Fbllxl5 Timothy Dalton is the only saving grace of this version, the score and photography merit a mention, but the rest is abysmal. Calder-Marshall lacks passion and conviction, and appears at times to be half-witted. The deviation from the book sometimes necessary but here it's just silly. If only Michael Anderson had done his version with Richard Harris!The 1939 version is still the best version ever of the book.

clanciai On the whole, I agree fully with Bob-45's excellent review above, and there is little to add, except that all are perfect in their parts, definitely excelling the classic 1939 version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. Particularly outstanding are Julian Glover as Hindley and the overwhelmingly beautiful music by Michel Legrand. I must agree with Bob on the full score of 10, although the end of the novel is missing. Instead, there is an another end to it which actually rather completes the picture than robs anything from it. Filmed on location in the right surroundings, giving the right time feeling and using film technique for haunting dramaturgy, as a film version, it couldn't be better, dwarfing all later versions.

pkspringstocker I first saw this film in 1970 and it had such an effect on me I saw it three times and cried all the way home each time.In fact it still has the power to make me cry now. I remember in the cinema the gasps from the women in the audience when Heathcliffe returned to Wuthering Heights. Wow! The whole movie was so atmospheric right from the beginning with that fantastic scenery and haunting music. Timothy's portrayal of Heathcliffe is by far the most passionate and sensitive I've seen and I would have liked to have seen him in other similar roles. Naturally I have bought the DVD and also the music on vinyl-both are played regularly!One of my daughters is now a huge fan of the movie.

Bob-45 I remember reading the review of this version of "Wuthering Heights" in VARIETY in 1970. The reviewer said, "While suffering only in comparison to the 1939 classic ...". Well, I recently saw the 1939 version and this version is in every way superior. From the haunting, soulful score to the sensitive acting, to the realistic countryside, this "Wuthering Heights" is more passionate, more brooding, more obsessive. Anna Calder-Marshall did not possess the stunning beauty of Merle Oberon, but she hits all the right notes essaying the social-climbing Kathy. Those only familiar with Timothy Dalton's sour work as James Bond will be astonished at his sensitive, magnetic Heathcliff. The dowdy Flora Robson has been replaced by the buxom, nurturing Judy Cornwell. Cornwell's "milkmaid dresses" almost overflow, and she is so nurturing one almost expects her to "pop one out" and feed Heathcliff or Cathy at some critical moment. Nonetheless, Cornwell's expressive face and body language at times nearly steals the movie, but, by no means throws it off balance.Other fine performances include Ian Ogilvy as Edgar, Harry Andrews and father and Hillary Dwyer as Isabella.Even the photography, editing, and, most important, directing by Robert Fuest is superior to the 1939 version. It's especially amazing, given AIP's product at the time, that this masterpiece could be made. I don't like costumers particularly, but I watch this "Wuthering Heights" about once every two years. It's worth my time because it's THAT good.I give Wuthering Heights (1970) a "10".