Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

sapphire Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite books of all time, having reread the book multiple times. I've seen most of the adaptations, none could really adapt, yes Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights kept both generations and the 2011 one had a dark-skinned Heathcliff but none showed as much respect for the book as this one. The 1978 BBC miniseries is fanatic to the book and every charter is kept in this one. All actors brought to life the charter, my personal favorite being Kay Adshead as Cathy, just the right balance of mischief and passion, also Ken Hutchison as Heathcliff makes me hate him and sympathize with him every time I watch it. It's not perfect, Nelly is to old, Isabella is skimmed over but if (like me) you love Wuthering Heights and have been let down by other adaptations, please give this one a try.

TheLittleSongbird It's not entirely flawless. The beginning did seem a little too awkwardly staged and acted and there are some strange camera angles here and there. Richard Kay's Lockwood did very little for me too, the character's appearance is brief here but Kay's performance failed to register. However as an adaptation of one of literature's classics(but also one of the most difficult to adapt) there isn't a closer adaptation of Wuthering Heights available, in detail and spirit it's incredibly faithful and has the long length and deliberate pacing of the book just right. Standing on its own, apart from some imperfections in the early parts it's really good and is in the top 3 best versions(not sure how many people are going to agree with this) along with the Olivier and Robert Cavanagh versions, and I've seen almost all of them. None of the adaptations of Wuthering Heights are bad though, even my least favourite the 2011 version. Most of the camera work is fine once the adaptation finds its feet and generally it is a very atmosphere adaptation visually. The dark interiors and evocative scenery really set the tone of the story really well, and you can feel the atmosphere of the period too. The costume design is well done as well. The music score is haunting and not too intrusive, though the Cavanagh, Timothy Dalton(especially this one actually) and Ralph Fiennes adaptations have better and fitting scores. The script is literate and thought-provoking with a lot of Emily Bronte's prose and with its passion and feel too, it was great to spot the great iconic lines. The story is even with the length and pacing very compelling, because of how faithful it is- from memory it's the only adaptation to have the complete story- it feels coherent and complete instead of jumping about like the Dalton and Fiennes adaptations did. The chemistry between Heathcliff and Cathy is passionate and the intensely dark and emotionally harrowing nature of the book is here. The acting is not bad at all and while theatrical in places it doesn't jar too much. Pat Heywood gives the adaptation's most consistent performance, and it's a great one, though David Wilkinson is a charming Hareton and John Duttine relishes the tormenter side to Hindley's character but shows the tormented side quite well. David Robb is affecting as the meek Edgar, Isabella Linton is very nicely played too and Brian Wilde is always good value. Ken Hutchison is not my favourite Heathcliff(top honours go to Dalton) but is suitably menacing and pained, and Kay Adshead has a charm to her but doesn't underplay Cathy's spitefulness and such. Overall, in many ways a winner of an adaptation and while not perfect it satisfies on its own merits too. Yes it does have a bit of a slow start but picks up quickly so stick with it. 8/10 Bethany Cox

urbisoler-1 I have to say that this is the truest version of Wuthering Heights that I have ever seen and I have seen quite a few (but not all). I must begin, however, by telling you that I just happened to see this version being played on television (Bravo channel) quite a few years ago. I quickly found a video tape (not a blank one unfortunately) and recorded what was left of the first segment after fast forwarding past "Making the film Jane Eyre 1996". Bravo channel was new to TV, non-commercial and showed mostly movies, foreign if I recall correctly. There are periodic blank segments from this broadcast which is rather annoying but not much dialogue is lost. There is also a background humming noise that detracts seriously from the enjoyment. Segments 3,4 & 5 run reasonably smoothly but the sound recording leaves much to be desired. I miss a lot of dialogue. In addition, Joseph speaks in dialect and I don't know that I will ever be able to understand much of what he says. I would desperately like to have a clean video of this most impressive rendition of Emily's masterpiece but there is no way I would relinquish what I have now, as poor as it is. It never ceases to amaze me that the 1939 version of W.H. is considered THE classic. How is that even possible? For openers, it is only half the story. Second, Hollywood has made it a love story which it is not. It is Heathcliff's tale and a tale of obsession. Third, Olivier and Oberon are too mature, too cultured, too well groomed to play the these rustic, young, wild hearts. Joseph says early in the '78 film that Heathcliff bears the mark of the devil. That is how the part should be played. What that tells us about Emily Bronte I hesitate to say. Terrific film.

oleander-3 An adaptation of Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" that actually shows us the story like it is. The people at the BBC are true masters at making film versions of classic novels. I've seen every film of WH made (except for the '98 one, which I have yet to see), and the '78 version is by far the best. Judging by the lack of votes and information, I'm guessing this miniseries is not very well-known. Which is a shame, because of all the versions I've seen this is the closest to the novel. And it should be--it's five parts, each part just under an hour. The sets aren't too flashy--they give you just the right feeling that the novel has. As well, the music fits in with the scenery and sets, dark and foreboding, just like the moors around the house. And speaking of the house, this isn't some small castle like in the '92 one, it's a large HOUSE, looking just the way it was described. And the cast! The acting was incredible. I felt as though I were watching the real characters from the novel. While there are some well-knowns such as Ken Hutchison, Pat Heywood and Cathryn Harrison (Rex Harrison's daughter), there were also many for whom this was their only film. Francesca Gerrard made a pretty young Catherine Earnshaw, and Dale Tarry a dark and handsome Heathcliff. Both of them portrayed the young lovers wonderfully. I loved the numerous scenes with them out on the moors. And John Duttine made a fantastic Hindley. It's amazing how young he looks in the beginning and the way he looks in his last days! Kay Adshead and Ken Hutchison were perfect as the older Catherine and Heathcliff. Unlike Anna Calder-Marshall from the 1970 WH, Kay Adshead didn't annoy me in her portrayal of the selfish and spoiled Catherine. And yes, Timothy Dalton DID make a good Heathcliff, but I liked Ken Hutchison better, as he was more menacing without actually being violent towards everyone, and he expressed the pain so well after Catherine died. The scene where he digs up the coffin is effective and heart-wrenching. I think Hutchison also would have made a great Mr. Rochester. Pat Heywood was EXACTLY as Ellen Dean should look, and of course, great actress that she is, she did the part just right. I won't go into them, because I'd be writing forever, but the ones who played Joseph, Edgar and Isabella also did marvelous jobs. For the second half of the novel, Cathryn Harrison plays the beautiful Catherine Linton. She looked and acted just like in the story. Though his name doesn't appear on the credits above, Andrew Burleigh was quite good as Linton, and I can't imagine anybody else but David Wilkinson as Hareton.As a 17 year old female I'd have to say my favourite people were Dale Tarry and David Wilkinson (both IMHO, incredibly handsome). I digress, but I had to get that in there. My favourite parts were 1, 4, and 5. Part 1 focuses mostly on the young Cathy and Heathcliff playing on the moors, and ends with the part where Heathcliff shouts "God won't have the satisfaction that I'll have!" Part 4 and 5 I also loved, as they showed Catherine Linton's marriage to Linton and after his death, her gradually growing affection for Hareton. The part where she kisses his forehead and when they actually become friends was so sweet. And so was the part where they were reading together. Heck, any part where I got to gaze at David Wilkinson's handsome face was a part I loved. (No, I'm not some obsessive weirdo--I sadly haven't seen him in anything else). Anyway, I've raved on enough. I'm not saying this film isn't without its faults, but they are very few and not really worth mentioning. If you loved the novel, do yourself a favour and try to see this version. This is the real "Wuthering Heights" that would make Emily Bronte proud.