This message has been deleted.
-
thegreatgazoo-1 — 16 years ago(January 31, 2010 06:30 AM)
I wouldn't say laughable but having just seen WH for the first time yesterday I came away unimpressed.
Several posters here are projecting the brilliance of the book onto the movie which I think is flawed thinking because a great movie should stand on its own. BTW, I haven't nor do I plan on reading the book.
Other posters have mentioned the movie doesn't live up to the book.
I tend to agree with the concept of the movie being rushed with no real development of the characters. I didn't really care at the end if Cathy and Heathcliffe lived or died.
Al this is IMO and you're free to ignore it.
Edit
So, a few days later after some research I learn the movie completely ignores the next generation aspect of the book. That explains the bizarre and rushed ending of the movie. In any event, I still think the movie is lame. -
ath-11 — 14 years ago(March 23, 2012 06:12 PM)
You may be confusing Heathcliff and Cathy from the newspaper comic strips by the same name. It's a common mistake: a fat, lazy housecat who has delusions of being a royal heir, and a ditzy, frantic girl whose boyfriend won't marry her and who makes all around her miserable.
"and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."
-
Greenteeth — 14 years ago(March 23, 2012 06:59 PM)
I read the book long before I saw the movie and I still prefer the book. I thought most of the movie was outstanding. The last third of it was way too melodramatic for my taste. To be fair, it would be hard to make a movie that exactly replicated the book.
-
mosjoh08 — 13 years ago(July 30, 2012 05:43 PM)
It some ways the movie does seem a little contrived and ridiculous nowadays. Our era is a little more cynical/realistic about love and these 19th century "love at first sight" kind of stories dont really hold up very well in a lot of ways. However, if you can look past or accept that I found a lot in this movie to enjoy. First, simply the more technical aspects of the film such as the cinematography and soundtrack are wondeful. It is a beaufiful film to look at, matched by a beaufiful and moving score. Second, the performances, especially Laurence Olivier are very enjoyable and helped alleviate some of the sub-par dialogue. Most importantly the ending really did affect me. By the end of the movie I was surprisingly invested in these characters, and thought the ending was one of the more powerful endings I have ever seen. To me it was not a dull story and I certainly have a hard time believing that ANYONE who watched this movie would find it forgetful.
-
ClassicMovieholic — 13 years ago(January 06, 2013 01:01 PM)
Indeed, if Emily Bronte were alive today, I'm sure she'd laugh all the way to the bank with her royalties from the 160 years of enduring popularity, acclaim, and sales that her book has maintained.
-
feodoric — 13 years ago(February 18, 2013 06:31 AM)
Quite simply, the OP's comment is simply a textbook example of film "appreciation" with a total lack of perspective, a myopic and ignorant message of a troglodytic mole burping out another one of his/her pathetic views on a much celebrated cinematographic version of one of the most highly regarded novels of English literature, a bona fide classic in the true essence of the word. Not that this should count in the first place for any review, but still, as many correctly pointed out, thousands and thousands of intelligent, well-informed and well-educated persons simply cannot be wrong about the merits and superb qualities of "Wuthering Heights". I have read it in its original version (I'm a native French speaker, and I had to read it in its original form, no matter the difficulty of the highly sophisticated level of the use of English. The patience I had to deploy reading it in its English form was well rewarded.
I still have to see that version, although I saw the one starring Binoche and Fiennes - which I judged fair (Binoche's acting ruins any role she plays). But to pronounce the truly absurd ex cathedra judgment about the story, well, I can't imagine the script being bad to the point that it reduces the plot to the degree of absurdity that the OP sees in it And Olivier has managed to turn everything to gold throughout his career, and I seriously doubt that he would have accepted to be part of a project as bad as the OP says it is !
Of course I want to watch that version of WH, and the point of my post is to react strongly against that type of judgments on the quality of films where you need to relativize: using the appropriate historical perspective when judging any film should be a universal, mandatory reflex for anyone posting at ImDB
or anywhere anyhow at any time !! Love during the Victorian era or in the XIXth century was a TOTALLY different business, to say the least, so forgetting about this - or worse, behaving as though one completely ignores it, says volumes about how seriously one should consider such an opinion Yes, love at first sight was seemingly common back in those days, not because people were more romantic or naive or had purer sentiments: more simply because of that gigantic reservoir of repressed sexuality that constantly threatened to burst open - oops! A man and a woman with hot libido flowing down their spine to their every extremities, but who simply could not achieve a fully satisfactory outlet for their boiling bodily fluids - as Brig. Gen. Jack Ripper of Dr. Strangelove's fame would have it - outside the holy matrimony, well, these two turgescent folks had to act fast and love at first sight as well as early and expeditive marriages were commonplace for the sake of everyone's sanity. As everyone knows, Freud was right, at least in part, in focusing on sexual dysfunction as the source of more or less mild mental illness.
In brief, ignoring the historical context here in judging the core of the story of "Wuthering Heights" is frighteningly moronesque, to say the least.
Ah well this is a free forum, and one must live amongst crass ignorance ! I will defend the quality of movies and of the works that inspired them too when I see it blatantly denied by mere ignorance. Otherwise, what's the poinbt of a place like ImDB? I see forums like this one too often sink down to the lowest common denominator that defines the behavior of a crowd of people freely expressing themselves without an effective leadership It's an expected, normal phenomenon, but that does not mean that we have to witness that free system self-destructing itself in a Darwinian sort of way !
Sorry for my ranting, folks. Aren't you sometimes scared like me by the sheer magnitude of the ignorance that self-exhibits on this forum (and other than ImDB just as well)? And how many times OPs seize star status by shamelessly making total fools of themselves with pointless threads that ALWAYS unfold in the same way, more or less the variety of humor that is, fortunately, added to it, and ALWAYS reflect pure lack of judgment or worse, total ignorance. Now, that's a real calamity and a real threat to quality time that one may expect to spend here
I just hope that if we are enough to show outrage, those who truly seek to share and exchange freely but sensibly about movies and movie making will feel less helpless in the face of ignorance and moron-y ^-) -
Flight_of_Fantasy — 11 years ago(April 22, 2014 06:01 PM)
Cathy and Heathcliff were both horrible people who made everyone miserable really.
That's the
point
. It's not supposed to a feel-good story about the redemptive power of love, it's about how the unhealthy love between two horrible people destroys their lives, and the lives of everyone who comes into contact with them. Most love stories are about how wonderful love is, and how it makes life wonderful, etc., which it can, but it can also be unhealthy and destructive.
Wuthering Heights is an unusual love story because it's about the darker side of love. If you don't like Cathy and Heathcliff, well done! You've grasped the point of the story beautifully.
"He's already attracted to her. Time and monotony will do the rest." -
zoe-butler51 — 11 years ago(July 06, 2014 09:48 AM)
I do not think any of the numerous screen adaptations do the novel justice. But in its own terms, and for its time, this is a rather good film. It just isn't Wuthering Heights a book of over six hundred pages and many more characters than there are in the film. The closing scene is about as far removed from Emily Bronte's intentions as one can get. But most screen versions try to work in a spook or two, even though it is not really a ghost story at all. True, Lockwood sees a 'ghost' at the beginning or rather thinks he does. But in the book there is a totally rational explanation for what he thinks he sees. The producer wanted to turn it into a ghost story, the director did not. What we ended up with was, indeed, a bit of a travesty in which half the story is left out. But then, would it have worked as a film twice as long?
If we can forget the original novel, we can enjoy a romantic story of love that survives the grave. When I saw it for the first time, quite recently, I realised that I would have to suspend my critical faculties, forget the novel and enjoy this story of two silly young people who did not know their own minds or perhaps I should say 'hearts'. The original story was about jealousy and revenge and the trouble such human failings could cause, not really about 'eternal love'.
Wuthering Heights, (1939) is a sentimental film; no doubt about it. In 1939 people needed films like this to take their minds off the world they lived in. It is rather harsh to say that they must have been disillusioned and disenchanted. They wanted something to believe in, something to reassure them that there was more to life than the cruelty that they saw all around them and that would shortly erupt into world-wide war! People today watch such films with a kind of nostalgia. I do not suppose for one minute that they believe the story. I am sure that they would find it rather twee and not really relevant to today. But I think a little gentle escapism never hurt anyone.
Moreover, look at the beautiful compositions, the fine performances by great actors like Olivier and Robsen. Young cinema goers may remain unimpressed, and that is their privilege, but for anyone old enough to remember these actors at the height of their powers, it is a delight to see them in this gem from another age.
As a film, Wuthering Heights caught the spirit of the times, and it was justly nominated for eight Academy Awards, and rightly won one for best cinematography. This says it all, really. I am sure there were better films with better screenplays and better performances in 1939, but for imagery and photography alone, Wuthering Heights deserves to be remembered. -
-
kst3 — 11 years ago(February 06, 2015 07:02 PM)
I've always found Heathcliff to be an incarnation of the devil. Katherine is self-centered and not all that sympathetic. "Wuthering Heights" is still great literature in spite of, and in embracement of, these major character flaws. Those flaws practically are the story. The mores of English high society of the time merely serve to hone the points of those flaws. It may be unpleasant, but it is compelling.
Olivier learned movie acting here. Merle Oberon is adequate, as always. My problem with "Wuthering Heights" is that I always think of Monty Python doing it in semaphore with Katherine flagging "Heathcliff" across the moors and Heathcliff flagging "Katherine" back. It's silly, but makes my present viewing of the this version even more entertaining.
This fictional world of Emily Bronte and the real world of February 27, 2007 are as far removed as the real world and movies themselves. Seen as an effort in its time, this movie is quite moving. But it does take effort to see it in that fashion. Second viewings sometimes alter one's perception dramatically. Perchance this will happen for you.