To her own amazement

More reviews of Wuthering Heights 2011. The New York Review of Books blog discusses it at length from the viewpoint of previous adaptations.

There are movies we watch with a particular kind of divided attention: half following the action on screen, half trying to imagine the pitch meeting at which a producer was persuaded that the film would be (profitably) similar to a recent film that did well at the box office. During the many dull passages—lengthy shots of fluttering insects and of birds wheeling over the scenic British countryside—in the latest Wuthering Heights, directed by the British filmmaker Andrea Arnold and now being released in the United States, I found myself wondering how anyone could have been convinced that what the culture needed was yet another cinematic treatment of Emily Brontë’s novel. If one counts feature films, TV mini-series, Luis Buñuel’s Abismos de Pasión (1954), and Kiju Yoshida’s Arashi Ga Oka (1988), audiences have had more than twenty opportunities to watch Brontë’s doomed lovers race across the wind-swept moors.
Then, about an hour into the newest version, it struck me: it’s Twilight! Transplanted from the rainy Pacific Northwest to even rainier rural England, deftly substituting a ghost for a vampire, the film contains many of the elements that made the screen version of Stephenie Meyer’s novel such a hit: repressed adolescent passion, self-denial, questions of masculinity, sexual competition, renunciation, romance thwarted by restrictive tribal loyalties. That’s how I would have pitched the film, and the fact that I was thinking of it while watching Heathcliff and Catherine break each other’s hearts was an indication of Arnold’s failure to capture a fraction of Brontë’s genius. (Francine Prose) (Read more)

The Tufts Daily has liked it better:

While the spare and harsh story that Arnold has created is not for every moviegoer, one doesn’t need to know the details of Brontë’s famous novel to enjoy its riches through Arnold’s reading. “Wuthering Heights” is a profound exploration of one man’s inner conflict and the way in which his struggle is further complicated by an incapacitating love for one woman. (Claire Felter)

Onet (Poland) mentions this adaptation in an article about the latest take on Great Expectations:

"Wielkie nadzieje”, czyli historia ubogiego Pipa, który dzięki szansie od losu próbuje życia gentlemana w Londynie, są jednak w Anglii sztandarowym i ukochanym przez Brytyjczyków dziełem Dickensa, a przez to niezwykle dla filmowców pociągającym, o czym świadczy wysyp produkcji opierających się mniej lub bardziej na książkowym pierwowzorze. Ta ekranizacja mogłaby uchodzić za całkiem udaną, gdyby pojawiła się kilka lat wcześniej – bo przeciętność (i może zbyt duży pośpiech wymuszony ograniczeniami czasowymi) to główny zarzut, jaki można sformułować pod adresem reżysera; to wszystko było już pokazane i czasem znacznie lepiej. Ale Jane Austen (którą ukarano "Dumą i uprzedzeniem” z 2005) i Emily Brontë (której "Wichrowe wzgórza” zmieniono na antyrasistowską pogadankę w 2011) i tak mogą zazdrościć. (Sonia Miniewicz) (Translation)

The Australian reviews Jill Roe's biography of Miles Franklin:

In 1963 Ray Mathew wrote that My Brilliant Career was "a classic (important in our literature, good in any)", and that sounds like a properly poised judgment of the book that Henry Lawson - who read it and edited it - said, a bit fancifully, was better than Jane Eyre. (Peter Craven)

We do agree that it is a wonderful book but we also think that deeming it better than Jane Eyre is indeed 'a bit fanciful'.

And now for a blunder to be found in The Independent.

You might not think of Jessica Biel, Gwen Stefani, Jordan and er, Charlotte Brontë as being like-minded souls, but these women – along with actresses Anne Hathaway and Reese Witherspoon – all eschewed traditional white on their wedding days and decided to think pink. [...]
Charlotte Brontë, though, pipped them all to the post with her dark pink (almost mauve) frock in 1854. (Rebecca Armstrong)

No, she didn't. She most certainly wore white, hence the famous description of her looking 'like a snowdrop' on her wedding day and her own words on the subject, written days before her wedding:

Of the third--the wedding-dress--I wholly decline the responsibility  It must be charged upon a sort of friendly compulsion or over-persuasion. Nothing would satisfy some of my friends but white  which I told you I would not wear. Accordingly they dressed me in white by way of trial--vowed away their consciences that nothing had ever suited me so well--and white I had to buy and did buy to my own amazement--but I took care to get it in cheap material--there were some insinuations about silk, tulle and I don't know what--but I stuck convulsively to muslin--plain book muslin with a tuck or two. Also the white veil--I took care should be a matter of 5s being simply of tulle with little tucks. If I must make a fool of myself--it shall be on an economical plan.
~ Charlotte Brontë to Elizabeth Gaskell (?), early June 1854

And for the record here are her white wedding bonnet and veil as well as a replica of her wedding dress. What the journalist may be mistaking for her wedding dress is her going-away dress, which wasn't 'almost mauve' but which does now look dark mauve and is thought to have been lavender when new, not pink.

Books Speak Volumes posts about Wuthering Heights and Don't Rain on Mondays looks at the similarities between Wuthering Heights and  Some Kind of Wonderful. LibrAngolo Acuto (in Italian) and Livros e Tsurus (in Portuguese) both post about Jane Eyre. Beauty and Lace reviews Jane Eyre Laid Bare.