Sadly Over-hyped

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

OK - first let me say that there has been a lot of talk about this version vs the 1992 version with Fiennes and Binoche. In fact, both productions made one fundamental mistake which would have otherwise rendered each version near perfect - they cast the wrong female leads. Calder-Marshall is far too posh for Cathy. My goodness me though - Dalton is perfect as Heathcliffe. I'm going to put this down to the make up department but it's actually hard to believe that Calder-Marshall is about 3 years younger than him. I actually think she is a good actress, but certainly miscast as Cathy. What really galls me though is the screenplay which takes such liberties with the story, much of which is simply left out and a completely different ending formulated. The last time I felt so cheated was when I watched Captain Corelli's Mandolin! Bottom line - a great example of a real missed opportunity to be the definitive version...

My mother's fond memories of viewing this in the cinema as a teenager lead me to seek out this film on DVD. After seeing it, it's fair to say that the only way a person could enjoy this movie is if they are a dizzy, romantic thirteen year old who can look past the bad acting and weak production. Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall are Heathcliff and Cathy, and their casting is one of the film's main weak points. A young Dalton may look darkly handsome, but he's no match for Laurence Olivier (who director Robert Fuest clearly wants him to channel) in the 1939 William Wyler version, who simply IS Heathcliff. Merle Oberon gets routinely bagged for her work as Cathy in the same film yet next to Calder-Marshall's work she's excellent! As with the 1939 film, the entire second half of the novel is cut out, but that's the least of the film's problems. It just never manages to fire-there is no passion in this movie. The colour is washed out, the script fails in just about every scene and none of the cast are memorable. Case in point is Heathcliff's return to Wuthering Heights, a reborn gentleman after being abroad. Olivier's vengeful return is unforgettable, Dalton just walks through the door and the film continues lagging on.

I first saw this film in 1970 and it had such an effect on me I saw it three times and cried all the way home each time.In fact it still has the power to make me cry now. I remember in the cinema the gasps from the women in the audience when Heathcliffe returned to Wuthering Heights. Wow! The whole movie was so atmospheric right from the beginning with that fantastic scenery and haunting music. Timothy's portrayal of Heathcliffe is by far the most passionate and sensitive I've seen and I would have liked to have seen him in other similar roles. Naturally I have bought the DVD and also the music on vinyl-both are played regularly!One of my daughters is now a huge fan of the movie.

The two leads in this dogs breakfast are two of the worst actors it has been my misfortune to witness. I watched this open-mouthed at the ineptitude of the story telling and Daltons performance. At least he was matched by Anna's Cathy!! I have seen them in other things and they are no better, so it may not be down to the script or director, though I do not absolve them of blame. I cannot believe that anyone still casts them in anything at all. After seeing earlier representations of Wuthering Heights it makes it difficult to divorce oneself from comparing the newer versions. Ralph Fiennes appeared in another dreadful remake which was awful mainly because of the cutting and direction- the name of the actress playing Cathy escapes me. A diabolical travesty - come back Oberon and Olivier - all is forgiven!!!!