SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

eliza_gaskell Did not like this adaption at all. Everything was wrong, sets, location, costumes and even the cast. Where was the chemistry between these two tragic lovers? Lost on the Moors, I guess, for it certainly was not there between the two leading cast members. Tom Hardy, was OK but something was lacking...charisma, screen presence, the ability to portray Heathcliff as a man with heart? He talent is wasted, for he is very good in Star Trek 2002 and Inception 2009. This Heathcliff is over the top with melodrama and desperate! I wish someone would tell him Cathy's married, get over it!And the actress who played Cathy, Charlotte Riley, needs to speak to her agent and fire him(or her). She would be great in something else rather than this. Cathy misfortunes and bleeding heart was painful to watch and I could not suppress joy, when she finally passed away on the TV.The ITV gives great period drama's but this rendition was not one of their finest. Maybe a better director, other than Coky Giedroyc, maybe an entire different cast or a better screen writer, whatever was missing from this production, this was truly terrible. It grieves me to admit I did watch the whole 2 episodes, sadly that's 142 minutes of my life I can never get back. So I give the one star point to the dark colored horse in the production, who looked simply stunning.

kittiecat-840-284181 What a beautiful beautiful story! I've never seen anything like it. There were so many valuable lessons one could draw from it. As well as so much depth in the characters and the relationships. It's a story that stays with you long after the credits roll. It is by far the most romantic movie I've ever seen; a passionate story that keeps you captivated from beginning to end. The story captures your heart and inspires emotion. At more than one point, I was moved to tears. This story contains all the elements of a masterpiece. It truly has become a new personal favorite of mine. The casting was perfect and the acting was phenomenal. I highly recommend! You will not be disappointed.

kaitlyn-is-an-epic-win Though most people who watch this version have seen others, I'll give a brief, bare bones intro for those who don't know.Wuthering Heights follows the Gothic story of Catherine Earnshaw (Charlotte Riley) and Heathcliff (Tom Hardy). The story follows their unorthodox beginnings through the budding of their romance and follows the duo through a path of heartbreak, destruction, and revenge that will assuredly leave watchers (and readers for that matter) stunned. Be forewarned, Wuthering Heights is not a happy go lucky Pride and Prejudice or even Northanger Abbey for that matter, it is dark and rather depressing. ** Warning: Spoilers Below **That being said. I truly enjoyed this version. The score was elegant, the cinematography fitting for each scene, and the costuming original as well as slightly modernized (though still a period drama). However, I believe that the crown jewel of this production is Tom Hardy.Tom Hardy simply looks the part. Heathcliff is supposed to be a gypsy, a ruffian, someone who can intimidate and be downright nasty. Hardy's physique is broad and brutish looking. He has none of the refined elegance of the Edgar Linton or Hindley Earnshaw (for that matter). He simply looks like a brute. He is, however, attractive (allowing him to be a plausible romantic interest) in a way that is overwhelmingly masculine and strong. His voice is gravelly and raspy, allowing it to be attractive and masculine when necessary and venomous and threatening at other times. Hardy also brings a dark comedy to the role of Heathcliff that makes his character even more (dare I say it) likable. Phrases that could be uttered with anger and blood lust are sometimes uttered with an almost sarcastic air, a sickly satisfied smile on his face. The bottom line: Hardy can be both an uber masculine heartthrob and a dark, violent, and bitter monster. Bravo.Charlotte Riley does well as Cathy. She is obviously passionate and rebellious, but doesn't have the spoiled-ten-year-old temper tantrums. Riley's chemistry with Hardy is excellent and their scenes are always amazing. However, Cathy seems to switch her affections to Edgar Linton rather suddenly and with, seemingly, little motive. This, however, is not Riley's fault, but the screenwriter's. Riley does a great job of escalating Cathy's hysteria at Heathcliff's rejection of her upon his return. By the end of the film, I found myself really liking her.Other versions don't cut it for me. I mean, Joseph Fiennes as Heathcliff? He simply is not intimidating enough or dark enough to be Heathcliff. Fiennes's Heathcliff is a lighter, Hollywood Heathcliff that is not the Heathcliff we know and love. Similarly, I adore Laurence Olivier, I really do, but I don't find him rugged and raw enough to be Heathcliff. However, I must say I do enjoy the film a lot though they disregard the second half of the novel. Though this version (2009) is my favorite, the 1998 version with Robert Cavanah is rather good, though a big part of that opinion is Matthew Macfayden's Hareton.Speaking of which, Hareton in this version was not my cup of tea at first, though he did grow on me. Perhaps it was the fact that he wasn't as resentful of Heathcliff as I felt he should be. Sarah Lancashire did an excellent job as Nelly, though her role was not as large because Lockwood's character was eliminated. Burn Gorman is a Hindley you simply love to hate. He combines superciliousness with wickedness and a cruel spirit. Rebecca Night does well with her role (Cathy & Edgar's daughter Catherine), though she is more rebellious than she is in the book.Overall, this series is dramatic and slightly modernized. Be prepared for a few sex scenes, about which I have an opinion for those who claim the sex scenes were unnecessary. In the book, Heathcliff and Cathy spend lots of unsupervised time on the moors... unsupervised. Teenagers in love are not going to be playing tag and making macramé bracelets alright. In the mid 1800s, it would not be acceptable to blatantly state that two unmarried people were physically involved. It's left to the reader to fill in the blanks as to how their alone time was spent. As I said, I doubt they were writing sonnets and drinking tea (mind you, this is not Austen). Besides, if you have Tom Hardy, why not make use of his sex appeal? So if you are willing to overlook some plot changes, omissions, as well as additions, then take a gander at this version. If you are looking for a film that is a perfect transcription from book to screen, you may want to reconsider watching this.

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!