Brontë's tormented tale has been repackaged and reimagined for a new generation, and it's spectacular. (...)Fans of classic literature are well aware of the fact that ‘romance’ and ‘gothic romance’ are not even close to being synonymous terms. The book is not a love story, and this film is not romantic.But disguising it as such is a clever way of emphasising the oft-blurred line between care and abuse. Being gaslit into perceiving oppression as protection, jealousy as loyalty, or vengeance as passion is built into many abusive dynamics.Hijacking expectations to control the audience’s emotional lens is an impressive feat that applies to the movie itself, as much as it does the marketing.Don’t see this movie expecting it to be ‘the greatest love story of all time’, because it’s not. But it might be one of the most moving tales in classic literature, uniquely expressed in hyper-stylised, meta-referential, cinematic glory. (Nanci Nott)
Fennell might not be of the same level of Shakespeare — she’s far from it, as she’d surely admit. But much like Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet,” she’s not trying to retell this famous tale; she’s reimagining it as the outsized, grand spectacle it has become in both public consciousness and personal affection. Her “Wuthering Heights” is a great film because it doesn’t try to be anything more than a feeling, transmitted with the utmost sincerity and beauty. It’s that same feeling that’s so deeply impactful for the viewer, the one that will make them want to go straight from the movie theater to the bookstore. “Wuthering Heights” is a reminder of just how effective and everlasting a novel can be; of the places it can take us and the multitude of emotions it can make us feel. If love is a complicated, beautiful and grievous thing, so is Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights.” How very fitting that the habitually plugged-in crowd tried to make sense of those quotation marks surrounding Fennell’s title. Brontë’s book is completely divorced from modern technology. It lives and dies by how much it’s able to make the reader feel. And in her captivating interpretation, Fennell makes her viewers feel everything. (Coleman Spilde)
Emerald Fennell has created an unapologetic maximalist take on a classic. This new version of Wuthering Heights is breathtaking, erotic, confusing, and immersive. Elegant yet brutal, this is a romantic extremity with high-quality filmmaking that deserves to be seen on the big screen. While not designed for everyone, this is a challenging work with a unique point of view that elevates what literary film reinventions can be. (Vin)
Visually, the film is striking. The estate of Wuthering Heights feels cold and isolated, while Edgar’s home is warm and refined. The contrast reflects the emotional divide between safety and passion.Fennell doesn’t soften the darker elements of the story. Heathcliff’s bitterness and Cathy’s selfishness remain intact. But instead of pushing the audience away, the film draws us in. We may not approve of their choices — but we feel their pain. (Rob Suther)
By the time the gothic melodrama ends, the movie is everything Fennell promised that it would be. From the hauntingly grotesque chemistry between Robbie and Elordi to Charli XCX’s anguished songs to Linus Sandgren’s sweeping cinematography to Suzie Davies’ unsettlingly unrestrained production design to Jacqueline Durran’s bold, fantastical costumes, the story feels as heightened as any 14-year-old’s imagination.Ultimately, it’s unnnerving. It’s overly dramatic. It’s incredibly horny. And it’s a reminder that a toxic love like Cathy and Heathcliff’s was never intended to be romantic; it was intended to be captivating. Fennell’s adaptation and Robbie and Elordi’s performances ensure this holds true. (Sarah Hunter Simanson)
Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" is less fan fiction or teen girl dreamscape than it is an ode to the romance genre. The marketing from the film implies such, featuring a poster that poses Robbie and Elordi in dramatic embrace, immediately reminiscent of the poster for "Gone with the Wind." (...)Maybe this film was made for us, by one of us. It doesn't need to make perfect sense by every viewer if it makes those of us willing to give it a chance feel something more. (Candice McMillan)
Director Emerald Fennell creates a visual scape that creates images of the characters’ feelings. At times you feel giddy, disdainful and then you feel cold chills and despondent with the film’s macabre setting and gawdy visuals. But these are to evoke specific reactions, set the mood for exactly what the characters are feeling. Certain frames look like they belong in a horror film. And then others feel like they’d fit into a period costume drama. Yes the drama feels staged at times in this genre bender, because that is how Fennell chooses to deliver the ‘angry love’ of the story. Heathcliff, a street urchin, growing up as a ‘toy’ akin to a ‘servant’ in the Earnshaw household, has just one silver lining to his life. His uncorrupted love for Cathy. But when he ‘hears her rebuke his feelings he goes batshit crazy. His idea of revenge is archaic, idiotic but still holds his glimmer of hope that he’ll be with his childhood love. Where the film actually falters is during the sequences of Heathcliff and Cathy’s extramarital affair. The writing and editing feels a little rushed and underwhelming. It comes during the third act of the story and that’s why it feels like an absolute betrayal for someone who may have invested in the otherwise, deep and manic love story.
Overall, Wuthering Heights is, if nothing else, an ambitions and self-assured film. Personally, I quite liked it, but I could see why others might not, considering it sloppy, disjointed and containing too much of Fennell’s vision and not enough of Bronte’s. In the end though, I can’t do otherwise than praise a film that has such a strong authorial imprint and I suspect that even many film fans that don’t like this film’s aesthetic will at least find some value in giving it a look. (Tim Fak)
With a solid cast and stunning visuals, Fennell's "Wuthering Heights" is a perfectly fine film that relies more on the production value than its source material. Hopefully, seeing this on Valentine's Day will make you appreciate the healthy, stable relationships in your life. (Joseph A. Wulfsohn)
Some moments are shocking, both in their fun but also in their grossness. While it makes the movie an artful and thoughtful affair, it also means it may not be an appropriate choice for a romantic date night for Valentine’s Day this year, which is clearly what the marketing has been positioning the film as for months.In all, Wuthering Heights is an effective piece of cinema that’s made with great care and dedication. Whether weirdness is part of your own love story will greatly influence how much enjoyment and entertainment value Fennell’s newest work will bring you. (Tyler Collins)
I'd say if you can get over the fact it does take some liberties as a modernisation of a novel from 1847, Charli XCX's soundtrack for example immediately feels out of place but grew on me as it went along which I think i even outright appreciate looking back on it now, then "Wuthering Heights" is a gorgeously put together treat for the senses. There's not quite the level of devilish debauchery on display that Saltburn had going for it, nor does it have the biting satire of Promising Young Woman, so with that I'd say for me it's easily Emeral Fennell's weakest so far. But she still shows plenty of that talent for filmmaking that put her on the map to begin with and if that's not enough there's enough eye candy outside of the technical stuff in the form of Jacob Elordi and Margot Robbie to keep everyone happy this Valentine's Day. (Kieran Battams)
With a greater emphasis on sexuality, even during scenes that depict mental and physical cruelty, this is where the director of Saltburn leans into her strengths, resulting in a problematic tone. You can see this dysfunction from its opening minutes that features someone getting hung in front of the public that starts acting like they’re in a rave, all the way through the climax where tragedy moves at a snail’s pace. For all the lavish visuals from DP Linus Sandgren and the exquisite production design from Suzie Davies that evokes the work of Derek Jarman, you can applaud the modern ambition that defines itself from other versions of Wuthering Heights, even if it amounts to nothing. (Rory Wilding)
This is an abridged adaptation, equal parts understandable and baffling. If you’ve read the book, you probably have a good sense of where the film chooses to end. Robbie and Elordi play these moments with great care and emotion, aided by several genuinely moving callbacks to their time together as children. It can’t quite salvage the movie as a whole, but it’s an affecting, devastating moment to end on.And it’s nice to have hot people on screen being hot together. I don’t say that lightly or glibly. There’s been a dearth, in recent years, of onscreen lust and passion, replaced, instead, with empty noise machines and extended cinematic universes and neuroses masquerading as flirting. “Wuthering Heights” brings the heat — even if it can’t quite justify why it lit the match in the first place. (Johanna Lester)
Wuthering Heights isn’t the period drama that we all wanted back on our big screens, but truthfully it isn’t far off from one that I’d love to see. Emerald Fennell works with many talented people behind the scenes to help the movie be one of the best films we might get visually this year, especially for a movie of its kind. It’s safe to say that she should easily team up again with everyone involved, but maybe next time just make an original movie to save herself the controversy. (Christopher Mills)
Gone is the ghost story — Cathy, tap, tap, tapping on the window. Fennell is less interested in the metaphysical aspects of the tale than the straightforwardly physical: men are whipped and women are bridled. Characters plunge their fingers suggestively into jelly, dough and egg yolk. Fennell is after — and gets — giggles, not gasps. During the love scenes you half-expect the camera to pan and reveal Leslie Nielsen caressing a potter’s wheel like the Naked Gun spoof of Ghost. (...)Like her other films, Promising Young Woman and Saltburn, Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is a work of posh-girl provocation: intent on pushing as many buttons as it can, mistaking Brontë’s effect for her intent. Provocation is just people-pleasing upside down — it has the same empty rattle. A wind whistles through the centre of this film, and not the Brontëan kind. (Tom Shone)
Keith and the Movies: (2 out of 5 stars)
The rest of the story erratically bops from point to point, force-feeding us a wild array of emotions that always feel more contrived than organic. Following along is never easy because there’s never a steady measurement of passing time. Worse are the gaps in the story that lead to bizarre character shifts with little buildup, as well as undercooked relationships that never make sense. This is especially true for the increasingly mopey second half. (...)Whatever the goal, it’s hard to see 2026’s “Wuthering Heights” pleasing longtime fans of the novel or drawing new fans to it. But even if you take away its literary inspiration, Emerald Fennell’s latest even fails as a simple melodrama. The choppy storytelling impacts everything, including the characters who are left shuffling through ambiguity and absurdity. This despite the efforts of Robbie and Elordi, and great supporting turns from Alison Oliver and Hong Chau. (Keith Garlington)
Even other adaptations of Brontë’s work, while not all of which were by-the-book adaptations, were much more palatable than Fennell’s.In the years since, it seems almost as though Fennell has forgotten about the consequences of Heathcliff and Catherine’s sadomasochism and selfishness, as she ends the film with Catherine’s death. There is no pining, no ghosts, and the “passion” is laughable at best.A bit on the nose, but to show how much Catherine’s father drank, the scene where he is found dead takes place with a background of mountains of bottles. Or the very odd “dog play” that is put on show for Nelly (Hong Chau) when she comes to take Isabella (Alison Oliver) away from Wuthering Heights after her marriage to Heathcliff. Even the iconic “Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same,” or the “You said I killed you — haunt me, then” are delivered with such lacklustre that one almost misses them if they are not on the lookout for it.I would have been fine had Fennell not dragged the name of a beloved author into her “retelling”. Slap on an avant-garde sticker along with a five-foot restraining order from Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, and the film would not have been so triggering. Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is confusing at best, a rage-bait at worst.For lovers of Brontë or literature, I have but one advice when watching Fennell’s work: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. (Insha Jalil Waziri)
If by some miracle (perhaps by closing their eyes) viewers can get past the repulsive production design, they are left with an even worse script to follow along with.
The only oasis of competence in this ocean of mediocrity is Hong Chau as a quietly nuanced Nelly, Cathy’s housekeeper. Every time she appeared I thanked the gods there was finally something worth watching.
What was Emerald Fennell (“Salt Burn,” (sic) “Promising Young Woman”) thinking?
If she had gone totally unhinged, and given us a Gothic-vibe smut-fest B-movie, that would at least have been something creative with the source material that a lot of people would enjoy for Valentine’s Day weekend. She could have leaned into the fact this is a terrible film and allowed it to be somewhat fun to watch by owning that fact. (Alexa Chipman)
The book’s influence is only a tiny whisper behind the big spectacle of making a classic shiny, sexy and new. That feels like the only point to the film – to shock the audience by being raunchy and flat-out strange. Oddity can make an already interesting film great, but here it overpowers the story until it stops having meaning.There were parts of the film that evidently tried to make the audience shed a tear or two, but the writing was ridiculous. None of the characters’ struggles are made substantial enough for the audience to care if they achieve their wants or not. This loose adaptation turns powerhouse actors like Robbie and Jacob Elordi, who plays the rugged adopted brother turned love interest Heathcliff, into laughable soap-opera-esque characters that only young teenagers could relate to. (Bela Parrett)
The same student newspaper publishes a much more positive review of the companion album by Charli XCX:
0 comments:
Post a Comment