User reviews

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.

This Version of Wuthering Heights is gritty and very up to date. Tom Hardy plays most of his characters, almost always, in a very unsympathetic way, yet his likability is always there. Hardy plays his characters with a lot of truth and if he does show any vulnerability within his characters(where we as the audience show sympathy towards him), it's always just for a moment, but there's never anything cliché about his performances and that's what makes him one of the best actors out there today as well as what makes this version of Wuthering Heights a great movie. That and also the beautiful Charlotte Riley, Riley and Hardy's chemistry is spot on(which doesn't surprise me that they are engaged in real life, their chemistry is amazing in this movie).

This version of Wuthering Heights shows in the greatest way of any movie I've ever seen how people can love one another and hate one another to the most highest extremes, being connected at the 'soul' so to say(Although, the hate is really more of a cover up for extreme pain inside, relating to this movie at least).

Very relatable in the sense where it shows how miserable we can make our lives when we don't let things go and we don't forgive where, at the source of it all, we're ultimately lying to ourselves about our true feelings, as is the case in this film.

Not an easy movie to watch in the sense that the chemistry is so good, that it pains you, as the movie viewer, to see the ultimate outcome, but nonetheless a great movie and one to see for Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley fans.

Yes, I have seen several versions of Wuthering Heights, the 1939 version holding a special place in my heart. But this adaptation caught me from the opening credits and did not let go long after it ended. This is not your grandma's Wuthering Heights, let's put it that way. It's dark, deadly, and haunting. Much credit for the success of this version goes to Tom Hardy as Heathcliff. Hardy's range as an actor gives new depth to Bronte's anti-hero. You see what a great man he could have become if not for Hindley's torturous treatment of him and Cathy's snobbish refusals. The scenes with Heathcliff and Cathy as young lovers are beautiful and true -- the chemistry between these two actors is scorching. But once Heathcliff turns down the road of cruelty and revenge, it's a slippery slope. Hardy's deep voice and stealth mannerisms give you the impression of a tiger waiting to strike. What I really liked in this version was Charlotte Riley's portrayal of Cathy. She isn't a tantrum-throwing caricature. She gives Cathy a likable earthiness that we can identify with even as she makes dreadful choices. The score, the cinematography, the secondary characters, everything is perfect. It may not be for everyone, but this adaptation is one that does the novel justice.

I loved this version. Tom Hardy is a genius, and his Heathcliff has stayed with me long after the film finished. Charlotte Riley is also very good, as are the other cast members. I've read the comments about Heathcliff and Cathy having sex, and this being a diversion from the original book, however, Emily Bronte makes it clear in her text that Heathcliff and Cathy spend many unsupervised hours on the moors together. This in itself was shocking in the days when every unmarried young lady required a chaperone, but I think Emily was leaving it up to us, the readers, to decide what Heathcliff and Cathy did with their time together. I think the interpretation in this film is a valid one. Tom Hardy's musings at the end, on his life, and on the possible futility of his revenge were very convincing and haunting. This is a film you won't forget in a hurry.

Tom Hardy deserves his Heathcliff. It is an obvious truth and this film represents the right proof. Charlotte Riley has the science to use the traits of Catherine in inspired and, in few scenes, magnificent manner. It is a wise adaptation. Modern, off course, faithfull to the spirit of novel more than to its letter, but giving the reasonable answers to the admirers of Emily Bronte novel. In clear and precise manner. So, more than a good adaptation. Because it propose a beautiful construction of plot and admirable hero but who is , more than in other adaptations, defined by his past experiences more by the pink feelings or irrational angry. Tom Hardy deserves his Heathcliff. And Charlotte Riley knows, more than imperial Merle Oberon of sweet Juliette Binoche , to give the expected Catherine Linton , seductive, charming, cruel, selfish, enloved. Another virtue - Sarah Lancashire as Nelly. And the science to propose more than a portrait of lead couple but a new, seductive, lecture.A beautiful film. About a world, its choices, its deep roots of tragedy.

For me, the most compelling bit of film in this version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS was the opening credit sequence, which uses lots of steadicam shots to propel us into the first scene.

After that, things become more muddled. The script bounces us back and forth between the various generations of the story, tossing in characters willy-nilly but not providing us with a scorecard to keep track of who's who. Most of the main characters are so close in age that it's hard to remember who's supposed to be younger or older than the next person.

I've never understood the attraction of the Heathcliff character to generations of romance- starved women. He's nasty, vindictive, abusive, and obsessive. Is that the kind of guy you ladies really want? Cathy is just as reprehensible for marrying a decent man and making his life miserable (like the Holly Hunter character in THE PIANO).

Burn Gorman, who has played quite a variety of characters in series ranging from BLEAK HOUSE to TORCHWOOD, gives us a well-rounded character whose decline is palpable. Tom Hardy's mystique is lost on me, with his lips like slabs of raw meat; his abilities aren't up to the demands of a role that calls for the character to age a generation in 2.5 hours.

Some of the minor characters also do a fine job with the material. But the production, with its gorgeous scenery and fine building locations, is burdened by a weak script and not helped by yet another drum-heavy, Lord-of-the-Dance-inspired score.

Being somewhat (!) obsessed with the novel, I've watched every adaption of it going and this is undoubtedly my favourite. It fully captures the darkness and moodiness of the novel and the almost painful love between Cathy and Heathcliff.

Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley have incredible chemistry in their roles, which isn't surprising since they were falling for each other in real life (and unlike Cathy and Heathcliff, they are still together, yay!). Their emotion and passion for each other really comes through, and it makes their complicated love story so much more believable. We can truly see how they are better together, terrible apart.

Aside from the leads, the supporting cast are excellent - particularly Nelly, Edgar, and Hindley. The scenery is spectacular, showing the beautiful wild of the moors. The script is a much condensed but fairly faithful version of the novel. In short, I loved this adaptation the minute I watched it and having watched it 11 years after its release, I loved it just as much.

... because it remembered some ideas in the book that touched me (ideas like .. humanity sometimes gives birth to inhumane, a selfish, fanatic love can produce misery etc.). i'm having a feeling of compassion for those who will watch this without having read the book first, because the poor souls won't understand what the story is really about. i absolutely dislike the way heathcliff was portrayed (and not only in this version, i never saw a wuthering heights movie in which heathcliff is heathcliff, as i imagine him in the book) and don't entirely agree with the actor chosen.. don't know why, it's something about his face, he's too beautiful and soft, the heathcliff i always imagined is much rougher and less macho. even if the guy does his best (and i must say he has a great voice, especially at the end of the movie or whenever he is playing the old heathcliff), it's just not enough. cathy is, like someone in another comment perfectly described the cathy in this movie, like a teenage girl swept of her feet by a handsome boy, she doesn't fight him enough, she doesn't seem to be able to match him. the cathy in the book was able to make heathcliff stop whatever he was doing and knee in front of her, here the roles seem to have changed, she's like an obeying wife who does whatever her husband tells her to do. she doesn't seem to have a will of her own, she just follows him. and that's wrong, in the book they were both equally stubborn and strong-willed. overall, i'll give this movie a 6, but just because, like i said before, it reminded me about the book, which i'll start to read in about... 1 minute or so..

There have been several adaptations over the years, for my money, this is the best of them all. The novel is a mix of tragedy and love, almost every minute of this version gives you an intertwined intensity of both, the deep and destructive passion between Heathcliff and Cathy.

What I liked most of all, the cast, without being unkind, it felt like a very modern cast, Tom Hardy, Andrew Lincoln, Charlotte Riley and a few others, not necessarily the first names I'd choose for a costume drama of this sort. All however are perfect, no wonder we all love Tom Hardy, he is sensational, an epic mix of villain and dashing hero, that intensity with Riley is clearly visible.

I'd put the likes of Sarah Lancashire and Burn Gorman as actors perfect for costume drama, they just fit somehow.

Glorious production values, it looks incredible, the accompanying music fits the bill, and nobody can argue that the atmosphere is very much there.

Loved it, 9/10.

Let me start my review by saying that I do not care for the source material. Yes, call me crazy but I never liked Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, I preferred her sister Charlotte's Jane Eyre. Having said that, this is the best adaptation I have ever seen of Wuthering Heights. It had an amazing cast and they really knocked it out of the park!

In fact the acting was so compelling, I found myself completely absorbed and watching a story that I pretty much loathe.

This is a two part series that is worth watching. As much as I like Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, David Niven and vintage film...definitely skip the 1939 film and watch this!

(I have not seen the 1992 film with Juliette Binoche and Ralph Finnes.

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. Newer versions are more elaborate.

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.

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

A big fan of Masterpiece Theater and of classic novels, I was excited to find out there was a new adaptation of Wuthering Heights. I actually bought this on Amazon without having ever seen it, and after viewing it, I am so happy that I bought it. The film does a great job of showing the passion between Heathcliff and Cathy, and Tom Hardy in the role of Heathcliff is a perfect blend of swoon worthy and terrifying. My only complaint is that Part Two doesn't have the same pop as Part One; it's a little bit shorter, and feels more rushed. But overall, this is a wonderful adaptation that I would definitely recommend to all classical lovers.

I am a large Australian footballer. 188cm. I don't cry much in real life. But something about this movie brings me to tears. I've seen it before with other actors. Tom Hardy just took it a step further. It's a classic. Every character is relatable. Of course Heathclifds tormented soul is the most relatable. But you also understand the other lead in Cathy. Torn. Poor Edgar isn't an evil man, just unfortunately in the way. Isabella is also a victim of Heathcliffes scorn. But can you blame him? Maybe. It's just a great tale with a hauntingly beautiful yet cold and stark setting and by the end of it I just need to have my emotions take a break. It's just a wonderful story and even though I've never experienced a love that ended because of societal pressures, you can empathize that this was very real and made the story very believable.

Apparently I'm one of those strange people who doesn't like Wuthering Heights. Having just read the novel, I've written a pretty scathing review on GoodReads - but for some reason I still wanted to watch one of the film adaptations, and after some research, settled on this one. Since I've already spewed my guts on what I really think of the story elsewhere, I'll simply review this film on its technical aspects.

One thing that pleased me is that it's at least 90% faithful to the book. I even recognised some of the dialogue which had been lifted from the novel verbatim. While the director has taken some creative liberties with regards to the chronological narrative, tussling some scenes around, all in all the story remains intact. While some characters have been omitted, most obviously Mr. Lockwood, there's nothing that really feels missing. Though it would have been nice if a little more time had been spent on the children's stories, not to mention Isabella's fate. Still, as a whole it's more complete than not.

There were however, some aspects of this film that slightly bothered me. Things that felt rather, how shall I put it nicely... 'low budget'. Shaky camera, a lack of colour filtering and appropriate lighting, both of which combined create a strong feeling of 'not really being there'. What bugged me the most was the fact that none of the cinematography really gave me an impressive feeling of the infamous Yorkshire moors, which were so pronounced and alive in the novel. The lack of music, which could have very strongly contributed to a haunting atmosphere, was also quite a weak point.

The cast is pretty good. Tom Hardy embodies Heathcliff very well and Charlotte Riley makes an impressive and fitting Catherine. The rest of the actors do their jobs nicely, especially Burn Gorman as Hindley.

The only point where this film really strayed from the book is that Cathy and Heathcliff aren't depicted even halfway as cruel as they're meant to be, and this is a shame because it creates a false sense of sympathy for their characters, when in truth they are monstrous people who deserve no respect from anyone whatsoever.

P. S. Now that I have the opportunity, I just have to get this off my chest. Can somebody please tell me why it is that Heathcliff is played by a white guy in every damn movie, save one...? Thank you.

Was really emotionally invested through the whole journey. Double impact of you have already read the book. Tom hardy was super good.

So, I've read Wuthering Heights and I've seen the Olivier version and the version with Juliette Binoche. The story of Heathcliff and Catherine is not a great romance, it's a tragic one. And destructive. These two characters brought out the absolute worst in each other as well as causing heartache and pain to those closest to them. Neither of them is heroic or noble in any way. They are selfish and self-centered, especially Heathcliff. I despise the character in every incarnation. But I wanted to see this version, because I do like Tom Hardy. But what I did NOT expect was to hear him using the very voice of Bane that he used for The Dark Knight. It was crazy! Number one, the voice did not fit the character of Heathcliff at all, and number two, Hardy said he created the voice of Bane specifically for the Dark Knight. That is apparently not at all true - the Dark Knight was released in 2012 and this movie was released in 2009. And Hardy is definitely using the same voice/accent for Heathcliff here as he uses for Bane a few years later. It's unmistakable. Which was surprising to me - Hardy is a very talented actor and I never would have expected him to recycle a voice like that.

Wuthering Heights (2009) was directed by Coky Giedroyc. It's adapted from the famous novel by Emily Brontë. The film, set on the Yorkshire moors, is a co-production of WGBH and Screen Yorkshire

Tom Hardy plays Heathcliff, and Charlotte Riley portrays Cathy. Their love is a passion that will never die. Sarah Lancashire is brilliant as Nelly, the domestic who serves the family for three generations. The supporting actors are very skilled.

Tom Hardy has starred in many movies, but I had never seen him on screen. Charlotte Riley is a relative newcomer. I thought that both of them played their parts well, and I really believed in their characters.

Although the BBC wasn't involved in this movie, it has what we have come to call "BBC production values." Everything about the productions looks right--at least to my eye.

Wuthering Heights is a complex novel, with many characters and subplots. The film moves back and forth along the time dimension, so it was difficult for me to understand exactly what was happening and when it was happening.

The film version was a two-part series, and we watched the first part on one evening and the second part on the next. In between episodes, I went to Wikipedia to help me get the characters straight. (Don't forget, there are three women named Cathy.) I found my review of the novel to be very helpful when we watched the second episode. My suggestion--unless you're really familiar with the novel, study the plot before you watch the movie.

Because this film was made for TV, it works well on the small screen. Wuthering Heights has a strong IMDb rating of 7.6. I think it's even better than that.

An easy to watch and follow rom-com. But without any of the deep dark spiritual mystery of the book.

I have yet to see an adaptation of Wuthering Heights that portrays Heathcliff as the nasty piece of work that he is. He is NOT a romantic hero, not even the Byronic type. And I have yet to see an adaptation that doesn't idiotically compress or ignore the second HALF of the novel, proving that the adapters either DON'T GET IT or are blatantly playing to commercial interests (you'd know for sure H isn't a romantic hero if you saw him abusing women and children, as he does in the second half of the novel). This particular adaptation is worse than most; among other transgressions, it includes a quite illogical sex scene (likely for commercial interests), illogical because part (and ONLY part) of the tension is about sexual frustration; if you've been making out in the heather, you're not frustrated. I always hope when it's a miniseries that at last we'll get a version that does full justice to the novel. Not this time, alas.