Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

MissSimonetta This 1998 TV version of Wuthering Heights is superb, if a touch flawed in a few fundamental areas. Novel purists will be sure to adore this one.Robert Cavanah might be the most evil portrayal of Heathcliff I've seen yet. Oh he does have his sympathetic moments, but overall this version really plays up how despicable he is, even going so far as to having him sexually assault Isabella on their wedding night. Other highlights in the cast are Sarah Smart as the second Catherine and Matthew Macfadyen as Hareton, whose animosity evolves into the love that finally breaks Heathcliff's desire for vengeance. In fact, one of this miniseries' greatest strengths is the second generation, so rarely incorporated into WH adaptations.My main gripe is that some areas are too, well, nice for this story. Catherine is written as a thoughtless but overall naive girl. In the book, she was downright cruel and certainly not as naive as she is painted here. Plus the thirty-something Orla Brady is much too old to be playing the character. The music is romantic, but, like the Alfred Newman score for the 1939 movie, too sweet to fit such a dark story.Nevertheless, this is a beautiful adaptation and WH fans like myself will be sure to appreciate it.

jjnxn-1 There is a lot wrong with this version of the classic tale. First and foremost the compressing of the story into two hours, the original and best version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon only told a fraction of the book and it was of equal length, makes everything feel rushed and motivations fuzzy. Almost as damaging is the miscasting of Robert Cavanah in the lead. Heathcliff is a complex, difficult, mostly unlikable character which requires an actor of great personal magnetism to bridge that gap for the audience, Cavanah is not that guy. He just seems cruel, insane and totally unsympathetic. Orla Brady is a bland Cathy making Heathcliffs mad devotion all the more puzzling. Another sore spot, no one ages! Once the main characters reach maturity their looks never change even though decades pass. The one bright spot is Matthew MacFayden whose performance is controlled and centered unfortunately his part is small and comes late in the proceedings so he can do little to rescue this woeful effort. Watch the 1939 version instead.

OpenID The storyline sticks pretty much to the book but the lead actors are all way too old and consequently appear ridiculous in some of the scenes. Heathcliff and Cathy are supposed to be young - as young as 12 years old when they go out at night to the Lintons and peek into their house. It looks laughable to see these middle aged actors out at play in the night. The Linton "children" are equally too old - a silly squabble between two grown adults plays all wrong. Orla Brady must have been close to 40 years old at the time she played Cathy. Daft! The actor playing Heathcliff looks equally out of place running around the moors at his age. Didn't anyone read the book before they cast the production? The miscasting of way too old actors in the leads destroyed this production for me.

Philby-3 I turned this on thinking we were going to get the 1992 film version with Ralph Fiennes and Juliet Binoche; instead it was a new low key TV version made for LWT and PBS with a British cast and production crew. `Wuthering Heights' has been filmed at least 10 times in English alone, there is not so much a definite version as one for successive eras, and the various versions each tell us something about the periods in which they were made. This version is not exactly post-modern, but it lacks romantic glamour. It's still a tale of wild, hopeless love but we get more of the pain than of the rapture. We also get the full story, not the truncated tale of the 1939 Hollywood version (a fine movie of its period). Here, Heathcliff and Cathy, doomed lovers, are redeemed by the happiness of their children.The mostly unknown cast are fine and the locations fitting, though I don't think `Wuthering Heights' itself was meant to be quite so pokey; the Earnshaws were meant to be minor gentry, not peasants. Ghosts are always difficult to film convincingly but these ones are well captured. I'd like to think people will still read the book but the reality is most will just see a film version. It's a powerful story and this is a reasonable `no frills' rendering.