drwhoeva15 For gods same Tome Hardy is WHITE in case no one has noticed and in the book he is described as WILD AND DARK he was found in LIVERPOOL a place common for immigrants at that time to jump ship into Britain STOP WHITEWASHING FOREIGN CHARACTERS AND THEN GIVING THE END RESULT A 10 STAR REVIEW GET OUT

dallasryan This Version of Wuthering Heights is gritty and very up to date. Tom Hardy plays most of his characters, almost always, in a very unsympathetic way, yet his likability is always there. Hardy plays his characters with a lot of truth and if he does show any vulnerability within his characters(where we as the audience show sympathy towards him), it's always just for a moment, but there's never anything cliché about his performances and that's what makes him one of the best actors out there today as well as what makes this version of Wuthering Heights a great movie. That and also the beautiful Charlotte Riley, Riley and Hardy's chemistry is spot on(which doesn't surprise me that they are engaged in real life, their chemistry is amazing in this movie). This version of Wuthering Heights shows in the greatest way of any movie I've ever seen how people can love one another and hate one another to the most highest extremes, being connected at the 'soul' so to say(Although, the hate is really more of a cover up for extreme pain inside, relating to this movie at least). Very relatable in the sense where it shows how miserable we can make our lives when we don't let things go and we don't forgive where, at the source of it all, we're ultimately lying to ourselves about our true feelings, as is the case in this film. Not an easy movie to watch in the sense that the chemistry is so good, that it pains you, as the movie viewer, to see the ultimate outcome, but nonetheless a great movie and one to see for Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley fans.

hannahoredsson It is true that this particular version (one of many) is a modernized. Many details are changed from or added to the original book. This is a source of criticism from the fans. However, when a movie adaptation is made from a literary original changes has to be made so that the communication, especially between the characters' inner lives and the audience, works. I liked this version immensely. I never did get so close to actually understanding the characters (via a movie) as I did while watching this. I also love Tom Hardy's portrait of Heathcliff. It's scary and just a little bit attractive (a form of attraction which makes you uneasy rather than giggly though), which trumps earlier versions when he's portrayed more like a tall dark stranger-type (the ones I have seen are from 1939 and 1992). I like that Cathy isn't portrayed like such a flaky thing but rather a wild child and as much in bondage as Heathcliff. I always figured the story was supposed to be understood and related to. And how else to do so than through romantic tale? The book is about the horrors of love and so is this movie.

TheLittleSongbird True, it doesn't always follow the overall structure of the novel by Emily Bronte, and there are one or two slow moments. But it is beautifully done, and does a competent job of adapting a truly complicated book to screen. I don't think it is the best adaptation of the book, but it definitely not the worst. The adaptation was lovingly designed with stunning locations and exquisite costumes, and the photography was excellent. The performances were excellent, the two leads Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley were both superb as Heathcliff and Cathy, and Andrew Lincoln and Sarah Lancashire give able support. The scriptwriter Peter Bowker, who wrote the script for the wonderful BBC drama Occupation, does a good job with the dialogue, which was in general well written and well crafted. All in all, as an adaptation it is beautifully done, not always faithful to the novel, but the performances and the visual design compensates. 8/10 Bethany Cox