Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Kirpianuscus its first virtue - it is a justice act to a splendid novel. because it translate, in right manner, the darkness, the storm of emotions, the force of meets between Cate and Headcliff in the inspired manner. the fight between them, the high tension, the violent desire for who the words are only masks are present in this special adaptation. the second virtue - Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes. sure, the chemistry is an important ingredient but, more important, remains the sculpting silence. each scene is electrified. the dialogue is the clash who you imagine when you read the book. and this does it different by the other adaptations. maybe, not better. but different. and this could be seen as a form of justice act .

William Reid Grim and dark this is the perfect choice for those sick and tired of the usual sugary romcom fair. It is a satisfying but tortured arc that carries Healthcliff from relative innocence to tortured and sadistic villainy - which Fiennes would later put to good use in "Schindler's List. If the plodding and superficial movie classic from 1939 turned you off Bronte, the deeper character development and dark intensity of this adaptation will awaken you to what all the fuss was about when Bronte introduced her only novel to the world in 1847. It received a poor reception as the depiction of mental cruelty and social hypocrisy were deemed controversial to Victorian sensibilities and it is exactly this stark and harsh commentary on the times that is embraced to great effect in this movie.

Iveta Petrova Being a person fond of cinema filming and acting, dedicating years on this hobby, as acting did not become my profession I confess this is my best film. The cast is extraordinary for the roles- Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes in the main roles! Exactly one can imagine Cathy and Heatcliff. None version is so close to the book! Immense work done by the cameraman and the screenwriter introducing somebody who will tell the story. I have just look on the TV version done 2009 with Tom Hard- beautiful actor, but sweet and artificial for this role and it again remained me how good has been Ralph Fiennes in this role. If Juliette Binoche was British the film would had enormous success- because English made a big fuss of her not being English! If you find the 1992 version just look it- you will like it!

Noirdame79 I love "Wuthering Heights" as a book and I enjoy comparing adaptations. What is it about this psychologically dark book written by a brilliant but ill-fated young mid-19th century parson's daughter that compels so many to read, watch and continually adapt it into films, or even write songs about it? Is it just the need to try to capture the essence of this fascinating yet somewhat repellent story about revenge, twisted love, greed and hatred? Or is a desire to top other productions, some kind of contest to come out the winner of the best interpretation of Emily Bronte's colossal (as described by her sister Charlotte) masterpiece? After coming across the 1992 Peter Kosminsky film these questions came to mind even more so than before. Promoted on the back of the DVD cover as the only theatrical movie version to cover the novel's entirety (if only skimming the surface, as completely would be impossible), for me this interpretation of the Bronte novel fell short in many areas and had a less than authentic feel. While the house representing the Heights is obviously fake and constructed specifically for the film, the locations, as appealing to the eyes as they were, did not seem to fit the description in the novel. Along with the usual grumbles (the actors being too old, the timeline for when situations occurred in the book), Ralph Fiennes, while undeniably a formidable presence in film, was miscast as Heathcliff - singled out by some as being too "refined" for the role, he comes across as being brutal but lacking the rough and uncouthness of Bronte's anti-hero - especially in the early sequences. Juliette Binoche, as lovely and competent an actress as she is, was undone not only by her French accent, but the fact that she was saddled with playing two complex and difficult roles - that of the elder Catherine (Cathy) Earnshaw Linton, and her daughter, Catherine Linton Heathcliff Earnshaw - undermines the movie even more. Was it done for budget reasons? The blonde wig she wears as the daughter is an irritating distraction, not to mention that the younger Catherine is not supposed to resemble her mother.Jonathan Firth as the sickly, annoying Linton Earnshaw is pretty much stuck with a thankless role as Heathcliff's effete son with the silly, and ultimately equally ill-fated Isabella (played by Sophie Ward). Edgar Linton (Simon Shepard) is even more weak and pitiable than in the book or any other film adaptation I've seen. But he still seems rather colorless (pardon the expression) and seems to be trying his mightiest to stay awake during the proceedings.Jeremy Northam as Hindley isn't seen nearly enough (add me to those who feel he should have played Heathcliff instead). Northam, Janet McTeer (as faithful servant Ellen "Nelly" Dean) and to a lesser extent, Jason Riddington as Hareton were the saving grace of this film for me. I don't know if the rest of the cast tried too hard or if the director did (or perhaps a bit of both?), but for me their efforts, while admirable, can't elevate the project to what they were trying to achieve. It does seem that Fiennes himself has less than kind words for this production - an unpleasant experience, one that almost turned him off of working on films.To look at, the movie is pleasant enough. There is a feeling of a tight budget regarding costuming, hair (wigs) and interiors, but the absence of staginess that often prevailed in many of the earlier BBC television productions is a plus, as is the music score and the interesting casting of Sinead O'Connor as Emily Bronte herself, taking over as narrator which in the novel was put to Lockwood and Nelly.I do feel that this interpretation of WH is overrated, and while it covers more of the book than the classic 1939 Olivier/Oberon picture and the 1970 Dalton/Calder-Marshall production, both of those earlier renditions (speaking for myself) were far more enjoyable and better paced. If you want to see a better depiction of WH (especially the second generation comprised of younger Catherine, Hareton and Linton), check out the 1998 and 2009 Masterpiece Theatre presentations. (I'd recommend the BBC 1978 miniseries if I had seen it but it's unavailability on region 1 DVD makes it difficult). While both of those made-for-TV projects take liberties, for me they captured the book better in many respects.