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

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.

CoolRoel First of all, I want to submit this review only because of another review I read about this movie, where the person who wrote it grades the movie with a two out of ten. Mostly because the original story (it's based on a novel) in his/her opinion was much better and furthermore the acting (again, his/her opinion) wasn't up to standard. Luckily I was bored and curious and started the movie anyway. Not expecting great acting, good directing and well built storytelling. Not even expecting to see it all the way to the end, as I'm not really a fan of the 'love story' genre.After a few minutes it was clear though. The review I read was not meant for me, or anyone else who hasn't read the book!! And let's be honest, even though it's admirable to read your classics and I would recommend everyone to pick up a book every now and then...how many of the IMDb members would there be, who have read the 1847 (!!!) novel?? I think.......not many!Having said that, I'll now write my review and I'll keep it short to avoid spoiling your fun. Acting, directing, production, screen writing, plot...well, the movie altogether: it was compelling, surprising, fascinating and never a bore... IT WAS GREAT!!!So if you like love stories, love love stories, or even hate love stories...go and see this great mini-series!!!Have fun!!!

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