Watch Wuthering Heights For Free

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

On the whole, I agree fully with Bob-45's excellent review above, and there is little to add, except that all are perfect in their parts, definitely excelling the classic 1939 version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. Particularly outstanding are Julian Glover as Hindley and the overwhelmingly beautiful music by Michel Legrand. I must agree with Bob on the full score of 10, although the end of the novel is missing. Instead, there is an another end to it which actually rather completes the picture than robs anything from it. Filmed on location in the right surroundings, giving the right time feeling and using film technique for haunting dramaturgy, as a film version, it couldn't be better, dwarfing all later versions.

I can only imagine that the cliffsnotes picture that represents this title is because the screenplay is based purely on the cliffsnotes version of the book. The acting in this movie is lousy at best and painful at the worst. They missed the mark on pretty much every relationship and personality. At times, they were just completely making things up. What was wrong with Bronte's dialogue and plot? Not to mention the fact that they left out an entire generation and the second half of the story. Like the 1939 version, the movie ends shortly after Cathy's death with a another completely bogus fabrication. Hareton doesn't apparently survive past infancy, Linton Heathcliff never exists, and Cathy Linton is only mentioned prenatally, thus the story has no redeeming ending. Except I suppose of the possibility that Hindly and Isabella outlive everyone?? Don't waste your time on this version. The 1992 version is infinitely better, you get the whole story, accurate personalities and decent acting. Even the 1939 version has much better acting, and the passion and relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff makes sense even though it ends half way through the novel as well.

Jennel2 and Rinoa3, I am with you. I also don't want to take too much time writing about this, but here goes: Why did the movie jump from one plot point to another with no development or connection? Was it trying to be the "New Wave" Wuthering Heights? Was it just the schedule? The script? Whatever, the jumping around made it fragmented and jarring.I liked Anna Calder-whatever, although she was screechy. She was playful and wild. I'm not sure what I thought about Dalton. He smoldered and pouted very well, but his character didn't seem full to me. It felt like he was playacting. Superficial. Also, as usual, he can't maintain a consistent accent. In the first half, there was one scene, in the stable, where he had a very coarse Yorkshire accent. Other than that, in the first half, he spoke pretty much the same as in the second half, with a refined, upper-class accent. It's lame.I have to agree with whoever said that this novel can't be dramatised well. I think I liked Ralph Fiennes better than Dalton. Might have to watch them both again. And did anybody else think that Heathcliff, in the first half, bore a resemblance to Nigel Terry's Prince John in The Lion in Winter? Well, I did.All the same this movie had undeniably poignant and moving moments. Can't totally knock it. I would have liked to have been there to hear the audience gasp.

I remember reading the review of this version of "Wuthering Heights" in VARIETY in 1970. The reviewer said, "While suffering only in comparison to the 1939 classic ...". Well, I recently saw the 1939 version and this version is in every way superior. From the haunting, soulful score to the sensitive acting, to the realistic countryside, this "Wuthering Heights" is more passionate, more brooding, more obsessive. Anna Calder-Marshall did not possess the stunning beauty of Merle Oberon, but she hits all the right notes essaying the social-climbing Kathy. Those only familiar with Timothy Dalton's sour work as James Bond will be astonished at his sensitive, magnetic Heathcliff. The dowdy Flora Robson has been replaced by the buxom, nurturing Judy Cornwell. Cornwell's "milkmaid dresses" almost overflow, and she is so nurturing one almost expects her to "pop one out" and feed Heathcliff or Cathy at some critical moment. Nonetheless, Cornwell's expressive face and body language at times nearly steals the movie, but, by no means throws it off balance.Other fine performances include Ian Ogilvy as Edgar, Harry Andrews and father and Hillary Dwyer as Isabella.Even the photography, editing, and, most important, directing by Robert Fuest is superior to the 1939 version. It's especially amazing, given AIP's product at the time, that this masterpiece could be made. I don't like costumers particularly, but I watch this "Wuthering Heights" about once every two years. It's worth my time because it's THAT good.I give Wuthering Heights (1970) a "10".