Just because it's old…
-
NSurone — 18 years ago(November 23, 2007 10:39 AM)
Enough already, dammit!
I'm sick of these petty squabbles, and I can't understand why IMDb didn't delete all your posts. You both have forgotten about the movie you were supposed to be discussing, and have degenerated into stupid name-calling and accusations. I'll wager that you're both children; in any case, that's how you act.
FYI, WUTHERING HEIGHTS doesn't have the same dark undertone that is in the novel, but it it still an excellent movie in its own right. In the 1930's romance in film was a necessary respite from the difficulties of the Depression, and WUTHERING HEIGHTS is a perfect example of the genre.
As for the acting, it was perfect for the times. As I said before, the movie is a romance, and the performances fit the mood. And while Merle Oberon was limited as an actress. director Wyler got the performance of her career out of her.
So, stop being so narrow-minded and prejudiced, and see this movie for what it isa classic. -
Bloody_Wonder — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 03:22 AM)
Hey, I am quite young -17 years of age and I LOVE this movie. Let's not involve ageism in here.
It's Olivier's best and no, just because it's got 'Olivier' staped on it it doesn't mean it's brilliant- have you seen 'Henry V'? Oh, my goodness, that was terrible! It's all about the quality and the timelessness of the picture, nbot because it's old!
"Helen! Helen! I'm afraid. And I'm glad that I'm afraid!- Peeping Tom (1960)" -
fsf1922 — 18 years ago(July 17, 2007 03:56 PM)
I too didn't like this movie. But hey, maybe it's just because I read the book a month before and had such high expectations because of the 7.8 rating. True, the film does have some good points. I liked the way they showed the tension between Heathcliff and Hindley. I also liked that they used the servant Nelly Dean as the narrator. The 1992 version with Ralph Fiennes barely touched upon this and completely screwed up the narrative. However, I was very disappointed by the fact that it was pretty much a sanitized version of the first 40% of the book. I think the answer is to do a remake that's at least 2 hours. Maybe then they'll get all the major events and themes of the book.
-
pattersc — 18 years ago(July 27, 2007 08:07 AM)
It is always unfair to compare a movie to the book it is based on, and it shouldn't be done. Any movie should be judged on its own merits. This is a great movie and the overwhelming majority of those involved in making today's films would agree with that.
Anyone it entitled to their own opinion about any film but it takes a considerable degree of immaturity to write that it is only popular because it is old, b&w, and considered a classic.
To the OP. As you mature, it is likely your opinion will change. Give it some time. -
phowell1 — 18 years ago(August 07, 2007 03:11 AM)
Shouldn't it be: "IF" you mature, it is likely your opinion will change?
Some young idiots never mature, they just get older. But look on the bright side, many of them may get Alzheimer's and will have an excuse for their idiocy. -
new_hollywood — 18 years ago(August 14, 2007 11:15 PM)
Looks like this has become some heated debateanywho
I'm for this movie. I've loved it since the moment I first saw it. I get that this isn't some ppl's cup of tea of whateverthats fine. I, on the other hand, think that its absolutely amazing and brilliant. And yes I do describe this film as being a CLASSIC. The actors and acting was amazing. This is always going to be one of my all time top favorite films.
No just because a movie is old doesn't make it a classic. A movie doesn't even have to be old to be a classic. It simply has to be spectacularI mean more so than just the usual two thumbs up review. It has to do something for you more than any other film has. It has to make you feel things and think about things you've never felt or thought about before.
Huh. Its kinda hard to describe what makes a film a "classic". I think it just depends on the person for the most part. Some films though do have the general audience thinking it is though so who knows.
Either way I love this movie. Theres nothing more to it than that I guess.
Cold Mountain~ Inman: "Icameback." -
Oliver_Alla — 18 years ago(August 26, 2007 09:44 AM)
Although I like William Wyler, this movie is absolutely weak. If you have read the book you'll agree. I guess it's impossible to portray in a movie the whole (and BRILLIANT) story, but anyway, the picture is weak. It lacks all the romanticism and frantic passion, the roughness, all that fight of feelings, the fury, the anger and tragedy of every character. The film doesn't explore the psychology of any character, and don't portray the atmosphere of the story, the decadence, etc.
The book by Emily Bront is simply magnificent. The best novel I've ever read. I have no words to describe it. But the film sorry, you can like it but if this is an adaptation of the book, is totally disappointing. So if you have not read the book, do it, because you'll love it.
It's not the first time that I dislike an adaptation from a novel. It happened the same with all versions of Le dame aux camlias by Alejandro Dumas But I guess it's hard to portray a complete novel to a movie. "Wuthering heights" tells the story of three generations. The movie only shows one part, and without all the spirit from the book. It's a pitty because I like very much Laurence Olivier, and I think he would have been a PERFECT Heathcliff, if the picture have been maked as the novel deserves.
Check out "Abismos de pasin" by Luis Buuel. It's another version of the book, nearest to the spirit of the novel. No wonder why, Wuthering Heights was surrealists bedside book. -
pattersc — 18 years ago(August 27, 2007 06:15 AM)
I will concede your point that the book is brilliant.
However, to claim that the movie is weak because it does not hold up to the book is a rather lame claim and does not reflect well upon your movie judgement.
Have you ever seen a movie that would do justice to a brilliant book? I don't think its even possible. So let the movie stand on its own two feet. -
nyeeles — 18 years ago(August 31, 2007 05:36 PM)
i think, if you compare the book to the film, i agree a bit with the op because it has 'distinguished' actors in it you sort of go in thinking it will be great, but the more times i see it, the less i like it.
however, i also agree with the post above and think that you shouldnt compare them, whats the point just acting out the book? -
jockey-1 — 13 years ago(February 22, 2013 10:27 PM)
I agree, the book is an outstanding, exquisite work of fiction. My love for it defies words.
As such, the movie of course cannot measure up, but 2 (or even 3) things make me say it is a worthwhile attempt:- Heathcliff's speech to Cathy:
"Tell the dirty stable boy to let go of you. He soiled your pretty dress. But who soiled your heart? Not Heathcliff. Who turns you into a vain, cheap, worldly fool? Linton does. You'll never love him, but you'll let yourself be loved because it pleases your stupid, greedy vanity."
Startlingly beautiful and honest. - Isabella in the doorway before Heathcliff rushes to Cathy's bedside.
- Heathcliff to Cathy at her deathbed, "Cathy, Cathy, you loved me " where do you get such tenderness and depth in today's handsome Hollywood leads?
- Heathcliff's speech to Cathy: