This movie and story is laughable
-
daria84 — 18 years ago(December 02, 2007 02:30 PM)
I loved this movie, I wouldn't compare it or put in in Gone With the Wind level but it's far better than all the stupid love stories we got nowadays in modern movies. I didn't really care for Cathy, in fact I thought she was quite a b*tch but Lawrence Olivier's performance was great, I wished Vivien Leigh would have played the part of Cathy, I think she would have pulled out a better perfomance and the chemistry with Larry would have helped a lot to make this movie even better.
Viva Clark Gable, el eterno y nico Rey de Hollywood -
Keatonics — 18 years ago(December 23, 2007 08:51 AM)
I agree with you, Petelato. It is a sappy story, overacted even by the great Olivier. The characters are pathetic and unsympathetic. They ruined their own lives and we are to feel bad for them?
Wyler's direction was way over the top,quite melodramatic.
The film's saving grace, if there was one, was Geraldine Fitzgerald, whose portrayal was stunning. But her character was quite pathetic, as well, marrying someone she knew was in love wi9th someone else.
Why everyonje raves about this film is beyond me. -
petelato — 18 years ago(December 23, 2007 10:18 AM)
Alleluia!!
At least there are other people out there with the ability to think for themselves, instead of following the herd.
I just recently watched another Olivier movie that has been hailed as a classic, "Rebecca", and it was the same thing!!
Unrealistic and over-dramatic.
But I do enjoy watching these films,just to get a vibe on what the general public was into back then, I wonder if people will watch films that we have made #1 in the present day and wonder what were we thinking. -
AliciaHuberman59 — 18 years ago(December 26, 2007 12:10 PM)
I think the film is a good example, if not one of the best, of the Gothic romance. I've always found it hard to find Cathy's character sympatheticshe was a vain, shallow fool who threw away true love for a bunch of peacocks strutting around in the yard!
-
KMoran55 — 18 years ago(January 07, 2008 09:28 PM)
I believe you all are forgetting the social conventions of the time. Although, from time to time, women followed their hearts and married as they chose, the economic realities of those times were very harsh. Women were essentially treated as chatteltransferred from father to husband as part of a business deal. If the woman was lucky, she and her husband did come to love one another, if not, well that's why books like Wuthering Heights and Anna Karenina were written. The story is intended to show how many lives were destroyed by these conventions. (BTW, that which you call overacting, I think of as passion.) In the book, it even shows how the destruction carries on to the next generation. I've always considered it an indictment of the social conventions of the 1700s and 1800s.
But, to each his (or her) own. -
jacowium — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 09:57 PM)
Six years since your post, but I'd still like to reply
just to say thank you, thank you, thank you! I find it so frustrating how latter-day readers and movie lovers forget that the original stories were written in another era altogether, and social conventions were markedly different from today. Judging characters' actions using modern values is just off, and will lead to a very murky understanding of the novel (or movie).
It is indeed true that in the early 19th century, a wife's fate was largely dependent on the wealth (not necessarily status) of her husband. Status didn't necessarily mean wealth. Anyway, if one has learnt a bit about the historical conventions of the era, then Cathy is indeed not (necessarily) a shallow person, but is only doing what almost every other young woman in her situation would have done. Women did not receive the same level of education, and had very few (if any) prospects of generating their own income and taking care of their own lives. Spinsters had it tough. It was therefore impossible for young women like Cathy to ignore those realities of her life. All of this do not excuse her actions, but rather explains it.
But as you said, from our perspective today, the circumstances portrayed in the Bront sisters' books, Jane Austen, Henry James, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, etcetera, indict the conventions of their eras.
Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks. -
rondine — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 09:18 PM)
I agree that you are totally arrogant- to think that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, is terribly self-centered.
Is it possible that you are right and so are we? that is allowing for different tastes and different opinions? After all, if every movie was as you say, with only likeable, perfect characters, what a dull world it would be. Part of this movie's appeal is that some people understand what it is to have unfulfilled love and to suffer because of it. Not all stories in real life are happy endings either.
Besides, there's great acting, the cinematography is to die for and the music is wonderful! imho. -
rondine — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 08:44 PM)
you kidding is hilarious "I kid."
but yes, to each his own and thanks to whatever gods may be that we DO have different movies. I actually work in a place where the only good movie is sex, shooting and violence. I am usually sitting over there watching "Judgement at Nuremberg," or "Auntie Mame" or something like that. You know, STORIES, dialog, stuff that's stimulating for the mind.
Laughable is harsh- maybe you were trying to push some buttons??
-
ContinentalOp — 13 years ago(December 15, 2012 10:22 AM)
''But I do enjoy watching these films,just to get a vibe on what the general public was into back then, I wonder if people will watch films that we have made #1 in the present day and wonder what were we thinking.''
I would respect your opinion if you didn't always bring up modern films. Most modern films are tripe because the film industry has become mediocre and completely artless. The fact that 'Twilight: Whatever It Is Called' is at No. 1 shows how bad the modern film industry is.
Attacking films like 'Rebecca' (which is a great film by a good but overrated director to be fair) whilst talking as if our default setting is to love modern films makes you just seem ignorant. I'd take teh flawed 30s version of 'Wuthering Heights' over trash like 'Transformers' or any action-packed, explosive blockbusters any day of the week.
Upon reading the thread, I see that you like at least one great film 'Fargo'. However, the early 90s is now a long time ago when it comes to filmmaking, and I'd say that film quality, style and themes of that era were still closer to the 1970s (the golden age of film) than they are to the films of today. The 90s was the last really good era for films, though you do have some good films made today, in small numbers.
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget. -
YupPirateLove — 17 years ago(April 24, 2008 03:33 PM)
It's a movie. Who said it had to be realistic?
Movies, to me, are supposed to pull you away from real-life; make you forget about your own problems, maybe restore some faith, or just for plain entertainment. -
alanlit96 — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 01:48 PM)
I am a fairly significant movie-buff who, for some reason, had just never gotten around to seeing this film. Finally saw it last night. I can understand why some people say they love it (although I'm sure there is some PC effect there for some of you) and can also understand why the original poster of this thread found it ridiculous and laughable.
I think the greatest problem with the movie was its relative brevity. The main characters were highly flawed individuals (frankly, all of them were), a fact that does not mean that the movie is necessarily good or badmany great films have been made with no likable characters. But we are clearly also supposed to believe that they are complex, and that their actions and emotions are worthy of understanding/empathy or that we will at least care about them. I don't think the movie earns this. Heathcliff goes from shunned foundling to Cathy's inseparable chum in about 1 minute of screen time. If Wyler had expanded upon this to show why and how that change came about, it would have deepened our interest in their relationship and our stake in their happiness. Then, two minutes later in the film, Hindley has taken over Wuthering Heights and has completely subjugated Heathcliff and Cathy. We are shown only quick glimpses of this, when more detail would have again provided more depth to both the narrative and the characters. Cathy shifts her (stated) approach to Heathcliff with such frequency that it defies understanding. If all this is supposed to represent is her being a free spirit and somewhat unfocused, that would be fine, but you sense that the film wants to have it both ways: to allow this conduct for its effect, but to have the audience admire and care about Cathy much more than this sort of character would warrant.
The bottom line is that, to me, this is three-star movie instead of a true classic. It is saved by the atmosphere, cinematography, some good dialogue and some of the acting (I frankly think Oberon was below average and Olivier slightly disappointing as well). Put this up against Rebecca or Casablanca and it's not even a fair comparison. There are also at least a half-dozen, maybe a full dozen, Wyler films that are better (everything from The Letter to Ben Hur, maybe even The Collector).