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.
Diana t
I'm hardly ever thankful with book adaptations, because they hardly ever match the beauty of reading this book, and after having my dreams smashed with "Eragon"'s adaptation I had almost lost hope in movies of this type. At first, I felt reluctant to watch "Wuthering Heights", because I didn't want to see one of my favorite books mocked in a Hollywood making. It had kind of a sloppy start, and I was almost ready to stop watching, when I saw Heathcliff. He was as close as he could get to what I thought he looked like, and this kept me watching. The story was different, of course, but these differences aren't bothering, on the contrary, many of them add some flavor.Emily Bronte wrote a book that can hardly be translated into moving picture, since the complexity of the characters, and the bond between Cathy and Heathcliff goes so deep beyond love, up to a point that it isn't a love story anymore. But they managed to surpass that. At least Heathcliff's actor is beyond great, since he honored what I believe to be one of the most complex characters in literature. He shows accurate enough his character, his sufferings, his emotions; at times, he's ugly, other times, he looks perfect, he's awkward, he's diabolical, he's ironic, strong, weak, in pain, loving and ignorant. The storyline keeps to the book, as much as possible, but I wish they could make a better Cathy, and emphasize on their bond, not as a love story, but as a longing story. The only flaws I've seen is that they made a bit too physical contact, and that they skipped some scenes, like Heathcliff's departure, or their moment together before she dies. But all in all, it's a really good adaptation, best I've seen since The Lord of the Rings. Despite its flaws, it gets a whole-hearted 10. It even ended as I imagined! (SPOILER!) With their ghosts seen at the windows of Wuthering Heights, finally together. You don't get this comfort in the book!
david-bonner4
Heathcliff. Devil incarnate or a misunderstood man? Why not give Heathcliff the musical a try? I agree that there has yet to be a screen adaptation to the classic that lives up to the content of the novel. I would like to see this version but based on sexual situations won't because they are unnecessary. Cliff Richard's Heathcliff, though loosely based on the novel, was well done. I have read that there is another version of Wuthering Heights coming out in 2010. I hope it is much better. I wish I had studied this novel in school, but in Canada it is not available anywhere? Give Heathcliff the musical a try if you haven't already.
patfalkenna
Once I found out that this had been shown in America months ago, everything made sense. I say that as an American (who moved to the UK years ago to escape the shallowness, only to find the UK caught up quickly).I did rather enjoy this version, mainly due to the superb casting. Tom Hardy was wonderful, but I'm sure they toned down what he could have done. Even more so with Charlotte Riley, after they turned Cathy's untamed elemental nature into a teenage brat.It was brightly lit like a soap opera (uh-- Gothic, people), and moved at an MTV pace instead of developing the relationship of the three main characters: Heathcliffe,Cathy, and the Moors. This final, crucial character was, in fact, nearly left out altogether. The whole thing could have been set in Central London, for all the difference it made to the formation and behaviour of the human characters. I suppose the filmmakers decided that psychological interaction with nature, on a deep inner level, was something today's urbans couldn't grasp. Heaven forbid we should try to convey to them another type of experience.I was really looking forward to this, due mainly to Tom Hardy who seemed the ultimate Heathcliff, but was very disappointed by the missed opportunity.
AD
