Rating: 
Summary: Not totally true to the book, but still good.
Review: I saw this movie when it first came out and I was very young and impressionable. As someone else said in their review, the young should see it because it really will touch them in a unique, once in a lifetime way. I read a review complaining that it's not like the book. I hadn't read the book yet when I first saw it. Since then I've read the book many times and it is one of my favorites. I don't care that this movie takes license and makes it's own story. I think it still tells a great love story. And the music is beautiful and haunting, as it should be. I'm thrilled it's now on DVD because my old VHS copy is getting worn out! :)
Rating:
Summary: Wuthering Heights a Hit
Review: I was so excited when I found this movie on Amazon.com. I ordered it with another old favorite I found here. When I finally got around to watching it it brought back memories of seeing it on the big screen in the early 70's. Timothy Dalton is fantastic as Heathcliff....brooding, sensual, and not too hard to look at. The movie is beautifully done, and the music is haunting. One of the only remakes of a movie that I can say was worth seeing. What I enjoyed most was my daughters seeing it, they loved it too.
Rating: 
Summary: Timothy Dalton is a great Heathcliff
Review: I was very intrigued to see this version of "Wuthering Heights," especially because Timothy Dalton plays Heathcliff (and he also plays Rochester in my favorite adaptation of "Jane Eyre"). Certainly he does the spirit and passion of the Brontë sisters justice in both movies.Although it's definitely worth viewing, I can't give this film the highest rating for a couple of reasons: 1) It strays so far from the book--especially at the end regarding Heathcliff's fate--that it's jarring if you know the story well; 2) Anna Calder-Marshall's performance as Catherine is a bit too loony. At times, she's so kooky and wild-eyed that she isn't the least bit attractive. Still, the locations are effective, and the windy moors disturbing and realistic. And Dalton is mesmerizing. I would have liked to have seen the script go into more detail and stick more faithfully to the book. I think the definitive version of "Wuthering Heights" is yet to be made.
Rating:
Summary: Timothy Dalton is a great Heathcliff
Review: I was very intrigued to see this version of "Wuthering Heights," especially because Timothy Dalton plays Heathcliff (and he also plays Rochester in my favorite adaptation of "Jane Eyre"). Certainly he does the spirit and passion of the Brontë sisters justice in both movies. Although it's definitely worth viewing, I can't give this film the highest rating for a couple of reasons: 1) It strays so far from the book--especially at the end regarding Heathcliff's fate--that it's jarring if you know the story well; 2) Anna Calder-Marshall's performance as Catherine is a bit too loony. At times, she's so kooky and wild-eyed that she isn't the least bit attractive. Still, the locations are effective, and the windy moors disturbing and realistic. And Dalton is mesmerizing. I would have liked to have seen the script go into more detail and stick more faithfully to the book. I think the definitive version of "Wuthering Heights" is yet to be made.
Rating: 
Summary: Still waiting for the definitive film version of WH
Review: I've seen every film version of Wuthering Heights that I know exists, and while this version has some good things going for it, ultimately I can't unreservedly recommend it. First the pros. Location: filmed in the West Riding, Yorkshire (and at Shepperton Studios, of course), the moors look just as they do and as they should in Wuthering Heights - bleak, rocky, windswept, wild and unique. Southern California is not a great substitution for Yorkshire, whatever William Wyler may have thought (see his 1939 WH with Oberon and Oliver). Heathcliff: Timothy Dalton might almost be too pretty (this was filmed in 1971), he might tend to some overacting in certain scenes, but over all he evokes Bronte's character and in some ways, the ghost of Oliver, who was the best thing about the 1939 WH. The cast in general: There are not a lot of 'pretty faces' here, which is a good thing. Just very real, very characteristically English actors. No one is prettified just to sell tickets and it lends a nice authenticity to the production. Ditto for most of the accents. Yorkshire is not London, and the accents are, in reality, different. And for the most part the acting is decent. Miscellaneous: There is an very brief intimation between Mr. and Mrs. Earnshaw in the opening scenes, that brings out a subtlety in Bronte's novel - that of Heathcliff's parentage. It lends an interesting accent to the rest of the proceedings, and I don't think any other version of WH has contained such a reference. Music: The music by Michel Legrand is for the most part appropriate and haunting. OK, now the cons. Truncating Bronte's novel is nothing new - Wyler did it in 1939, completely eliminating the 2nd generation and any mention of Cathy's pregnancy. But the deviations from the text - for anyone who loves the novel - are hard to swallow. Characters, who are supposed to continue living, are suddenly dead. Characters who die in the novel, end up living long after you think they are going to. Because this version of WH basically ends after Cathy's death, Heathcliff is not allowed to die the way he did in the novel (or even in the 1939 Hollywood version), as that would take too long. I had high hopes after the opening scenes, as they actually included Mrs. Earnshaw, which to my knowledge has never been done before, but alas, I was to be disappointed. The character of Cathy and the actress who plays her: I don't know what it is that the part of Heathcliff can draw good actors who do well in the part - Oliver, Dalton, Fiennes - and yet the actresses who play Cathy are so dismal and wrong for the part. Anna Calder-Marshall in this version is no exception. How shall I put this? For a good portion of the film she plays Cathy as slow-witted teenager, and for the rest of the film she is just kind of wacky and moony, not particularly wild or headstrong. I began to expect the entire movie to turn out to be one of those Afternoon Specials for teenagers, or something on Lifetime television for Women (Hell Hath no Fury Like a Wacky Woman-Child: The Catherine Earnshaw Story) She is not magnetic in any way - and for this quality, one need not be a beauty, only to possess a certain.....oh hell, 'je ne sais quoi' (ugh, did I just write that?). The actors who have played Heathcliff are admittedly handsome, but they have a certain charisma. Oberon was a beauty, Binoche is one too, but neither was right in the role, and neither is Ms. Calder-Marshall. It's a difficult part and the character is not particularly sympathetic or charming. Theme: This version of WH is probably the most sexed up version I have seen. There is rolling around on the ground and even a reference to Cathy's baby (mentioned, but never shown or referred to again) possibly being Heathcliffs'. Which pleases the romantics, I'm sure, but is not really what the relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff is all about. Wuthering Heights is not Romeo and Juliet, two crazy and impetuous kids, livin' large and dyin' young The themes of the novel encompass much more than mere romance and sexuality. So, I am still looking forward to a great actress in the role of Catherine Earnshaw. And I am still looking forward to a great production of Wuthering Heights. I enjoy the 1939 version for it's Hollywood pretentions and Olivier, and because I am just sentimental about it. The Fiennes-Binoche version has, like this version, good points and bad. Bunuel's Spanish version I give kudos too, but Mexico is not Yorkshire, and I'm sorry, I just like the moors. The fairly recent PBS version wasn't bad, but I don't think it is out on VHS or DVD. Waiting, but not holding my breath. Read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Must be something in the local water
Review: In the past several months, I've seen at least one film adaptation of all the Jane Austen books, plus one of Charlotte Bronte's JANE EYRE, and this one of sister Emily's WUTHERING HEIGHTS. All at the behest of a good friend hoping to make me a better person. OK, fine. But I refuse to read the original novels. What I find interesting is the difference in tone, and apparently the states of mind, of Jane versus Emily and Charlotte. Austen's works, while perhaps depicting the lives of its heroines as somewhat silly by today's standards, are at least generally lighthearted. The Brontes' plots - at least the two I've been exposed to - are apocalyptically gloomy. Of course, Jane spent her life in the sunny and pastoral south of England, while Emily and Charlotte hail from the relatively desolate and rock-strewn Yorkshire Dales. Perhaps it's something in the water. In WUTHERING HEIGHTS, Heathcliff is the young orphan rescued from a life in the streets and brought home by Mr. Earnshaw (Harry Andrews) to live at his Yorkshire farm with his family, which also includes his daughter Cathy and his son Hindley. As they grow through childhood, Cathy and Heathcliff spend their time together roaming the moors, and vow mutual everlasting devotion. For no reason that I could discern, the older Hindley boy resents Heathcliff, but is the one sent away to get expensively educated. By the time the elder Earnshaw dies, Heathcliff and Cathy are in their late teens, now played by Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall respectively. Hindley (Julian Glover), now married, returns from the outside world to claim his inheritance. Heathcliff's fortunes take a bad turn when Hindley relegates him to a position not much better than a farm hand. In the meantime, Cathy lives temporarily in the local magistrate's grand manor house, where she acquires the manners and dress of a "lady" and attracts the eye of the judge's son, Edgar (Ian Ogilvy). Eventually returning to her brother's household with superior airs, Cathy essentially wishes Heathcliff would take a bath. To make the first half of the film's story short, Hindley's wife dies soon after giving birth, Hindley drives Heathcliff away to a destination unknown, and Cathy, with nothing better to do, weds Edgar. Have I spoiled the plot? No, because it doesn't truly get going until Heathcliff, with a wardrobe and personal appearance make-over, suddenly walks in on Hindley and his drunken buds after an absence of three years. The audience never finds out where he's been, but he obviously has an attitude problem and means to settle old scores. (At this point, I was reminded of Dalton's role as France's King Philip in THE LION IN WINTER.) And he's lost none of the raw wildness from those years mucking about the countryside. My understanding is that this WUTHERING HEIGHTS foreshortens the book, but is faithful to it as far as it goes. Subsequent to Heathcliff's dramatic return, I expected a great ending. What I got was overwrought melodrama as Heathcliff makes himself totally insufferable with all and sundry. He's a social misfit if ever there was one, totally out of his depth. The film's apparent message is that one can't escape his/her upbringing. However, Dalton's dynamite dramatic portrayal is the single best reason to watch, though the cinematography in the magnificently bleak Yorkshire West Riding comes a close second. WUTHERING HEIGHTS has considerable merit, but give me PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, or EMMA anytime over this. I mean, if I want to observe hysterical wailing and testosterone fueled fisticuffs, all I have to do is attend a staff meeting at work. At least Austen's soaps left me feeling amused.
Rating:
Summary: DARK'N'DOOMED
Review: NOT AS GOOD AS OLIVIER, complete tosh Timothy Daltons portrail of Heathcliff is the only one!!!
Not only is his physical proximity totally correct (i should know as have romany blood myself !) his saturnine manner, passion and moments of fury and frustrated inner turmoil make this a far better portrail of wuthering heights than the milk and water 1939 version. GOD they used the desert for the yorkshire moors, the director hadn't even read the book.
The sound track is totally wonderful as well .
The only slight let-down is Anna Calder Marshall, her performance is ok but I think kate o'Mara would have made a better choice to play Cathy,but on the whole a totally awsome film.
Rating:
Summary: atmospheric, haunting, well acted!!!!!!
Review: Okay, the story is well known and this naturally will run comparisons to Lord Larry and Merle Oberon's 1939 version. But this is a gentle, atmospheric retelling that is well acted. Excellently cast, Caulder-Marshall is super as the willful Cathy that loves Heathcliff, but must face choices in her life to save them both, which ultimately drives them apart, changes them, but cannot alter the deep love that drives them - even if it drives them to destroy each other. Dalton is properly Welsh, dark and brooding, very adapt at showing his younger vunerability, and later the darker, sensual side. The gorgeous Ian Ogilvy is a perfect contrast to Dalton's dark, the fair haired beautiful husband that cannot touch her soul. An interesting note: in this movie Ogilvy's sister is played by the same woman that played his wife in the excellent Witchfinder General with Vincent Price. Well worth the viewing again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Withering Lows
Review: This has to be one of the most filmed novels ever, yet no one seems to have ever quite hit the bull's eye -- probably because it is an impossibility. What works on paper does not readily translate to film's visual, linear format, particularly where several generations of people with similar names are concerned. This 1970 version offers much by way of landscape: the bleak and wild Yorkshire moors, the isolation, and the contrasts between the Earnshaw and Linton households are well made. But liberties are taken with the plot (Cathy and Heathcliff consumate their relationship, for instance -- a shrieking departure from the source), the acting is uneven and there is a noisy hysteria running throughout. If you want a good "movie" experience, stick with William Wyler's 1939 original. If you want a valiant, intriguing but failed attempt, see the later (1992) version with Juliette Binoche (Cathy with a faint French accent? hmmm) and Ralph Fiennes (hair dyed donkey black, eyes like smashed glass). There is an endless UK television version afloat (with Janet McTeer as Ellen), and a strange Spanish version (Bunuel) out there too. Best bet? read the book and do the envisioning yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Classics Illustrated Version of Bronte's Story
Review: This is one of several romantic classics adaptions which were made in the wake of the huge popularity of Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET in the 60's and 70's. Though purists will find this to be a Classics Illustrated version of Bronte's dark and complex story, it is nevertheless a finely crafted film with a beautiful and haunting score by Michel Legrand which the lush DVD soundtrack shows to full effect. Timothy Dalton is a perfect Heathcliff on a par with Olivier's Hollywood version. He digs deep into this tortured man's soul. Anna Caulder-Marshall is less convincing as Cathy, although few if any actresses have ever assayed the part better(Miss Marshall was burdened with an artificial leg, but this is not evident in her performance). I remember this film with affection as an artifact of it's time and the DVD has brought it back in full glory. If you enjoy well made historical romances as I do, you will want to add this film to your library.
|
