chaos-rampant Famously, this portrays for the first time the whole of the story in the book, it is captivating and moves fast, and Fiennes deserves superlatives as the diabolical Heathcliff, menacing but with the eyes of a wounded animal. There's something worthwhile here. That is the love story with love that was not consummated, not allowed to because they were from different worlds, because even though they connect in a deep way, the rules of the game say otherwise. Different times, but you can assume that it used to be so at Bronte's time, as it was later in Tolstoy's.So they part, but they have grown roots so deep in each other, they cannot be parted, and distance only tears at them, distorts who they are, the distortion as memory. In the prisonworld Heathcliff creates in the end as punishing demigod of sorts, without which the story is incomplete, we can see the stark reflection of both the broader unjust world responsible for Heathcliff, and his private hell of vengeful recurring thoughts, both that stifle the soul.All that is good enough in the film. We get to puzzle about the name of Heathcliffe's adopted son being inscribed in a stone epigraph, on the door of a manor that was built centuries ago.What isn't very satisfying is how we arrive at the story. The character who it is being narrated to, arrives at the manor, pores over books and images of Catherine, is captivated enough to dream of her, which leads to the housemaid's narration of the events. Instead of a dream, the visitor here sees Catherine's ghost, which sets a supernatural tone that is too obvious. Too obvious because though even Bronte suggested ghosts, her main narrative gambit was layered dreaming, the notion that the hidden life of images and urges shapes the narrator's choosing of the story he tells about himself and things, some of which we externalize as destiny or demons, which is what we all do each time we remember, we dream of a story around a fictitious self.But it's wonderful and moving as it is.

randomchoice Great job at reconstructing the Wuthering Heights residence the way it is described in the book. As for the fact that this production tries to cover the full story, I can't help feeling that cramming so much detail in the space of just 105 minutes has chopped a story otherwise full of pathos into a mere chronology. What saves the attempt is, however, the rather excellent cast - although I must confess that, based on the book, I was expecting Edgar to be a lot better looking :D. Overall, this production looks promising but hugely unfinished. Sadly (for a fan of Juliette Binoche), not the kind of production I would want to watch again. The need for concision granted, I can still find no excuse for the particularly disappointing music. Having seen a few Stanley Kubrick productions not long ago (the music of The Shining in my ears...), I find the music of this production inexcusably drab.

drarthurwells The original 1939 classic movie of Wuthering Heights, with Olivier and Oberon, is excellent for its time. However, this version only depicts the basic plot.This story centers on Heathcliff and is about deep love between Heathcliff and Cathy, love lost, Heathcliff's bitter and deep anger over this, Heathcliff's blame for the love loss on the Cathy as well as on class exclusion, and revenge toward all those involved in the lost love. An essential element is for the movie to depict Heathcliff's bitterness and immense vengeful anger. Now in order for the immense anger to be explained, the prior deep love between Heathcliff and Cathy must be fully depicted. I think the 1992 and 2009 movie versions are the best. Both are excellent but both are flawed.The 1992 version with Ralph Fiennes is better organized and time-sequenced. This version emphasizes the bitterness, anger and vengefulness of the main character, Heathcliff, as superbly depicted by Fiennes. The flaw is that the early love between Cathy and Heathcliff is shown in a skimpy and summary manner. This is a flaw since this deep love needs a full and detailed portrayal in order to explain Heathcliff's later deep bitterness. As a result Fiennes' Heathcliff is a terrible fellow whose behavior is somewhat inexcusable. The 2009 version with Tom Hardy is slightly convoluted, and lightens Heathcliff's vengefulness (making Heathcliff more of sympathetic character to the viewer), which is a flaw compared to the 1992 Fiennes version that properly displays Heathcliff's revenge. However, the 2009 Hardy version does portray the early love between Heathcliff and Cathy with due elaboration (which is lacking in the 1992 version). As a result Heathcliff is more of a tragic figure than a villain.An ideal version would be the 1992 Fiennes version, with the deep vengeful anger as Fiennes displayed, but that also fully depicted the love as did the 2009 Hardy version.Both the Hardy 2009 version and the Fiennes 1992 version are excellent but I prefer the 1992 version as the best available.

adam_the_fool Ralph Fiennes is an absolutely awful Heathcliffe. Where is the wild passion and tormented soul? All we get is a nasally drawl. Films are never as good as the original novel for me, this was totally lacking in depth and to many relationships between the characters are left untouched. Why when Heathcliffe and Cathy are supposed to be 14 do they look 30? Why is Ellen portrayed as such a cold character? How can we accept Cathy II as a believable character when they have just dyed her hair? The whole thing is a joke and the more i think about it the more i hate it! Why is Linton Heathcliffe not the dweeb he is shown as in the book?If i had the DVD I wouldn't deem it good enough to use as a coaster