Watch Wuthering Heights For Free

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Strong and Moving!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Better Late Then Never

While Ralph Fiennes is one of the best Heathcliffs I've ever seen and I was elated that the second generation was kept intact, this 1992 adaptation of Wuthering Heights left me indifferent. Accurate to the book it may be (for the most part), but as a film on its own merits, it isn't nearly as entertaining as other versions are.Juliette Binoche is miscast as the passionate Catherine, proving much too cold for the part (a problem shared with the 1939 version, which cast the equally icy Merle Oberon). It was also a mistake to have her play her own daughter, Cathy: the character is supposed to resemble her father Edgar, not her mother. Sticking a blonde wig on her is not good enough.While I'm glad the second generation is there, they rush through it much too quickly, to the point where it felt tacked on. A shame, but I'll give the filmmakers points for trying at least. It's more than the other feature length versions of the book have done.The look of the film is good, capturing the wild beauty of the moors and the genteel life of the 18th century upper class. The mood is appropriately Gothic. The music composed by Ryuichi Sakamoto is beautiful, capturing the raw emotion and darkness of the story just as well as Michel Legrand's score for the 1970 version captured the longing and otherworldly aspects. I enjoyed the framing device with Emily Bronte herself wandering the wilderness, going through an abandoned house as she begins to tell the story in voice over.Overall, not a bad film and one of the better versions in terms of faithfulness to the original text, but Binoche's miscasting bogs down the central relationship and the rushed ending takes away much enjoyment.

Great job at reconstructing the Wuthering Heights residence the way it is described in the book. As for the fact that this production tries to cover the full story, I can't help feeling that cramming so much detail in the space of just 105 minutes has chopped a story otherwise full of pathos into a mere chronology. What saves the attempt is, however, the rather excellent cast - although I must confess that, based on the book, I was expecting Edgar to be a lot better looking :D. Overall, this production looks promising but hugely unfinished. Sadly (for a fan of Juliette Binoche), not the kind of production I would want to watch again. The need for concision granted, I can still find no excuse for the particularly disappointing music. Having seen a few Stanley Kubrick productions not long ago (the music of The Shining in my ears...), I find the music of this production inexcusably drab.

Only recently have I got round to reading the Emily Bronte classic of 1847 and, having finished it, I immediately wanted to view this 1992 British film version. It is a faithful adaptation in terms of both narrative and language but, although it is filmed in North Yorkshire, both Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange are represented as much larger and grander than I had imagined them. One other criticism: the dance scene is not in the novel and is incongruous because the Grange does not do entertaining. A notable strength of director Peter Kosminsky's work is its casting. The bewitchingly beautiful Juliette Binoche plays both Catherine Earnshaw and her daughter Cathy Linton and one can imagine why a man would go mad for love of such a woman. As the tormented and cruel Heathcliff, Ralph Fiennes is credibly dark.Another great virtue of this film version is that, unlike many other movie adaptations of this enigmatic novel, it covers the whole story, rather than stopping at the death of Catherine. The novel is a long one covering three decades, so no film can depict all the incidents, but arguably the most pivotal scene is when Catherine declares her intention to marry Edgar Linton while confessing her love for Heathcliff and this scene is there in this movie.

Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite romantic English novels.That's why I was curios to see all the movies based on this book. Unfornutately, this version was a great disappointment for me, taking into consideration the actors chosen for playing Cathy and Heathcliff. Will all due respect, Fiennes and Binoche are too "soft" and unconvincing, compared with the wild, intensely passionate and powerful characters they were supposed to play. On the other hand, I think that the physical resemblance of the actors with the characters imagined in the book are also extremely important, in order to give force and credibility to the cinematographic version of the novel. For these reasons, in my opinion, the best film based on Bronte's Wuthering Heights remains the one made in 1939, with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon.