drwhoeva15 For gods same Tome Hardy is WHITE in case no one has noticed and in the book he is described as WILD AND DARK he was found in LIVERPOOL a place common for immigrants at that time to jump ship into Britain STOP WHITEWASHING FOREIGN CHARACTERS AND THEN GIVING THE END RESULT A 10 STAR REVIEW GET OUT

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.

TheLittleSongbird True, it doesn't always follow the overall structure of the novel by Emily Bronte, and there are one or two slow moments. But it is beautifully done, and does a competent job of adapting a truly complicated book to screen. I don't think it is the best adaptation of the book, but it definitely not the worst. The adaptation was lovingly designed with stunning locations and exquisite costumes, and the photography was excellent. The performances were excellent, the two leads Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley were both superb as Heathcliff and Cathy, and Andrew Lincoln and Sarah Lancashire give able support. The scriptwriter Peter Bowker, who wrote the script for the wonderful BBC drama Occupation, does a good job with the dialogue, which was in general well written and well crafted. All in all, as an adaptation it is beautifully done, not always faithful to the novel, but the performances and the visual design compensates. 8/10 Bethany Cox

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.