Masterpiece Theatre Reviews

  • May 08, 2020

    Well written screen play. Didn't care for the actor playing Heathcliff as he either yelled or whispered.

    Well written screen play. Didn't care for the actor playing Heathcliff as he either yelled or whispered.

  • Marcus W Super Reviewer
    Apr 02, 2013

    Don't know if this was the best version. Can only judge it as a film on it's own merit, and it left me wanting.

    Don't know if this was the best version. Can only judge it as a film on it's own merit, and it left me wanting.

  • Dec 06, 2010

    supermovie this afternoon :)

    supermovie this afternoon :)

  • jay n Super Reviewer
    Apr 17, 2010

    There is a lot wrong with this version of the classic tale. First and foremost the compressing of the story into two hours, the original and best version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon only told a fraction of the book and it was of equal length, makes everything feel rushed and motivations fuzzy. Almost as damaging is the miscasting of Robert Cavanah in the lead. Heathcliff is a complex, difficult, mostly unlikable character which requires an actor of great personal magnetism to bridge that gap for the audience, Cavanah is not that guy. He just seems cruel, insane and totally unsympathetic. Orla Brady is a bland Cathy making Heathcliff's mad devotion all the more puzzling. Another sore spot no one ages! Once the main characters reach maturity their looks never change even though decades pass. The one bright spot is Matthew MacFayden whose performance is controlled and centered unfortunately his part is small and comes late in the proceedings so he can do little to rescue this woeful effort. Watch the 1939 version instead.

    There is a lot wrong with this version of the classic tale. First and foremost the compressing of the story into two hours, the original and best version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon only told a fraction of the book and it was of equal length, makes everything feel rushed and motivations fuzzy. Almost as damaging is the miscasting of Robert Cavanah in the lead. Heathcliff is a complex, difficult, mostly unlikable character which requires an actor of great personal magnetism to bridge that gap for the audience, Cavanah is not that guy. He just seems cruel, insane and totally unsympathetic. Orla Brady is a bland Cathy making Heathcliff's mad devotion all the more puzzling. Another sore spot no one ages! Once the main characters reach maturity their looks never change even though decades pass. The one bright spot is Matthew MacFayden whose performance is controlled and centered unfortunately his part is small and comes late in the proceedings so he can do little to rescue this woeful effort. Watch the 1939 version instead.

  • Dec 31, 2009

    It's jumpy and confusing even for someone who knows the story. The best part was the 2nd generation story (aka Macfayden), which is too often overlooked, but even that couldn't save this. There was no real chemistry or passion between Heathcliff and Catherine, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what the whole story is supposed to be about.

    It's jumpy and confusing even for someone who knows the story. The best part was the 2nd generation story (aka Macfayden), which is too often overlooked, but even that couldn't save this. There was no real chemistry or passion between Heathcliff and Catherine, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what the whole story is supposed to be about.

  • Oct 06, 2009

    What a sad story. What a traggic and sad touching story. I enjoyed it. I want to see different versions of the same strory. I love the end.

    What a sad story. What a traggic and sad touching story. I enjoyed it. I want to see different versions of the same strory. I love the end.

  • Sep 18, 2009

    Intense, heartrending...not the usual fairytale ending, but beautiful regardless.

    Intense, heartrending...not the usual fairytale ending, but beautiful regardless.

  • Jul 31, 2009

    i don't like it as much as the 1939 classic version ( i still think is the best.) But it is very poignant, goign through the begginning to the end. I like it better than the 1992 version though. It moved human emotions.

    i don't like it as much as the 1939 classic version ( i still think is the best.) But it is very poignant, goign through the begginning to the end. I like it better than the 1992 version though. It moved human emotions.

  • Mar 29, 2009

    sandsynligvis meget tro mod forlaeget men en smule anstrengende og overspillet

    sandsynligvis meget tro mod forlaeget men en smule anstrengende og overspillet

  • Jan 26, 2009

    Has some issues - superfluous scenes, missing explanations, shortened time line - but is otherwise good. Just not pretty to look at.

    Has some issues - superfluous scenes, missing explanations, shortened time line - but is otherwise good. Just not pretty to look at.