More reactions to Wuthering Heights 2009

More Wuthering Heights reactions:

MOSTLY POSITIVE:
Theodora Goss:

The new Masterpiece Wuthering Heights is unbearable, because it's Wuthering Heights, but also rather wonderful. And I've only see the first half.
What makes it so good is the actor Tom Hardy, the best Heathcliffe I've ever seen. Most versions make Heathcliffe emotional. He's a sort of emotional mess. This version doesn't: it recognizes that Heathcliffe's anguish is mental, and has as much to do with the material conditions of his life as his connection with Catherine. Most versions make Heathcliffe weaker than he should be. This Heathcliffe is smart, strong, decisive. It is his strength, not his weakness, that breaks him.
Tom Hardy seems to be one of those British actors who fade into their roles. Until I looked him up, I did not realize that he had played the Earl of Leicester, a completely different sort of character (emotional, rash, impulsive) in The Virgin Queen. And in pictures I have seen, he is once again unrecognizable as Bill Sykes in Oliver Twist.
(I think most versions make Heathcliffe emotional because he's supposed to be in love with Catherine. But even in the novel their love for each other is not an emotion. It's a sort of elemental force. Wuthering Heights is closer to Greek tragedy than anything else.)

flowergirlz_us-1 on imdb:

I loved this movie. I wasn't sure I would, but I did. This story begins differently than the book. There is no stranger that comes to the door, and who learns about Cathy & Heathcliff's story, and the kidnapping of Cathy's child comes much later. However, what the movie might lack in continuity, it more than makes up for it with romance.
Tom Hardy is an excellent Heathcliff and Charlotte Riley have tremendous chemistry. He is sexy as hell and she is downright gorgeous. The romance between them feels real, as does Heathcliff's torment.
The story moves along at a brisk pace and the story never has a dull moment.
Heathcliff's hair is somewhat of an issue, but other than that, I find no fault with the movie. It might not appeal to die hard Wuthering Heights fans who may find this movie a little more light hearted than the usual dark fare, but I loved it.
I found myself drawn in from the opening credits, and riveted till the end.
Other than the Lawrence Oliver version, which also strayed a bit from the book, I thought this was one of the best versions ever and was a beautiful, moving film that will satisfy any true romantics fantasies.

bemon1000 on bbccostumedrama:

Anyway so far the version I saw last night has been my favorite. I thought Tom Hardy was great as Healthcliff and the other actors did a great job.
Usually all the adaptations follow the book, and sometimes only do the first part of it. This one doesn’t follow the book. I think that maybe the screenwriter was thinking more about the film, than being true to the book. I know that this bothers a lot of people, but there have been many adaptations that do follow the book and don’t really translate well on screen.
For me I see them as both different mediums, and most of the time when a screenwriter doesn’t take liberties the film is boring. I read a book for one experience and watch a movie for another. This version of Wuthering Heights has been the one I’ve been waiting for.

The Cottage in the Curve:

Tom Hardy stars as Heathcliff and Charlotte Riley is Cathy Earnshaw. I think Hardy makes a fantastic Heathcliff. I'm looking forward to the second episode airing Sunday evening.
I'll be watching this one again and again.

In Training for a Heroine:

I finally managed to see the first part of the new adaptation of Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights, starring Tom Hardy as Heathcliff and Charlotte Riley as Catherine and broadcast on PBS in the USA. It will be broadcast on ITV in April in the UK.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first part. I've read the book and I like it as an object of analysis, not so much as a story, but still.
I loved the two leads, they do a really great job portraying the characters, although I'm afraid they toned down Catherine's personality a little too much for my taste. It does make her more likeable but it isn't true to the book. Same goes for Heathcliff (I for one think Tom Hardy's gorgeous, which certainly doesn't help as Heathcliff doesn't have that effect on me at all) who I thought had his fair share of intimate moments with Catherine that gave us a pretty good glimpse of what she saw in him.
I kept focusing on what they had changed during the first 30 minutes, then I managed to get over it. I'm really disappointed in the fact that they didn't keep Nelly's narrative, and Lockwood's diary, that was super important in my opinion. How often do you have a servant narrating such a story ? How often does a respectable gentleman come across as stupid ? Emily Brontë questions class very much in her book and it is practically absent here. Perhaps they thought the audience wouldn't understand since we don't live in such a system anymore - I still think it's a mistake not to take advantage of the different filters offered by the book. Here, the notion of truth is not questioned (in the book, since the story always comes filtered by at least one character, Nelly or Lockwood, even Isabella at some point, truth is very much an issue : how much do they tell us, how much do they keep from us ?) Here, nothing is as ambiguous.
Besides, Cathy Linton appears as much less stubborn than she does in the book - in the production she follows Heathcliff first and hears Nelly's warning afterwards, in the book she goes as far as Wuthering Heights on her own despite being warned beforehand. Again, mistake, although she didn't deserve what happened to her afterwards, Cathy is no angel. I liked Hareton, although we didn't see much of him. Cathy isn't as rude to him as she is in the book, again, mistake - notion of class, people. I hope they'll show more of that in the second part.
Another issue of mine had to do with the total absence of nature : where on earth is Brontë's romanticism in this adaptation? Where's the Gothic? We barely saw the moor, there's absolutely no gothic element whatsoever (problem with the timeline here, perhaps that'll be shown in the second part), it lacks supernatural, Wuthering Heights the house feels too much like yet another victorian house when it is the exact opposite. Too much realism.
I hope the second part will be wilder and transgressive. It's a difficult book to adapt, I even think it's impossible but I think the production has potential and despite my many issues with it, as I said, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Here's hoping to less likeable characters, more passion and more craziness. Wuthering Heights is a very subversive book and so far the production has toned it down just like it did for Hardy's Tess. What is it with ITV and the BBC that they can't take dark stories and adapt them as such ? We're in 2009, it's time to wake up. So no, the audience probably won't like the characters but then they weren't created to be likeable anyway, and no, the audience probably won't consider it as a feel good period drama that's nice and cosy and can be watched with a cup of tea. But really, what's the problem in that? Would it be too much to ask for a challenging story once in a while?

Flaming Pablum:

Peg and I settled in for part one of "Masterpiece Theatre"'s new take on Emily Bronte's ridiculously romantic meistewerk, "Wuthering Heights." Even though I was only one hour into my umpteenth viewing of "Thunderball," I changed the channel without complaint and started to soak in the shamelessly histrionic antics of Heathcliff, Cathy, Linley, Edgar Linton et al. And lemme tell ya, it was pretty great.

Lynn Irwin Stewart:

Anybody who loves period pieces who isn't watching WUTHERING HEIGHTS on Masterpiece Classic (which is on PBS here in the States) should either get with the program or reexamine the decision not to watch.
It sure doesn't hurt that actor Tom Hardy (THE VIRGIN QUEEN, ROCKNROLLA, SWEENEY TODD and Masterpiece's upcoming OLIVER TWIST) brings some raw intensity to the role of Heathcliff. I do declare -- I just might swoon. What is it with me and these bad boys, anyway? Wouldn't want one in real life but between the pages of a book or on the silver screen, bring 'em on.
It's funny how these classics are filmed over and over yet there always seems to be a fresh approach with the story -- or with casting -- that opens up a whole new perspective. But one perspective that does not change is that Emily Bronte's WUTHERING HEIGHTS has few, if any, equals in the "lost love" category.
And no better example of carpe diem.

Factual Imagining:

There is only one word for last night’s Part one of Wuthering Heights: WOW. 53% of those who answered the question “Which [Masterpiece Classic film] are you most anxious to see?” chose Wuthering Heights, as did I. I cannot speak for everyone else, but I know I was blown away with the production. When Tess aired in two parts, I was somewhat miffed that I had to wait a week to
watch the end; but with WH, waiting a whole seven days is going to be agony.
For as much as I disliked the book, I am quite happy to say that perhaps I was wrong about this morbid, strange tale about some very dysfunctional people. I thought Emily Bronte quite crazy after finishing her novel, which I had dredged through without much enthusiasm. Of course, I had just come off an Austen reading spree, and had recently finished Tess of the d’Urbervilles, so my abhorrence for WH at the time was understandable. It was quite a shock to my system to jump from Austen’s world of manners, sly wit, happy endings, and upstanding heroes to “Ellis Bell’s” dismal world of revenge, hatred, murder, and volatile passions. Wuthering Heights deserves another read, this time with a more open mind and better understanding of the story (and some visuals to aid in keeping the characters straight!).
Anyway, the film was near flawless, in my opinion. The music was evocative (I will find the music they used if it kills me), the scenery was raw and beautiful (just like the story itself), and the acting was superb (everything felt so natural and real). The man of the hour, Tom Hardy, gave a terrific performance as the brooding Heathcliff—-and Heathcliff is by no means your run-of-the-mill character; he’s one of the most infamous men in all of English literature. For the majority of the novel, I felt nothing but annoyance or hatred for him; pity maybe once or twice, but mostly hate. While watching the film, however, I could feel nothing but sorrow at his situation and hardships. (When Cathy was screeching his name after she had been bit by the Linton’s dog, I lost it at the moment he turned to run after her and one of the Linton’s men threatened to shoot him. They shouldn’t put such scenes in movies; highly emotional people are prone to volatile outbursts at things like that). And Cathy! How she neglected Heathcliff! It rankled me to the point
where I could no longer restrain myself and yelled “bitch!” to the TV screen on more than one occasion. Charlotte Riley, too, made Catherine come alive beautifully. Edgar Linton (played by Andrew Lincoln) wrenched a little sympathy from my heart, but I mostly loathed his intrusion into Cathy and Heathcliff’s elemental love. Hindley (Burn Gorman) was abominable, and Hareton was very attractive and Heathcliff-esque; I can’t wait to see how he evolves in Part 2. I was a little surprised at where they decided to begin the film. For anyone who had never read the book, it must have been more than a little confusing to begin with Young Cathy, Linton, and Hareton, and I was scratching my head for a some time, trying to piece all the characters together. Yet I was also surprised at how quickly it came flooding back to me once a few key points were made clear. Whether or not it was as true to its novel as Tess was, I can’t quite say.
Obviously, none of the major relationships could be altered in anyway, since the story is completely centered on the familial ties and connections between the two major families and the outside characters (Heathcliff, Nelly, and Joseph). The only glaring deviation from the novel is the absence of Mr. Lockwood—but since he served primarily as the narrator in the book, he is hardly necessary.
Part 1 of Wuthering Heights certainly exceeded my expectations. It was raw, edgy, highly affective (I am sure I am not the only one who cried), and absolutely gorgeous.

Une vieille âme:

It was amazing! Tom Hardy was a wonderful and brooding Heathcliff, that you loved in spite of his demonic ways; it was a really good adaptation of Emily Brontë's novel -- the first part was at least.

Jon from the Yahoo! Brontë Group:

Enjoyed the first part of the new WH on Masterpiece Theatre:
Casting seemed OK
Visually nice (what's/where's that house?)
Flash-back story framework is not as good as EB's (but has me hooked)
The "skeleton-hugging"... right off the bat... seemed like gothic overload (but fun that way)
Certainly seems to have lots of variants from the novel
And, certainly has a pretty Cathy for the guys, and a hunky Heathcliff for the girls...All in Yorkshire accents (but not as thick as Mick's example)
I see it as another chance for me to try to understand this story...to try to sympathize with anybody... and to try to see past the cruelty to a worthy purpose ;-0

COMME SI, COMME ÇA
coquiero on the imdb board:

I thought they removed the most interesting parts of Catherine Linton's personality and particularly the relationship between Catherine and Heathcliff. They seemed just kind of like star-crossed lovers rather than the most complex and self-destructive couple in literature.
I did like Tom Hardy as Heathcliff--he possessed the charm that is essential to his character, which I think other actors have missed and made him simply a broody bastard. He needed that seductive charm to con all those people!
I found the reversing of the timeline to be jarring--I was thinking that if I didn't know the story already I would be very confused by this adaptation.
Good atmosphere, visually it was gripping.
So all in all, it had its good points and its bad. I found it entertaining but not a masterpiece by any means.

MOSTLY NEGATIVE
Samurai Mom

I watched the first half of PBS' Wuthering Heights last night. I watched against my better judgement because I do NOT like Wuthering Heights.
I think Wuthering Heights is dark, twisted and has little to no redeeming value. It is a well written, carefully laid out compelling story. But compelling like a car wreck, you just can't look away from all the terrible things.
One woman said to me "I would just love to be loved like that."(implying Catherine and Heathcliff) I thought that was interesting. So you want to be loved in a way that causes the man who loves you to go earn his fortune in shady deals so that he can come back and drive your brother to his death out of revenge and then neglect and abuse his son (your nephew), seduce your sister in law and then torture her emotionally until she flees. Breaks your heart until you lose the will to live and die. Then the man you love abuses his own son and kidnaps your daughter forcing them to marry and forfeit their fortune to him. Eventually he dies of madness or heartbreak or just plain hate. Did I miss anything? Thanks, but I think I'll pass on that kind of love.
Catherine is incredibly selfish and irresponsible. She accepts none of the consequences of her actions and everything she does is without regard for others. She breaks Heathcliff's heart bending him on revenge, then marries Linton when her heart is Heathcliff's, expects Heathcliff to love her in spite of her marriage, no concern about Linton. Decides to die, leaving her daughter without a mother. Then she haunts Heathcliff for the next two decades. Not to mention wearing poor Nelly out.
Hindley is a pretty bad egg but would be better served with mercy than revenge. Linton is a pantywaist. Joseph is supposedly a pious Christian but is portayed ad strict and cruel. The only characters I like are Mr. Earnshaw and Hareton.
The movie thus far is pretty steamy which almost makes you forget about all the meaness in the story.

kathrynthegreat on bbccostumedrama:

I have to say, so far, I absolutely hated this version. Now, Wuthering Heights is my favourite novel ever, so I'm obviously pretty protective of it, though I do happen to believe that the novel is almost impossible to be put to film properly. It just doesn't translate, and I don't think it ever will. However, I think pretty much every version has done a better job than this one has.

TOP02001 (again) on imdb:

It was in between. But mostly kind of a miss. I don't think it captured the essence of the novel, but it had its entertaining qualities. The cast was good, but they modernized it too much. Cathy was different than she was in the novel. She was much brattier in the novel.
I also felt the narrative style was jarring. I watched it with people who had never read the books, and we had to keep pausing the television so I could explain it. They were beyond confused.
And overall, I felt it was a little too melodramatic and soapy. It was like they turned Wuthering Heights into a Harlequin. Shudders.
But, I really like Andrew Lincoln as Edgar, Mr. Earnshaw, etc...They picked a pretty good cast. I just don't think the adaptation really captured what Emily Bronte wrote. Now the 2006 adaptation of Jane Eyre perfectly captured the essence of Charlotte Bronte's novel (even with some changes in there).

Tea at Trianon:

Sunday I watched the newest version of Wuthering Heights on PBS. Sadly, it in no way compares to the quality of Tess of the D'Urbervilles that was on a couple of weeks ago. And like most contemporary versions, it pales to the artistry of the classic 1939 film starring Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon. Although the 1939 version only covered the first half of the book, it captures the obsession and passion of the attachment between Catherine and Heathcliff much more than does the new PBS version, for all the panting love scenes in the latter. That Cathy and Heathcliff carried on an adulterous relationship is not even implied in the novel. It is a novel full of subtle implications; Cathy running off to meet Heathcliff on the sly after her marriage to Edgar is not one of them. It seems to me that what gave the edge to the lovers' frustration is that their relationship was indeed unconsummated. However, it was not the physical aspect (or lack of) that caused the destruction, rather it was the psychological turmoil and interior conflict that induced the despair. Instead of honoring Cathy's marriage Heathcliff tempts her and then torments her by marrying Isabella, whom he does not care about at all except as the vehicle of his vengeance.
In the old movie as in the book, no sins of the flesh are committed, that anyone is aware of, although suppressed passion simmers in every chapter. The tempestuous climate of the moors reflects the inner tumults. The core of the evil is not in the wildness of the elements but in the addictive behaviors of the Earnshaw family. Heathcliff is as addicted to his anger and hatred for all who have injured him as much as Hindley is addicted to his drink. Heathcliff's inability to forgive, more than his thwarted love for Catherine, is what destroys most of the main characters.
The recent PBS rendition is not without its merits; it is well-cast, and includes the latter part of the book. (...)
I found Tom Hardy's Heathcliff to be so demonic that it is incomprehensible how anyone, even Cathy, could love him. Olivier's Heathcliff, on the other hand, was still worth loving, and did not seem so beyond redemption, even when he was being a wretch. I might watch the second installment on PBS; it is probably more worthwhile to curl up with the novel, or watch the classic version again.

blackriverrosi on The Brontë Soul

Emily is sneering from her grave and if her spirit walks, revenge must be uppermost in her soul. What a watered down swill of pretty pictures. Where is heathcliff, not there...........not here...............Drivel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOSTLY FUNNY:
None of your beeswax:

Last night I was watching Wuthering Heights on Masterpiece Theater, and it occurred to me that the Heathcliff/Cathy/Edgar Linton love triangle is eerily similar to the Dwight/Angela/Andy triangle (on The Office).

Categories: Movies-DVD-TV, Wuthering Heights