sapphire I couldn't see or here anything in this film. The lighting was so bad it was like the studio must of spent the budget on other prodjects, the horid camera work when Heatcliff covers his eyes, the wind that blocked out all sound probably because the sound crew realised the unintellgible filth coming out of the actors mouth was not worth hearing and the child nudity the actor of young Heathcliff was barley 14 at filming I hope this edition fades from public memory as the infinitely better 1978 version did, I gave up ten minutes before the end after exepting this was not Emily Brontë's masterpiece that I know and love.

subxerogravity So I herd that this adaption of Wuthering Heights is considered Arnold's mainstream endeavor. That does make me like it more. In comparison to Fish Tank, Arnold did nothing to change her film style. It's still extremely raw and emotional and does not care anything about the linear story as much as it does the connection you get following these characters around.I feel this most with the main character, Heathcliff (not surprisingly) A black kid taken in by a man who owns a farm, and becomes the foster child of a family that does not want him there. All except Cathy, his foster sister who grows an attraction towards him and the feeling is mutual, but the two kids never act upon this, and her father's death causes a change of the guard that forces Heathcliff to leave.When Heathcliff comes back to extract his revenge on those who wronged him, it becomes bitter sweet when his feelings for Cathy instantly resurface, but her new life makes things more strained on the both of them.I instantly felt a connection with Heathcliff. There is no background on where he came from, but I get the feeling he's far more upscale than what his new family expect from what they see on the surface. Cathy really likes him, but his new brother only sees the color of his skin and how that makes him lesser in society in their eyes, which is constantly pointed out. I understand Heathcliff's rage and frustration and his need to prove who he is by coming back and stirring trouble.The movie is done somewhat it two parts with half the film being about Cathy and Heathcliff as young adolescents and the other half with them as adults. The former half was very captivating as it focus on the two's complex relationship, never fully shying away from there feelings but unwilling to take it to the next step, mostly because of the bridge society put between both and they are unable to break out of.Cathy was a more interesting character as a young girl than she was as an older woman, but this has more to do with how the movie is laid out as the first half was all about the two main characters interacting for us to see how intense their feelings are towards one another, while the second half has a agenda that concentrates more on Heathcliff.I usually don't like slow paced movies but I do like the way this film moves. It puts you there with the showcase of all the landscapes and scenery and the atmosphere, very nicely done, and very Terrence Malick, but a little more grim (Just as beautiful, however).With all that said, I did not like the movie as much as I like Fish Tank. The story (or lack there of) was not so impressive that you can make it so obscure. If you are the kind of film watcher that is totally fine with a story less film, than this version of Wuthering Heights will suit you good, but I watched an old black and white version starring a young Ian McShane as Heathcliff which filled so many small gaps that this film has.It's very interesting. One thing that can mess up a reboot of a franchise is the fact that you constantly have to do an origin story for the next generation, but now after seeing Arnold's version of this classic novel, I understand more the need to keep updating the origin. By British standards, Wuthering Heights might as well be the story of Jesus Christ considering how many times it has been done (I've only seen two, but noticed that it happens once a decade), and I feel that Arnold takes that into consideration when making the film, so you don't get the full accept of the story by watching it, which is better if you know about the story prior.But honestly, if you really want the full accept you would have to read the book. Andrea Arnold's, Wuthering Heights makes me feel like a young Cathy and Heatcliff, very instance emotional built up that never gets release.http://cinemagardens.com

jelencesb So I already warned you about my review could bee containing spoiler of some type. Therefore be aware!I know every artist should enjoy the artistic freedom, but am sorry I couldn't enjoy this movie ... First of all the movie is too long. Those two hours of nothing happening made me sleepy. It is more of a documentary type of a film than some real film genre. The characters are nothing like the original Wuthering heights characters and it is such a shame that Hitcliff was turned into love sick boy turned into a necrophiliac. The story is just some dark version of Romeo and Juliet. I haven't seen a picture that could resemble Wuthering Heights.Honestly speaking I am not able to recommend this movie to anyone. Maybe I may be accused of not understanding artistic freedom and such, but the movie did not fulfill my expectations.

T V This film is unashamedly blasphemous towards Bronte. I have never seen a more appalling adaptation of that text than this...'thing'. I found this film lacked passion, class...pretty much an extortionate amount of everything. I turned the film off after fifteen minutes...I just couldn't bear how my eyes were catching alight. How in the hell do these films get made. I've seen almost every other film adaptation of this novel and all I can conclude with is, from what I have had the displeasure of seeing, Bronte would be screaming in her grave.Do yourselves an almighty favour and watch any adaptation other than this one.