Emily Bronte's classic story of destructive passion and immortal love.Emily Bronte's classic story of destructive passion and immortal love.Emily Bronte's classic story of destructive passion and immortal love.
Featured reviews
Ian Mcshane is a wonderful Heathcliff. The story is complete. Including the 2nd half of the book featuring the next generation of both families.
Heathcliff is not a nice person in this production. Just like he is not in the book. Vindictive and cruel. But as we all know he stated out in life behind the eight ball and mocked by everyone, including Kathy. McShane (Heathcliff) is dark and handsome, with a great speaking voice.
None of the characters are one dimensional in this version. Emily Bronte did not create characters simplistic and easy to categorize in this her only novel, She was herself the oddest of the Bronte siblings, practically a female Heathcliff.
This version is complex and deep and not a romance romp. I loved every minute of it. I first saw it years ago and had trouble finding it later. All the other versions disappointed me.
Although Timothy Dalton's Heathcliff in another version (1970) is the best Heathcliff (he is also the best Rochester in Jane Eyre, 1983, eleven half hour episodes, which is by far my favorite Jane Eyre).
Finally, on Amazon there is a $90 set with 10 older BBC TV series, three by the Brontes, one each by the three sisters, and five by Jane Austen. All of them are older versions, and all of them are among my favorite versions. The Ian McShane Wuthering (Emily Bronte), the Tim Dalton Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte), and the fantastic Tenant of Wildfell Hall (Anne Bronte). Wildfell is my favorite novel by a Bronte, by the way.
Black and white 182 minutes.
Heathcliff is not a nice person in this production. Just like he is not in the book. Vindictive and cruel. But as we all know he stated out in life behind the eight ball and mocked by everyone, including Kathy. McShane (Heathcliff) is dark and handsome, with a great speaking voice.
None of the characters are one dimensional in this version. Emily Bronte did not create characters simplistic and easy to categorize in this her only novel, She was herself the oddest of the Bronte siblings, practically a female Heathcliff.
This version is complex and deep and not a romance romp. I loved every minute of it. I first saw it years ago and had trouble finding it later. All the other versions disappointed me.
Although Timothy Dalton's Heathcliff in another version (1970) is the best Heathcliff (he is also the best Rochester in Jane Eyre, 1983, eleven half hour episodes, which is by far my favorite Jane Eyre).
Finally, on Amazon there is a $90 set with 10 older BBC TV series, three by the Brontes, one each by the three sisters, and five by Jane Austen. All of them are older versions, and all of them are among my favorite versions. The Ian McShane Wuthering (Emily Bronte), the Tim Dalton Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte), and the fantastic Tenant of Wildfell Hall (Anne Bronte). Wildfell is my favorite novel by a Bronte, by the way.
Black and white 182 minutes.
As many of you might know, Kate Bush wrote her song, Wuthering Heights, shortly after she and her family watched this version at home way back when.
And, intrigued, I hunted down the DVD-among all of the available versions-to see why she enjoyed it so much.
On a rainy, dreary Saturday, my wife and I hunkered down and watched all four parts (182 minutes worth). Here are my admittedly unprofessional criticisms:
The setting in the moors, while hauntingly beautiful, wasn't captured well. Everything was blurry and trembly. Yes, I understand these were 1960's production values, but this just seemed cheap and rushed. As did the residence settings and costumes.
The acting was slipshod. While the two main characters were fairly well-acted, most of the other acting was hit or miss...mostly a miss.
I won't comment on Emily Bronte's characters, though none were really likable. Another time, another place. I get that.
We sat through the entire thing but both commented later that it was pretty horrible, overall.
I'd recommend skipping this mess and just watching Kate's video.
And, intrigued, I hunted down the DVD-among all of the available versions-to see why she enjoyed it so much.
On a rainy, dreary Saturday, my wife and I hunkered down and watched all four parts (182 minutes worth). Here are my admittedly unprofessional criticisms:
The setting in the moors, while hauntingly beautiful, wasn't captured well. Everything was blurry and trembly. Yes, I understand these were 1960's production values, but this just seemed cheap and rushed. As did the residence settings and costumes.
The acting was slipshod. While the two main characters were fairly well-acted, most of the other acting was hit or miss...mostly a miss.
I won't comment on Emily Bronte's characters, though none were really likable. Another time, another place. I get that.
We sat through the entire thing but both commented later that it was pretty horrible, overall.
I'd recommend skipping this mess and just watching Kate's video.
As one so enamored with Period Piece films, I deeply regret to say that this rendering of the classic Wuthering Heights was almost unwatchable. This is as uninspired a screenplay that was ever ill-conceived in what must have been a lapse of the Screenwriter's sanity There is not a single character that you can truly have empathy for. You want to at least like the patriarch, Mr. Earnshaw, but he too is so gruff, and uncivilized that his genuine affection for the rejected Heathcliff seems almost out of place....Gratuitously violent, pitifully acted, and unskillfully cast and directed, I don't dislike anyone enough to ask them to watch this production!
There have been many takes on Wuthering Heights, but the 1967 adaptation brings a distinct flavor-less polished, more intimate, and brimming with restrained intensity. Rather than rely on sweeping theatrics, this version leans into a quieter melancholy, letting the emotional erosion of its characters echo through the moors like distant thunder.
Shot with a stark, almost stage-like simplicity, the film feels stripped down but not underwhelming. That rawness becomes its strength. With limited embellishment, the haunting core of Emily Brontë's story comes into sharper focus-one of obsession, longing, and the slow decay of hearts that cannot move on.
The performances are tightly wound, simmering instead of shouting. It's less about the violence of love and more about its stillness-the ache of it, the silence that follows where words should be. The actors deliver not with melodrama, but with presence, allowing subtle gestures and weighted glances to speak volumes.
The film's atmosphere, while modest in scope, manages to capture the emotional landscape of the novel. You can almost feel the damp chill in the air, the emptiness of windswept hills, and the hollowness left behind when love turns inward and begins to rot.
Wuthering Heights (1967) may not be the loudest or most lavish adaptation, but it lingers. It whispers, not roars-and in doing so, becomes a ghost of itself. A haunting, tragic echo.
Shot with a stark, almost stage-like simplicity, the film feels stripped down but not underwhelming. That rawness becomes its strength. With limited embellishment, the haunting core of Emily Brontë's story comes into sharper focus-one of obsession, longing, and the slow decay of hearts that cannot move on.
The performances are tightly wound, simmering instead of shouting. It's less about the violence of love and more about its stillness-the ache of it, the silence that follows where words should be. The actors deliver not with melodrama, but with presence, allowing subtle gestures and weighted glances to speak volumes.
The film's atmosphere, while modest in scope, manages to capture the emotional landscape of the novel. You can almost feel the damp chill in the air, the emptiness of windswept hills, and the hollowness left behind when love turns inward and begins to rot.
Wuthering Heights (1967) may not be the loudest or most lavish adaptation, but it lingers. It whispers, not roars-and in doing so, becomes a ghost of itself. A haunting, tragic echo.
In recent months some generous fellow has uploaded this to Dailymotion. I was getting round to purchasing the DVD at some point which is the only way I believed this was available. However it is now online so that is a boon. However, was the wait worth it? Probably not. I have seen most other adaptations of WUthering Heights. None of them really seem to hit the spot, but my favourite is the 1978 TV version because it is a complete rendering of the novel and also it highlights the gothic aesthetic and vibe of the novel which I enjoy. This 1967 version is very similar in that regard. It is a complete rendering of the novel, it doesn't just focus on Kathy and Heathcliff's relationship, it includes all the revenge and Heathcliff's decline after Kathy leaves the story. It also also play sup the gothic aspect of the story. There is a fantastic continuous gale that blows in the background of the entire thing, giving it a gusty and cosy and dark atmosphere. It is a shame that the version on the DVD and online is only a black and white print, it would have been better to see it in its original colour, alas this version no longer exists.
The main criticism which lets the whole thing down is that the character portrayals are not nuanced enough. Heathcliff comes across as almost entirely an unliveable character, we don't see any of the other side of him. The story becomes very dark with absolute no sense of redemption. And the do change some plot elements to make it even more depressing than it is unecessarily. If I could pick and choose the best elements form all the WH adaptations we may have the perfect version, but alas, on its own this is not it.
The main criticism which lets the whole thing down is that the character portrayals are not nuanced enough. Heathcliff comes across as almost entirely an unliveable character, we don't see any of the other side of him. The story becomes very dark with absolute no sense of redemption. And the do change some plot elements to make it even more depressing than it is unecessarily. If I could pick and choose the best elements form all the WH adaptations we may have the perfect version, but alas, on its own this is not it.
Did you know
- TriviaIan McShane sprained his wrist early in the filming, but struggled on to complete the mini-series.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Reader, I Married Him: Heroes (2006)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Rüzgarlı Bayır
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 50m
- Color
- Color(original broadcast)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content