Reactions to Wuthering Heights 2009 (IV)

Reviews and comments continue to trickle in:

MOSTLY POSITIVE:

Emily on BrontëBlog:

Oh, I loved it from beginning to end. Part 2 was incredible. Haunting, sad, frustrating, devastating. If it had been a full hour and 1/2, it would have been perfect. I wanted to see more of Heathcliff holding Cathy in bed when she's dying, as that is the consolation the reader/viewer gets for sticking with these two after her marriage to Edgar. That is what keeps us hopeful about their love. That and seeing them together after death watching from the window. But Tom Hardy hit it out of the park. He was truly Heathcliff. I thought Charlotte grew into the role and she was quite great. I loved Burn Gorman. He was fantastic in this part as well.

Hammyflirt on IMDb board:

Even though, imo, part 2 was a let down compared to part 1, I thought the beginning started off decently until about halfway through when it seemed to go at hyper speed with the story. I think a half hour more would have done wonders and allowed the scenes to breath a little better and show more details. I think the acting throughout was all good, esp. early on when Cathy, Heathcliff and Edgar have their confrontation and she is supposed to choose between them. I also liked how Tom Hardy was able to restrain his emotions in certain scenes, but still show his anguish and in others be extremely volatile and unhinged. Though it was a good balance so he didn't come off as an over acted monster. Liked when he is at Cathy's coffin crying and the way he says he can't live without his life and soul. Instead of almost shouting or being too melodramatic, he keeps it somewhat subdued but not dull or boring either. So I guess there were some good scenes in part 2 even though I definitely think it was too rushed at the very end.

Zebrasnake-1 on IMDb board:

I seriously enjoyed pt 2 a lot, in some ways more than pt 1. In pt 1 heathcliff was a lumbering open sore wound, in pt 2 he was a a more well-honed instrument, though starts to rust after his goals are met/
fantastic work by hardy, good work by most of the other crew as well. I would have liked a stronger actress for cathy, i did not feel the chemistry from her end and she just seems a spoiled child.

Fleurfairy on IMDb board:

I thought Part 2 was amazing. Charlotte was alot more passionate as Cathy as you see the jealousy starts to chip away at her and she becomes more unhinged. She was Cathy, in my opinion. Tom Hardy was spectacular. This man is going places! I thought the "Cannot live without my soul" speech was excellent. Restrained, yet very emotional. I literally gasped when Hareton and Catherine burst into the room and see him on the bed. I thought the ending was beautifully done as well. All in all, a great adaptation.

Omnifox on Barnes & Noble Book Clubs:

I have to say I really enjoyed the movie over the book. It was a bit of a departure in how they choose to retell the story but I found it easire to understand all that was going on. The book was one I just could not get into. Very diffrent from Tess. All the characters in this book seemed sellfish and insane. Maybe that was the point of the novel to show how love makes you do crazy things. Very dark. I enjoyed seeing how the plot played out on screen.

MOSTLY NEGATIVE:

In Training for a Heroine:

Flat is the first word that comes to mind. I gave my lenghty opinion on the first part on this same blog so I'm not going to say it again as I have the same issues with it.
I was shocked to see the little time given to Hareton and Cathy's relationship, and more specifically to the absence of such a relationship. The made it seem as if Cathy had always been in love with him which is so not true to the book. I've already talked about this in my first post so I'm not going to repeat it but really, I was hoping for something more.
Catherine and Heathcliff stole the show, as was expected. It disappointed me very much as the book doesn't only focus on them. Poor Nelly, she didn't have much screen time although she's one of the main characters in the novel. The whole thing was too simple and wasn't nearly as crazy as the book, one scream of pain, however powerfully done, does not craziness make. The gothic was barely here, Catherine's ghost made but a short apparition and I couldn't find any difference between the supposed moor and any other country landscape. The music could have supported that but all we had was a score which I agree was beautiful but was only supporting the love story. I disagree. Wuthering Heights is more than that, Bram Stoker used Heathcliff as an inspiration for Dracula. Well, he sure couldn't have used Tom Hardy's Heathcliff for that, all the characters looked very much grounded in reality when it's a novel of excess and surfeit.
There's no questioning the actors' talent, they were all excellent in portraying the characters, it's the script and TV restrictions that are to blame. A longer, more passionate adaptation would have been refreshing and would have introduced new people to an original, shocking story. There was barely anything shocking in what we were shown and I for one won't be buying the DVD.

Cmwerb on PBS Discussions:

At last! A place to share my thoughts on this ill-conceived, embarrasingly executed and generally dismal butchering of a literary masterpiece. Where to begin - wooden acting, bad pacing, worse screenplay, no direction, zero character development. I can't recall a more dislikable and evil Healthcliff than Tom Hardy, or a more grating and obnoxious Catherine than Charlotte Riley, whose dubious acting ability, particulary in portraying any kind of emotion (i.e., jumping up and down or periodically flogging herself in the face when happy, sad, angry - you get the picture) made me cringe.
In the end, we don't care two pins for the fate of this star-crossed pair because they are truly self-absorbed and utterly unlikeable characters whose emotional connection and obsession with each other was neither firmly established nor particularly believable.
I've seen many wonderful renditions of the classics on PBS but sadly, this wasn't one of them. It was little more than a sleazy, transparent attempt to repackage a piece of classic literature as modern day trash TV. Shame on you, Masterpiece Theatre!

w001jep on Barnes & Noble Book Clubs:

Call me old school, but I like to see an "adaptation" come as close to the original as possible. After all, the book is still in print after almost 200 years, so Emily must have done something right. Why would the "screenwriter" think he could tell a better story than Ms. Bronte? Or, if he does, possibly he could write his own novel and hopefully, it would still be widely read in 150 years. What happened to Hindley? What happened to Isabelle? In the book, it's explained, even if in passing. If you haven't read the book, you are left wondering how these two fared. Heathcliff shot himself? I've tried and tried, but I can't find that in the book. He died of madness, (with no shot) if you must put a name to it. Or, possible Kathy got him. You don't quite know.
Mr. Hardy projected cruelty, not anguish. This Kathy must have been a masochist (since you want to drag this novel of darkness and supernatural into the 20th century) to have been attracted even in the beginning to his unfeeling (even before his abuse by Hindley, because, remember how long he was at the farm with the love and regard of the father) Heathcliff. I found him a lout, while Ms. Bronte wanted us to feel his passion, his conflict. Give me Ralph & Juliette, or even Merle and Orson any day. Ms Riley certainly showed more passion, albeit fish-wifey, and certainly died well.
Perhaps the screenwriter thought it would appeal to more modern sensibilitits to include more sex and play down the self-control expected in that time (even though those people were just as lusty as they are now, they seemed to deal with it better). I say less sex, more story.

Categories: Movies-DVD-TV, Wuthering Heights