Wuthering Heights - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Wuthering Heights Reviews

Page 2 of 13
½ August 9, 2014
A mais crua e poderosa versão audio-visual da obra clássica de Emily Bronte.
½ August 8, 2014
Andrea Arnold (la directora de la estupenda "Fish Tank") se arriesga con la adaptación de la inmortal novela de Emily Bronté "Cumbres Borrascosas", que ya habían dirigido grandes como David Lean y Luis Buñuel. El resultado es irregular: los actores dejan mucho que desear, pero la sensualidad de la cámara y la atmósfera de animalidad, pasión y peligro son sobresalientes.
½ August 8, 2014
Andrea Arnold (la directora de la estupenda "Fish Tank") se arriesga con la adaptación de la inmortal novela de Emily Bronté "Cumbres Borrascosas", que ya habían dirigido grandes como David Lean y Luis Buñuel. El resultado es irregular: los actores dejan mucho que desear, pero la sensualidad de la cámara y la atmósfera de animalidad, pasión y peligro son sobresalientes.
½ August 3, 2014
This was a very welcome alternative to the typically theatrical adaptations of Wuthering Heights. There was very little dialogue, and I suspect the film might not work so well for viewers who have not read the book. Yet this allowed the essence of the book to be captured with greater accuracy and depth than other adaptations have managed. The pace was unhurried, allowing space for emotions to be portrayed, developed and captured. Much of the film was shot on the moors with a handheld camera, the only soundtrack being the harsh westerly winds. It felt very raw. I still felt that the dark heart of the book was not fully exposed. There were glimpses of Healthcliff's violence, but the complexity and depth of his dark personality was not fully captured.
½ July 22, 2014
Couldn't even recognize the story. Seems like the directors wanted to be clever and make the plot more 'current' by having Heathcliff portrayed by a Black character. Might have worked for me if the filming itself wasn't so strange. Too dark and black - the original is dark enough!!
½ June 4, 2014
On top of confusing directing, editing & acting, tedious.
May 5, 2014
I was so disappointed. The direction was unfocused. Heathcliff was reduced to a stalker. Catherine was just a mean little girl he hung out with. I was disgusted. This adaptation missed the entire point.
February 18, 2014
The english moors are raw, gritty and turbulent in this beautifully photographed, visceral, re-imagination of the 150 year old novel about, class, race, education and cultural differences getting in the way of love. Most of the dialogue is stripped to it's bare bones and sometimes difficult to understand, but the imagery and mood are so expressive, that the film could even work without it. For me, the standout performances were the two young actors Shannon Beer and Solomon Glave.
½ February 7, 2014
Very disappointing. worsted adaption I have ever seen
Super Reviewer
December 30, 2013
There is one trend that characterizes modern cinema: women are braver than men. Period. Even if it is predominantly a male-dominated industry, new female talents have risen around the world, grabbing a camera, taking a concept and reinventing it. For some reason, throughout the decades (all the way through Maya Deren and Chantal Akerman), they defy mainstream audiences. Artistic payback? Haha, I don't know. That would be a pretty good reason though.

Being serious now, I'll begin with the most typical concerns regarding this film (and these kind of film projects in general), I'll proceed with why this is definitely among the Top 5 masterpieces of 2011, and conclude with a fair statement.

The complaints I hear are strikingly similar to those against Carlos Reygadas:

- "The shaky camera bothers me." --> Such minimalist tone works for some and upsets others. Given the context of the film, I think it works wonderfully. The cinematography is otherwordly and I think it perfectly suits the cold tone of the movie and the time and space in which the story is set.
- "Animal cruelty is revolting." --> As stated in the final credits: "No animals were harmed as a result of their participation in this production." Terrific work they did bringing along realistic effects, huh? Animal trainers exist so that dogs are not harmed while being hanged in a particular way, before you bring that up. Also, you cannot prove that the duck's feathers were actually being taken off.
- "There are absolutely zero likeable characters." --> My response here depends. If you are expecting characters to appeal to your perception of humanity or to your personality traits, that's the most arrogant statement you can make filmwise. If you are saying this because you find trouble empathizing with the characters and thus feel alienated from them, then that's understandable. I'll elaborate on this.
- "There are far way better adaptations out there, and more faithful to the original novel." --> If I have to spell you out the basics of how there exists artistic freedom in the process of film adaptation, and how literature and cinema are meant to be taken as separate media, you should go back to primary school and therefore do not belong to any film-reviewing site, with all due respect.
- "The film is too slow." --> Welcome to independent cinema.
- "I was expecting more emotional involvement, and more romance." --> If you go to see a film expecting to see something specific, you should never watch a film again. However, I would recommend William Wyler's excellent classic.

Andrea Arnold, just like Breillat, Bigelow, Ramsay, Campion, and other challenging names, upsets the majority of the male audiences and pleases the majority of the female audiences (hmmm... interesting) with an hypnotic journey full of rotten characters towards which we were not meant to empathize with. With none of their life contexts provided, we see foul-mouthed people and a revolting act after another. Such sequence of events and psychological profiles are most probably meant not to lead to anything good, and as expected, such is the outcome: resentment, passion, revenge and tragedy. Would Brontë accept this alternate take? I actually think she would!

Like the snowy landscapes, like the pouring rain, the film is desolate, intentionally alienating, and has "veins of ice", as stated in the film to one of the characters. The only sign of purity seems to be Nature itself with its wonderful and colorful features being displayed with an attention to detail worthy of Terrence Malick while we see characters devoid from civilization being subject to either internal or external demons and fighting against them. Perhaps Andrea's directing decisions came out from the fact that this is a popular story known by masses, and therefore used such prior knowledge to gain more artistic freedom, and the result is bold and engrossing. She created an absorbing microcosm of a rural 19th-Century England.

Like Chaplin said once: "People think too much and feel too little." There's much more to feel in a film than character development!

½ December 29, 2013
Cumbres borrascosas [2012]
½ December 23, 2013
I could go either way in excusing the flaws of Andrea Arnold's "Wuthering Heights", praising its unquestionable visual beauty and ubiquity while ignoring the weirdness and inconsistency of the ultimate work. In a day when every third movie out there is a remake of '70s horror or a grim imagining of a campfire fairy tale, Arnold updates the 1847 Gothic novel by Emily Bronte -- sister of Charlotte, and her only published labor -- with a messy rawness and passion for bygone idyllic charms, which she meets with a neoteric sexual soul, one stuffed with bleak and haunted images that do nothing short of stir.
November 26, 2013
Love WH in lit form. Not as much here.
November 9, 2013
Andrea Arnold's take on a classic is raw, refreshing and totally original. Unlike other stuffy period dramas this film is honest, gritty and emotion charged. The director has chopped major parts of the book out but I think it works as we nearly totally focus on the doomed and tragic relationship of Cathy and Heathcliff. Told basically in two parts, the first part, the teenage years I found more compelling but there is plenty to digest in the young adult years of the star crossed lovers. The cinematography is astonishing and simply breath taking. Combine that with the work of a visionary director and you have a fairly unique film.
½ November 6, 2013
I should have learned by now that this great book does not transfer to film well. Boring as hell to watch this story play out in screen. This version showed some promise, but then it cut out the whole third act of the book - Come on; Heathcliff going nuts is the best part.
½ October 11, 2013
Very hard slog from start to finish.
October 7, 2013
nice adaptation of the novel
½ October 6, 2013
Didn't realize how F-ed up Heathcliff and Cathy are from the Olivier version. Beautifully, starkly filmed, but the minimal dialogue works against the movie, making the main characters uninteresting for the majority of the movie. I think it's a brilliant deconstruction of a "love story." These characters proclaim their love for each other, but they are too selfish to truly love each other. Unfortunately it all unfolds quite dully. The adult actors were solid, but I thought the younger actors were the standouts. I must say the photography was very sensually filmed; unfortunately the minimalist approach is taken too far and works against creating interesting characters.
September 4, 2013
Dull and confusing version of the Emily Bronte classic, despite attempting to make it more edgy. Starts quite slowly, and vaguely, hits its stride in the middle, and falls apart at the end. The edginess is about the only positive, but it does feel like a hard slog to get through.

Kaya Scodelario is OK as (the older) Cathy but James Howson is unconvincing as (older) Heathcliff and contributes greatly to the dullness of the movie.

And, hey, where was the Kate Bush soundtrack?
Page 2 of 13