First UK Reactions to Wuthering Heights 2009 ~ BrontëBlog

And now a quick overview of the blogosphere opinions about Wuthering Heights 2009 (check ours here)

GOOD

The Independent:

[T]his twentysomething viewer – and, I should declare, Brontë ignoramus – was reasonably entertained by 90 minutes of Victorian melodrama.
The screenwriter Peter Bowker should be commended for even tackling this complex story of class, revenge and everlasting love denied. The man behind the BBC’s Desperate Romantics took a Stanley knife (literally, he claims) to Brontë’s original, rearranging pages in chronological order before filleting adaptation stumbling blocks, including the entire narrator role of Lockwood. So it was left to the long-suffering housekeeper Nelly (Sarah Lancashire) to guide us through the doomed romance of Catherine Earnshaw and her Heathcliff, a foundling rescued from the streets of Liverpool.
Tom Hardy, who played the frustrated love interest as Robert Dudley in the BBC’s The Virgin Queen, was on typically fine form as Heathcliff. Darker than the skies above the “Heights”, he was at once terrifying and sympathetic, but never drifted into broody caricature. The lesser-known Teesside actress Charlotte Riley was almost his equal as Catherine, and perfectly channelling the girl’s mischievous romanticism. Meanwhile, Burn Gorman stood out among the supporting cast with his suitably reptilian Hindley, the evil step-brother.
But it was in the central love scenes that the adaptation foundered. There were enough furtive exchanges, escalating from a chaste cheek-peck to a full-on make-out session on the moors, but the sparks never really flew. The passion shared by the young protagonists was plain to see but, crucially (especially if you’re a 14-year-old Twilight fan) it was never really felt. (Simon Usborne)

The Mirror:

If the ghost of Emily Bronte had appeared on the Yorkshire Moors while they were filming this, she might well have said: "Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say."
The tale concludes tonight with Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley as the doomed lovers. Peter Bowker's adaptation has taken a great tangle of a Gothic novel and turned it into something more like a proper love story, with characters that modern viewers can understand.
Last night, Cathy's head was turned by rich and gentle Edgar, and, before she could snap out of it with her immortal line "I am Heathcliff!", her soulmate had galloped away in a massive sulk.
Three years later, having heard nothing of Heathcliff, Cathy and Edgar were married.
And this is the moment when Heathcliff returns to show off his mysterious new wealth and haircut, and exact revenge on everyone who treated him like scum - starting with Cathy's brother Hindley (Burn Gorman).
As he callously woos Edgar's sister Isabella, to spite Cathy, there are shades of the coldhearted gangster Hardy played in The Take, on Sky. A triumph. (Jane Simon)

The Guardian (not exactly good, but sort of):

First off the blocks was Wuthering Heights (ITV1). Sunday night tends to be period drama night – perhaps because everyone's so depressed that the weekend is nearly over, they want something pretty to look at rather than gritty realism– and with its wild moorland, wild hair and wild romance, the Emily Brontë classic was an ideal season opener.
Having warmed up with two successes already this year, Occupation and Desperate Romantics, writer Peter Bowker has taken few liberties, save the odd elision and some messing about with the timescale. Not that he needed to do that much, as the original already ticks many of the cinematic boxes of flashback and gothic excess. You can't beat a ghostly hand smashing though a window or a deranged Heathcliff digging up Cathy's grave.
And with a strong script and supporting cast of Sarah Lancashire (Nellie), Kevin McNally (Mr Earnshaw) and Andrew Lincoln (Edgar), Wuthering Heights is, for the most part, a class act. The only niggles are Tom Hardy and newcomer Charlotte Riley as Heathcliff and Cathy.
Despite – or perhaps because of – their reputation as two of the greatest doomed lovers in English fiction, it's not easy to make them believable on screen. Much of the drama that brings them together and tears them apart is internalised in Brontë's novel – not much help on screen. So while Hardy spends a lot of his time looking brooding and moody – and does it very well – Riley looks understandably confused. As, indeed, are the viewers.
What's missing is psychological narrative. Here, by the time Heathcliff becomes an adult, you can't see why he doesn't tell feeble Hindley to sod off, instead of mooching about, sulking and allowing himself to be flogged. Similarly, Riley struggles to capture both the obsessive quality of Cathy's love for Heathcliff and her desire for conformity, veering from passionate devotion to rational formality with nothing much in between. She seems more fickle than tormented.
Part of the problem may be that everyone is struggling to cram too much into too little. We all know money's tight these days, but trying to squeeze Wuthering Heights into two 75-minute episodes is a big ask. By my reckoning, we're only up to chapter 10, so how they'll manage the last 24 chapters tonight is anyone's guess. Still, it's worth watching to find out as, despite its faults, it's far less anodyne than many costume dramas. And with its haunting desolation and matching his-and-hers windswept hairdos, the Yorkshire Tourist Board and L'Oréal should be enjoying it, too. (John Crace)

Orange TV Blog:

Tom Hardy makes an excellent Heathcliff - mean, moody and ever-so-slightly terrifying. Charlotte Riley is slightly less captivating as Cathy - but then, I think that’s probably how Ms Brontë intended it. And once I’d grown accustomed to seeing Andrew ‘Egg from This Life’ Lincoln playing a middle-aged Victorian man with bushy sideburns, I realised he was perfectly cast as Cathy‘s husband, Edgar Linton. (...)This is an intelligently written, beautifully shot and utterly gripping adaptation[.] (Jane Murphy)

Nearesthippie

I've just seen the first episode of Wuthering Heigths! It's amazing! I'm going to have to make sure I see the next one. Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite books, anyone who hasn't read it, I'd recommend that you do.

malteeser_muncer (imdb thread):

Every creative team has its own take on what they what to bring to the final production. Personally, i would have liked a few more episodes includedin this series to touch on all phases of the story. We can't have everything, unfortunately. I do believe this version of WH is superior to most: First reason is that this is not a stylised romantic version of WH which so many of past production have been and secondly, it illlustrates the maddeningly passionate love that never dies between Heathcliff and Cathy. I enjoyed immensely it for those reasons.

Gu_C on Coffee House chat

I thought it was pretty good. They'll never get it right for everyone, there's just too much in the book, and some things would have to be left out, but it was mostly ok.

Unreality Primetime:

Peter Bowker could well have been voted Man Most Likely To Do It Well, and he didn’t disappoint with this adaptation for ITV. (...)
Bowker also took some chances by casting the relatively unknown actress Charlotte Riley in the enormously large historical shoes of Catherine Earnshaw, and although she by no means butchered the role, she wasn’t quite as convincing in it as Tom Hardy was as Heathcliff. His remit of course included much brooding and dark, tragedy inspired madness, but he managed to do it without making it seem clunky.
However, I have one niggle over the Riley-Hardy combo; the on-screen chemistry between them didn’t adequately parlay the written version of Cathy and Heathcliff’s destructive love. That all important spark-that-becomes-an-inferno passion was conspicuous by its absence, but while it didn’t damage the overall effect of this very watchable drama, it didn’t add anything to it either. (Lynn)

BAD

Letters from Lady Nakatomi:

The thing is that I liked it. Sarah Lancaster is a superb choice for Nellie Dean, the actress who plays young Cathy does a very good job. Heathcliff did not disappoint. If I hadn’t been a fan of the book, I think I would have found the telling of the story gripping. The fault for me was in its adaptation. (...)
When I got to the scene where Heathcliff hit the dog with a stone I stopped watching. It wasn’t just because there is nothing in the novel to suggest that Heathcliff at that stage was anything other than the recipient of violent behaviour but also because it is so important that Heathcliff doesn’t approach the Linton entourage at all (he wouldn’t have been welcome) - watching, at first, from a distance to see that Cathy is alright (she would have been accepted) and then rushing home to tell Nellie Dean. I couldn’t imagine how the writer could continue the tale without setting up that dynamic; and demonstrating brutality on Heathcliff’s behalf simply works against the premise in the novel that the actual cruelty lies with the Lintons’ scoring out anything unpalatable to their entitled situation.

Sarahandcocoa:

Disgusted. Well, ok, not quite disgusted .... just regretful that since they splashed out over 1 million quid to do this production, the chances of an accurate adaptation of Wuthering Heights being filmed in the next decade is zilch. It should have been the BBC. The BBC are capable of seeing an awesome novel and going, "Hey, let's turn this into a TV drama' whereas ITV are only capable of saying, "Do you remember that song by Kate Bush? Let's try and do an adaptation based on that and accredit it to Emily Bronte." The fact they began the adapatation in the middle of the novel. and then they completely wiped out the character of Lockwood and disregarded Nelly Dean's immense role in the novel is unforgivable. Then they made Cathy and Heathcliff into lusty adults rather than ten-year-olds. They forget the magic and the awesomeness of being on the brink of adolescence and the powerful feelings that this can create and so they make the novel about young adults so they can include a bit of sex. No - wrong!

GladtobeGrey (imdb thread)

Beautifully shot, lovely, unobtrusive music (for a change), but oh dear, once again so many unnecessary changes to a much loved classic.
Emily Bronte's book begins in 1801 when Mr Lockwood visits the house, has to stay the night and is disturbed by Cathy's ghost. Nellie the housekeeper later tells Lockwood the story of Cathy and Heathcliffe. OK, I can accept Mr Lockwood being cut as we have flashback in film and so this kind of story telling device is unnecessary. Such changes and omissions are of course acceptable but why change the era in which the story was set?

A Journal of Impossible Things...

For a starters they got rid of the main narrator, Mr Lockwood, who I believe is an essential character for any adaption, as he is the viewers way into the world of the Earnshaws, Heathcliffs and Lintons. They cut out a considerable amount of classic dialogue, no I'm not saying they should have read the book word for word but, some of the best known and well loved quotes were not included. But the main thing that really irked me was the fact that Cathy and Heathcliff kept KISSING. KISSING. gah! *flails in despair*. The whole point of Cathy and Heathcliff's love is that it is completely beyond any physical boundaries, it is other wordly, it is Romantic not romantic! (...)
Oh, and I'm going to be stoned for this but I hated Tom Hardy's Heathcliff. He was not dark, broody, mysterious, boisterous, cynical, charming or strong enough as I have always percieved Heathcliff to be. Or maybe it was the fact he kept kissing Cathy. And he spoke an awful lot didn't he?

Rattling on...

I only made it to the first commercial break in ITV's new adaptation of Wuthering Heights. It were right offul. Like the accents.(...)
Tom Hardy just didn't wuther my heights as Heathcliff, nowhere near menacing or brooding enough. (...)
And poor Andrew Lincoln as Edgar looked like an escapee from Middle Earth in the side whiskers that had been stuck on.
Nelly was portrayed by Sarah Lancashire. Rent-a-northerner these days. She does the one role, but in different costumes.
I didn't view on. The book is one of those I could read again and again. To see Tom Hardy digging up poor Cathy and cuddling the skeleton was too much. And, yes, of course they'd played fast and loose with the order of the story.
Maybe I'm jaded. Maybe I have great expectations (groan). Maybe I'll stick to reading.

phantomsopera-1 (imdb thread):

1) The story line was confusing, as in the way they sequenced the novel differently. It started with little catherine meeting heithcliff etc. good thing i read the book otherwise id be confused with it going back and forth.
2) I felt there was no real romance between heathcliff and cathy. Maybe just me i dont know but it just felt bland. Its a tragic love story, and your suppose to feel it and be cheering on for the happy ending at the end but there wasnt enough lovey dovey scenes to make it more heart braking. No real sence of betrayal when cathy goes with edgar.
3) also has anyone noticed? everyone is wearing old fashion costume in the drama but catherines look very modern and fashionable. She's wearing a woollie hat for god sakes! isnt it suppose to be bonnets and hair pins etc. and a bright red coat, which i swore i saw in topshop the other week.

Good and/or Bad:

Leicester Mercury:

If ITV's take on Wuthering Heights (9pm, Sunday) was an album, it'd be a grower. I watched it, twice. The first time, it left me cold. It seemed oddly empty; soulless, even. And episodic rather than fluid.
Tom Hardy's much-vaunted Heathcliff looked more like Edward Scissorhands or a minor member of Kasabian than a landowner from the Georgian era. He also spoke like a character from an Armstrong and Miller sketch: that boozy detective with the imaginary engine driver sidekick called Mr Chuffy.
Worst of all, writer Peter Bowker had played fast and loose with the structure of the novel. Characters were dumped. Scenes disappeared. Entirely new ones appeared in their place.
So, in the long, long list of Wuthering Heights adaptations, the best thing to say about this one was that it was another.
But then the nagging doubts set in. Bowker is a respected screenwriter. Director Coky Giedroyc has a Bafta on her mantelpiece. Hardy is a fine actor, and leads a strong cast. And ITV have clearly lavished some cash on the production.
If anyone was going to have got it wrong here, it was going to be me, not that lot. So I watched it again, just to make sure.
Sure enough, I had got it wrong. Second time around, Wuthering Heights was better than I credited. Yes, they've mucked about with the framework of the plot, but we shouldn't be precious: it's okay to tinker, as long as the story isn't weakened.
Hardy's performance was subtler than I'd noticed, too. And Charlotte Riley, as Cathy, brought a sparkle to the role.
She is actually northern, too, which may be a first.
Even the opening, when a restless camera swoops over the darkened moors to the sound of Siouxsie and the Banshees-style thumpy drumming, didn't seem quite so daft.
And Andrew Lincoln, as calm, mannered Edgar Linton – the flipside of stormy Heathcliff – delivered a solid performance.
He did that thing, though. That acting thing. The one he always does, when he breathes in sharply halfway through a line, and pulls a face like he's fighting flatulence.
Most distracting.

The Herald (Ireland):

Admittedly, it's more than 30 years since I read Bronte's book, but I'm pretty sure it didn't begin with Cathy's ghostly grey hand crashing through the window of Heathcliff's tormented dreams and then take an age to reel back to the beginning. Ironically, it was only when Bowker stopped reimagining, about 30 minutes in, and let Emily Bronte's imagination take over, that Wuthering Heights began to work.
A lot of it has to do with great casting. Tom Hardy makes a striking Heathcliff. His transformation from brooding, feral young romantic to bitter, twisted middle-aged man is wholly convincing.
Elfin-faced Charlotte Riley's Cathy -- so often wan and watery in previous adaptations -- is sexy and feisty enough to make you believe why Heathcliff would yearn for her to "come back" from beyond the grave.
It still looks too Sunday-night-pretty, though. Wuthering Heights concludes tonight. (Pat Stacey)