

The cast of actors includes not one single Hollywood darling. Thank God. They would have ruined it. But, because the cast is not overly well known in the US, you concentrate on the PERFORMANCES rather than the performers.

And, it is in these performances this film rises above its predecessors. The actors all turn in solid efforts. Each is true to character, from selfish Cathy (Juliette Binoche) to vapid Isabella (Sophie Ward). Simon Shepherd's Edgar Linton is far more likable than the novel. His portrayal is an improvement on the original, and you actually pity him for being caught between Cathy and Heathcliff.

Heathcliff. An immortal character, like Sherlock Holmes, or Hamlet. Sir Laurence Olivier, arguably the best Hamlet, played Heathcliff in the 1939 version opposite Merle Oberon as Cathy. Until tonight, I thought his was the best Heathcliff, as well. Until tonight.

Tonight I watched Ralph Fiennes play Heathcliff. No, not play. He BECAME Heathcliff. Bronte's Heathcliff. A Heathcliff I had always pictured clearly in my mind, but had NEVER seen before my eyes. Before tonight. This man is RIVETING. He commands the story, seizing it, wrenching it to his will as Heathcliff does the lives of those around him.

Yet, you do not hate him for it. Rather, you ache for him. You look into his eyes and feel every rip in his soul, the agony of every jagged edge in his shattered heart. You watch him wear his cruelty like a mantle, lashing out at a world which denies him the only thing he has ever wanted, the only thing which will make him whole. I cry at movies all the time. Seldom, though, am I torn in a grief so absolute I am left at the end empty, and spent.

I don't know much about Ralph Fiennes work. I tend to like films that deal in anything BUT reality, so have not seen much of him. I loved Red Dragon, but until I read his filmography, I never connected Francis Dolarhyde to Heathcliff, which is perhaps the greatest compliment one can give an actor. Fiennes alone is the reason you cannot improve on this film. No one could ever bring Heathcliff to life like this. The role belongs to him.

I have loved Emily Bronte's novel since childhood. I have read it often. But now, something has changed it for me, forever. No matter how many times I may read Wuthering Heights in future, after tonight, I know I shall never again read it without seeing the face, or hearing the voice, of Ralph Fiennes.

This movie is profoundly a tale of utter despair and misery. It's a saddening story of love that can never be. I haven't read the original book for comparison, but, in my opinion, this movie lacked balance. The anguish of the characters is so overwhelming that it straight out required some lightness to balance the entirety. The problem with darkness is that, in time, the eyes get used to it. In the sense of drama, this movie became quickly bland, because there was no dramatic variation.

The reason why I didn't give this movie a 3/10 is Ralph Fiennes who gave out an outstanding performance. That man requires no lines since his eyes can carry out all the unspoken words. Needless to say that the whole entity of his being is gorgeous. He is sheer beauty, but can actually act, as well. His performance in this movie is so incredibly powerful that it provokes very violent emotions in the viewer. This is the only man who can make a murderous and twisted psycho a truly appealing and lovable character.

Fiennes just steals every scene he's in, even simply by standing in the background, sulking. He possesses such raw sexual appeal that I just feel sorry for all the other male leads. (A nude Fiennes scene would have given this movie a full 10, but sadly no...) As a side notion, this movie has a breathtaking opening sequence. Sinister and demure strings begin playing on the dark screen, then the whole sky opens on the canvas and high, beautiful notes roar passionately like the ocean waves as the viewer is met by a gloomy landscape of an endless stormy sky and dark meadows that go on to the distance.

An added point for this movie comes from the soundtrack. Japanese truly master the art of capturing emotions into music and Ryuichi Sakamoto makes a fantastic score for the film. His music is full of longing and melancholy, yet it's powerful and consuming.

I would only recommend this movie to a person who is specifically interested in periodical drama. As a chick-love-flick this won't do.

Not the best version of Emily Bronte's masterpiece, on their own terms of the ones personally seen so far the Laurence Olivier and Robert Cavannagh get that honour. None of the adaptations are bad, even my least favourite the 2011 film and while there is a lot wrong this film adaptation isn't a bad one either. The main problem with the film is that it's very rushed which is why the supporting characters(the Lintons in particular, it did affect Simon Shepherd as Edgar too as there is very little sense of meekness which is a huge part of the character) don't get enough time to shine properly with a come and go vibe and why some of the second half felt jumpy narratively. If the film was longer than it was it would have helped. The ending is also far too abrupt and bittersweet and Juliette Binoche did seem too shallow and classy to start with, the giggling was indeed too much. The film is a stunner visually though, the photography is very fluid, the costumes are true to period, most of the make-up and hair is fine though Heathcliff's hair is far too straight and greasy and with the locations you can really feel and smell the atmosphere of the Yorkshire moors. The script is literate and emotional, the famous lines that are included are very well delivered and the story for the first half at least is coherent and respective of Emily Bronte's writing. With it too there is a real sense of broodiness and tragedy. That it included the events after Cathy's death is most laudable. The acting is good enough. Binoche's acting is much improved and she is every bit the self-centred and spiteful Cathy, even without make-up too she is astonishingly pretty. Her chemistry with Fiennes is intense and moving, the scenes on the moors are beautifully done. Janet McTeer stands out in support, Jeremy Northam doesn't have enough screen-time but he plays the tormentor-to-tormented character of Hindley to a tee and Jason Riddington is a charming Hareton. Sinead O'Connor does a lovely job as Bronte herself. The two best assets are the music score and Ralph Fiennes' Heathcliff. The music is hauntingly beautiful with the brooding moments having a shade of melancholy, of all the Wuthering Heights adaptations only the Timothy Dalton version has a better music score. Heathcliff could have been more of a tortured soul here but Fiennes give a truly powerful and often scary- you wouldn't want to mess with or be in the same room as him- performance, but he does bring a humane side too. In conclusion, far from perfect but like the Timothy Dalton version when it's good it is great. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Having been fascinated by the Brontes for several years and growing up in Yorkshire, I've longed to see a faithful adaptation of Wuthering Heights for a long time. Why it's taken me so long to see this version I don't know!

I just watched this film tonight and I'm left shattered by it. It is stunning. It's probably a sacrilege to some to say that I thought the 1939 version with Laurence Olivier was awful, but there it is. That was saccharine and gave no hint as to the darkness of the original novel. This version, however, recaptures all that darkness and torment and shatters your soul with it.

Ralph Fiennes is an astonishing Heathcliff. Capable of tenderness but torn apart by what he can't have all for himself. The chemistry between him and Juliette Binoche is electrifying - Heathcliff and Cathy were born to be together and to see them almost forced apart by each of them failing to be true to their heart well.. it breaks YOUR heart. The poetic dialogue with Heathcliff and Cathy on the moors and the movie score complements this perfectly.

Supporting roles are also solid especially the actress who played Ellen Dean and an interesting cameo by Sinead O Connor as Emily Bronte! The only complaint I could make about this film is that it's not long enough! Years seem to fly by far too quickly and we barely get an insight into why Cathy and Heathcliff's souls are intertwined. However, what we DO see is stunning.

For me - 10/10.

Wuthering Heights is one of the hardest books to film and this movie does a nice job. Scenery and score are beautiful. The acting is also rather nice(especially Ralph Finness as Heatcliff). The ending of the movie is too abrupt and bitersweet. Very decent adaptation.7/10.

I read some comments that said they were disappointed in this version... however, i completely disagree. I have also read the book. In fact, it's my absolute favorite book and I have searched and searched for a movie version that captured it accurately. I was particularly interested in finding a version where they use all of my favorite speech by Catherine when she speaks of her changing love of Linton compared to her eternal love for Heathcliff and showing this scene as it I find it the most important part of the book. I find it to be the turning point in the story as it is where Heathcliff first leaves Catherine and FINALLY this version did it, not only in this speech but in all other aspects. I find it the best one and highly recommend it. No other version comes close to capturing the essence of this book. The casting choice is also excellent as well with all the characters looking and acting exactly like I pictured in my head as i read the book. And the emotions each character had were acted out perfectly as I had envisioned the various speeches by the characters in the book.

The story of a dysfunctional relationship between a gypsy and a country girl which damages not only themselves, but many of those around them.

There are so many debates and themes to explore here that I don't think I can cover them all in my allotted 1,000 words, but let us start with the original book: While saying from the off that it is a fascinating piece of work from a family that managed - somehow - to produced three major literary talents (maybe the most improbable freak occurrence in the history of the arts?) the book will not settle in my mind long enough for me to come to any solid and unmoving conclusions about it, although I would defend overall.

While produced before the age of book editing (what a different - and probably better - book it would be if it had done!) WH is a bit of a shambles of a narrative and is clearly the work a beginner; however talented and imaginative. This was Emily Bronte's first and only novel; and it remains a tragedy that the world was robbed of any further work. Dead in her grave before middle age (dying of phenomena at 30) in total keeping with many of her WH characters.

Director Kosminski has done pretty well with the casting of Binoche and Fiennes as the star crossed lovers, because a lot depends on getting the viewer involved with the "difficult" central characters. While Binoche is French and doesn't even attempt any kind of Yorkshire accent (it is kind of over-enunciated "nowhere" English), she has the double task of playing Cathy and her daughter Catherine with only a change of hair colour for help.

Good support from Janet McTeer as the central and key servant Mrs Dean, but everyone else is a walk-on. The Lynton's - the upper-class neighbors which ruin everything in Heathcliff's eyes - are not really that bad and become even more lightweight here. Spoiled and thoughtless they may be, but they probably don't know any better.

Heathcliff (which is both his first and second name!) is indeed a rum character. A wild eyed gypsy (a presumption as we don't know for sure) with a horrible temper; as well as a violent streak that isn't reserved for men. Yet, paradoxically, can be poetic and soulful when needs be. In truth he is a bit of rough diamond drama queen with dirty hands and face; which seems to change shades (from orange to near normal) on a shot-by-shot basis!

His stepsister Cathy is best described as headstrong and lose-lipped. They are quite unalike and despite closeness in childhood (when the moors were their playground) she is a social climber who wants bigger and better in all things; while he (Heathcliff) is a dour farming type that wants the simple life - in riches as well as in rags. Meant for each other? I don't really think so!

Fiennes with his wild eyes and manic stares does a lot with very little and must be the most intense actor on the block. Binoche is more cool and doesn't really convey the selfish and ruthless streak that springs from the pages of the book. Indeed her scrubbed face and doe eyes are too benign to portray the character as written by Ms Bronte.

(When playing her own daughter she spins, teases and twinkles so presumably was saving her best acting skills for the more difficult part of the show.)

This is really a love triangle with the third element being the Yorkshire countryside. Yorkshire has to be the most varied and amazing place on earth going from industrial swamp (even then!) to landscapes that are both beautiful and amazing. The strange "stripple effect" rocks (used as an extended backdrop to Heathcliff's brooding) is actually the "Old Roman Road" on the Pennine Way.

(Don't try and find it without good footwear, a map and some wet weather gear, it is easy for strangers to get lost up there!)

The director uses all of Yorkshire (many of the scenes are actually the North Yorkshire Dales) rather than the moors around Keighley where the novel is clearly set. Nevertheless a good backdrop to be moody or romantic against; especially when the string section of the (soundtrack) orchestra gets in to overdrive.

I can understand why many don't respond to this film, for a start the pacing might be too leisurely for a world where whole stories can be told in 30 second adverts. Paradoxically I think they should have made two version's - one for TV and one for the screen because I could have lived with seeing the book told in full - if it was broken in to clear episodes. In actual fact it would make more sense in this form, as a BBC series once showed.

Wuthering Heights is far from a great film, but it couldn't be much better because the central novel is also far too limited to be anything more than a time-filler for the non hardcore romantic or English literature student. After all who dares do a strip-to-the-bone and rebuild on a classic?

While Dickens throws in a history lesson of his time while delivering the central story what does WH deliver as a sideline? What message to the masses are contained here? That we can't get what we want in life and that money doesn't buy happiness? That people that can't find happiness in the real world will find it in the afterlife? Not healthy or happy messages are they?

I sadly have to conclude that no film can be truly great when ball-and-chained to these downbeat messages so special credit to the producers and actors for making a couple hours of solid entertainment while being weighed-down by them.

Wuthering Heights is a long book and so should be treated as such. Ralph Fiennes is good as Heathcliff and Juliette Binoche isn't too bad as Catherine, but they just don't have enough runtime spent on each scene and quite often important moments in the novel are reduced to merely one or two minutes, key scenes are either filtered down or made confusing in relation to where they fit into the plot, if you haven't read the book this would be a nightmare to follow.

5/10: Good costumes and acting are not enough to save the muddled script

I first happened across this movie on cable, and found myself absolutely captivated by Ralph Fienne's portrayal of Heathcliff. I can think of no better actor for the part, as Fiennes speaks volumes with his eyes alone, and magnificently portrays the tortured, twisted protagonist/antagonist. The rest of the lead cast is likewise brilliant, especially with regards to Juliette Binoche's endearing Catherine. The movie strays from Bronte's novel only on minor issues, and overall, performs in a manner worthy of the classic story.

The sensitive and masterful score by Sakamoto is almost a character in itself. Listening to it without distraction, it is almost impossible not to absorb the desolate and haunting mood of the film. The choice of locale for the movie was absolutely perfect, capturing the metaphors represented by the two great houses and the stark English moor.

This is definitely one of my favorite movies of all time, and one of the few occasions in which it may equal or even supercede the original novel. A must-see for fans of twisted period romances or anyone interested in pondering the roles of love and evil in the human soul.

Wow. Talk about miscasting! Ralph Fiennes is a beautiful hunk of man, and Juliette Binoche is undeniably lovely, but neither of them should EVER attempt to play characters that are supposed to range in age from late teens to late thirties. They belong solidly at the far end of that spectrum, and watching them try to pretend to be anything but is utterly ridiculous. Witness the scene where the family is supposed to be studying their Bibles and Catherine and Heathcliff cannot stop giggling and teasing one another, or where Heathcliff whines that Catherine spends more days with the Lintons than she does with him. Ugh. Additionally, Binoche turns Catherine into a flighty, stupid girl, with none of the original heroine's wild spirit and hot temper. (Nor does Binoche even TRY to suppress her French accent.)

Good things: yes, the storyline stays close to the book, more so than I ever expected of a Hollywood adaption. Also, the sets are good, and the scenery is lush and haunting.

However, don't expect to drool over the costumes; they are nothing special, and for some mysterious reason, everyone's hair looks HORRIBLE. It seems the director thought the problem of Fiennes' ethnicity could be solved merely by plopping a greasy black wig on his head. Instead, you want to lob a shampoo bottle at him. And Binoche's looks like some terrible, unflattering '80s nightmare, and it all but destroys her sex appeal. (I'm sorry to waste so much time on something as shallow as everyone's hairstyle, but after a while of cringing at everything else that was bad, it was all I could focus on!)

After all these impressive reviews, there is not much else for me to say except that, on the whole, this film worked for me. The screenplay was very good and at times even excellent, although I would not put it in the same league as "Dangerous Liaisons". The film was visually a masterpiece, capturing essential decadence in its set and on location in Yorkshire.

Supporting cast were notable, particularly Janet McTeer and Simon Shepherd, who was very touching at times, especially with young Catherine. However, the film's quality came from the amazing performance of Ralph Fiennes whose sexual magnetism and intensity stole the screen. Indeed, without Fiennes, the film would have been too under-rated and even slow. Whilst Fiennes exploded in scenes such as breaking into the chapel, I found Binoche very stilted in her "emotional" scenes. At times, she over-acted whilst at others she lacked any expression at all. This made her character quite difficult to understand and I found it hard to imagine how the brooding, precarious Heathcliff could be so infatuated with her. She killed any sense of sexual tension and her acting seemed out of keeping with the others'.

Having said that, the film managed to develop the theme of love/hate with extreme ferocity. It portrayed how love can evoke pity and repulsion, blending passion with destruction, and life with death. Such contrasts effectively convey the eternal dichotomy of human love.

I read the book and I couldn't wait to see the movie after such good reviews I read here. I'm a little disappointed... the movie goes too fast in time, many things are left out. I understand that not everything can be shown in an hour and a half, but I don't think you can quite get the essence of the story if you didn't read the book first. I liked very much Ralph Fiennes anyway, I think he captured Heathcliff very well. He's sweet and even naive when it comes to Cathy in the beginning, and cruel when he has to be... but no matter what, he always ets our sympathy. I also liked the actress that played Mrs. Dean. She's not as I imagined her when I read the book but I loved her glances and gestures... Anyway, I liked it much more that the version with Laurence Olivier...

Great job at reconstructing the Wuthering Heights residence the way it is described in the book. As for the fact that this production tries to cover the full story, I can't help feeling that cramming so much detail in the space of just 105 minutes has chopped a story otherwise full of pathos into a mere chronology. What saves the attempt is, however, the rather excellent cast - although I must confess that, based on the book, I was expecting Edgar to be a lot better looking :D. Overall, this production looks promising but hugely unfinished. Sadly (for a fan of Juliette Binoche), not the kind of production I would want to watch again. The need for concision granted, I can still find no excuse for the particularly disappointing music. Having seen a few Stanley Kubrick productions not long ago (the music of The Shining in my ears...), I find the music of this production inexcusably drab.

With this version out, there is no contest that this is by far the best version. No question that many of the other versions only cover about 16 of the 34 full chapters of Bronte's masterpiece. Therefore with this in mind, and the absolutely stunning performances from both Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, that this should be a staple in everyone's movie repertoire. The sweeping Gothic backdrop paints a somber and dark canvas for the movie to be played out upon. The powerful performance by Heathcliff (Fiennes) is shown in the scene when he is talking on the moor after finding out Catherine's death, the mixed emotions of hatred, despair, and hurt are seen as he shows how heartbroken in the news of her demise, with the words in mind "Haunt me then..." (by far and away the best line in the book). Catherine (Juliette Binoche) plays a wonderful counterpart to Heathcliff's malevolent, obsessive nature. She shows that there is a bright spot in the dark Gothic terrain known as Wuthering Heights. With an unreal soundtrack to go along with supreme acting and overall ability to stay true to Bronte's masterpiece, this movie is second to none, a 10 in my opinion, and should be in yours as well!

Wuthering Heights (1992) was directed Peter Kosminsky. It is an excellent film adaptation of the novel by Emily Brontë. Two things make this movie memorable. One is that director Kosminsky chose to give us the full novel, carrying it into the second generation. (Most movies end with Heathcliff and Kathy, but this version continue with the interaction of their children.)

The second memorable aspect of the movie is the wonderful acting of the two leads. Juliette Binoche plays Cathy Earnshaw and Ralph Fiennes portrays Heathcliff. (Binoche also portrays her daughter Catherine Linton.) Fiennes is a brilliant actor, and La Binoche is incomparable. There's an extraordinary onscreen chemistry between them.

I'll make special mention of Janet McTeer, who portrays Ellen Dean, the housemaid who knows everyone's secrets. She does everything a supporting actor should do to enhance the power of the movie.

Wuthering Heights would work better on the large screen, but we saw it on DVD, and it worked well enough. The film has an anemic IMDb rating of 6.9. I think that's because the novel is so dark and grim. The movie itself is much better than the rating would suggest. My recommendation is to see it and decide for yourself.

Have dozen versions of classic novel Wuthering Heights, this is my second look at this picture, this time Ralph Fiennes is worst than Laurence Olivier, this eyes spreading hate in every single scene, avenging, cruel, cold and bitter, actually he already dead, otherwise Juliette Binoche plays an friendly and passionate Cathy, as the title implies it is the most faithful on Emily Bronte's novel, sincerely I don't know, due never read the book, the winding and rocky landscape was largely exploited at North Yorkshire on England, also the old Earnshaw's house is really haunting and depressing place to live, the narrative Emile Bronte (Sinéad O'Connor) is clever and resounding, I must to see for all those who interest in literary adaptations to big screen!!

Resume:

First watch: 1998 / How many: 2 / Source: Cable TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5

I just saw this movie a week ago. And, I loved it. Then I read the book (I couldn't do it before, but now I tried to find a chance), and I must say this movie is very faithful. It shows the real darkness from the book, even when I was reading this book I couldn't help some images from the movie come into my mind.

The cinematography, the music and, overall, the performances, are great. Actually, I love Ralph Fiennes's acting the most. His Heathcliff is just as dark, evil, tormented and hurt as Emily Brontë describes him. Despite of his evil, one feels sympathy about him, one feels sorry for him, one wants to know more about his origin, who is him truly. Very good job, indeed. It doesn't surprise to me that Spielberg had chosen Ralph Fiennes as his Schindler's List's Amon Goeth after had seen such a good work.

I also think that the scriptwriter chose the best phrases from the book, I especially love Heathcliff's speech after Cathy's death, next to that tree, very touching, and when he says "I cannot live without my life, I cannot live without my soul" (which Cathy had already said before when Heathcliff runs away and she goes to Linton's home) I almost burst in tears.

Those who love classic stories and very good movies based on them, must see this.

This is a remake of what was a simple and beautiful story when played by the original cast .....and what I found dramatic enough without the loud acting. That's the only word that comes to mind-loud. Yes beautiful cinematography that in black and white in the 1939 film didn't have nearly the impact or the distracting soundtrack but I loved the simplicity of the story. I didn't think it needed all the frills and noise. Maybe my opinion isn't considering technical brilliance and what for some completes a movie. Those old movies were my parent's generation, but I still love them the best for their rawness where all the color had to come from the story and the acting and it was enough to move me. This just felt like a typical over embellished, sensationalized remake that trampled all over a story with intrusive music, over acting and general loudness, a story that was good enough told through soft spoken performances and music that stayed in the background instead of in our laps. I can't name the quality only that it seems the story drowns in all the drama.