SnoopyStyle New tenant Lockwood visits the landlord. He finds Heathcliff (Ralph Fiennes) and others in a farmhouse on Wuthering Heights. Thirty years before, Mr Earnshaw brought back homeless gypsy Heathcliff. The son Hindley mistreats Heathcliff. After father's death, Hindley Earnshaw (Jeremy Northam) becomes the master of the estate with Heathcliff as their lowly servant. Heathcliff and Cathy Earnshaw (Juliette Binoche) fall in love.This version of the Emily Brontë novel is most notable for Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes early in their careers. I love both actors and they are quite charismatic. This has the brooding tones and it has the dirty gloom. However it may be taking on too much. It feels more like a highlight reel of a literary classic. The flow is off and it feels rushed. It feels a little disjointed.

MissSimonetta While Ralph Fiennes is one of the best Heathcliffs I've ever seen and I was elated that the second generation was kept intact, this 1992 adaptation of Wuthering Heights left me indifferent. Accurate to the book it may be (for the most part), but as a film on its own merits, it isn't nearly as entertaining as other versions are.Juliette Binoche is miscast as the passionate Catherine, proving much too cold for the part (a problem shared with the 1939 version, which cast the equally icy Merle Oberon). It was also a mistake to have her play her own daughter, Cathy: the character is supposed to resemble her father Edgar, not her mother. Sticking a blonde wig on her is not good enough.While I'm glad the second generation is there, they rush through it much too quickly, to the point where it felt tacked on. A shame, but I'll give the filmmakers points for trying at least. It's more than the other feature length versions of the book have done.The look of the film is good, capturing the wild beauty of the moors and the genteel life of the 18th century upper class. The mood is appropriately Gothic. The music composed by Ryuichi Sakamoto is beautiful, capturing the raw emotion and darkness of the story just as well as Michel Legrand's score for the 1970 version captured the longing and otherworldly aspects. I enjoyed the framing device with Emily Bronte herself wandering the wilderness, going through an abandoned house as she begins to tell the story in voice over.Overall, not a bad film and one of the better versions in terms of faithfulness to the original text, but Binoche's miscasting bogs down the central relationship and the rushed ending takes away much enjoyment.

jyvonne41 The film is awesome, watched numerous times and never tire of it, the setting and scenery are second to none, Ralph Fiennes, is the best Heathcliff ever, superb This film is by far the best adaption, I cant and wont watch any other version.I've lived in North Yorkshire, and visited Haworth and the Bronte Museum, where the props from the film are kept, there life and times are very realistic to this film, magnificent moors and scenery as in the film.I must also add that the cast of this film are well suited to their parts, and were outstanding in the roles they played. If your a fan of Wuthering heights or interested in the Brontes, this film is a must see, then follow it up by going to Haworth in North Yorkshire, you wont be disappointed, and right down to the film and atmosphere its all there.

Noirdame79 I love "Wuthering Heights" as a book and I enjoy comparing adaptations. What is it about this psychologically dark book written by a brilliant but ill-fated young mid-19th century parson's daughter that compels so many to read, watch and continually adapt it into films, or even write songs about it? Is it just the need to try to capture the essence of this fascinating yet somewhat repellent story about revenge, twisted love, greed and hatred? Or is a desire to top other productions, some kind of contest to come out the winner of the best interpretation of Emily Bronte's colossal (as described by her sister Charlotte) masterpiece? After coming across the 1992 Peter Kosminsky film these questions came to mind even more so than before. Promoted on the back of the DVD cover as the only theatrical movie version to cover the novel's entirety (if only skimming the surface, as completely would be impossible), for me this interpretation of the Bronte novel fell short in many areas and had a less than authentic feel. While the house representing the Heights is obviously fake and constructed specifically for the film, the locations, as appealing to the eyes as they were, did not seem to fit the description in the novel. Along with the usual grumbles (the actors being too old, the timeline for when situations occurred in the book), Ralph Fiennes, while undeniably a formidable presence in film, was miscast as Heathcliff - singled out by some as being too "refined" for the role, he comes across as being brutal but lacking the rough and uncouthness of Bronte's anti-hero - especially in the early sequences. Juliette Binoche, as lovely and competent an actress as she is, was undone not only by her French accent, but the fact that she was saddled with playing two complex and difficult roles - that of the elder Catherine (Cathy) Earnshaw Linton, and her daughter, Catherine Linton Heathcliff Earnshaw - undermines the movie even more. Was it done for budget reasons? The blonde wig she wears as the daughter is an irritating distraction, not to mention that the younger Catherine is not supposed to resemble her mother.Jonathan Firth as the sickly, annoying Linton Earnshaw is pretty much stuck with a thankless role as Heathcliff's effete son with the silly, and ultimately equally ill-fated Isabella (played by Sophie Ward). Edgar Linton (Simon Shepard) is even more weak and pitiable than in the book or any other film adaptation I've seen. But he still seems rather colorless (pardon the expression) and seems to be trying his mightiest to stay awake during the proceedings.Jeremy Northam as Hindley isn't seen nearly enough (add me to those who feel he should have played Heathcliff instead). Northam, Janet McTeer (as faithful servant Ellen "Nelly" Dean) and to a lesser extent, Jason Riddington as Hareton were the saving grace of this film for me. I don't know if the rest of the cast tried too hard or if the director did (or perhaps a bit of both?), but for me their efforts, while admirable, can't elevate the project to what they were trying to achieve. It does seem that Fiennes himself has less than kind words for this production - an unpleasant experience, one that almost turned him off of working on films.To look at, the movie is pleasant enough. There is a feeling of a tight budget regarding costuming, hair (wigs) and interiors, but the absence of staginess that often prevailed in many of the earlier BBC television productions is a plus, as is the music score and the interesting casting of Sinead O'Connor as Emily Bronte herself, taking over as narrator which in the novel was put to Lockwood and Nelly.I do feel that this interpretation of WH is overrated, and while it covers more of the book than the classic 1939 Olivier/Oberon picture and the 1970 Dalton/Calder-Marshall production, both of those earlier renditions (speaking for myself) were far more enjoyable and better paced. If you want to see a better depiction of WH (especially the second generation comprised of younger Catherine, Hareton and Linton), check out the 1998 and 2009 Masterpiece Theatre presentations. (I'd recommend the BBC 1978 miniseries if I had seen it but it's unavailability on region 1 DVD makes it difficult). While both of those made-for-TV projects take liberties, for me they captured the book better in many respects.