You know a movie is bad . . .
-
sweetenchilada16-1 — 17 years ago(July 21, 2008 05:11 PM)
I agree with the first message. I just finished watching the 1970's version today and was greatly disappointed with not only the ending, but the movie in general! If they had at least THOROUGHLY included vital scenes such as:
- When Cathy tells Nelly of her Love for Heathcliff.
- When Heathcliff claims a deeper love for Cathy than Edgar ever will. "You may look incredulous, if you please! I never would have banished him from her society, as long as she desired his. The moment her regard ceased, I would have torn his heart out, and drunk his blood!" (My FAVORITE part)
- When Heathcliff and Cathy reunite the day that she dies. They COMPLETELY screwed up by leaving out "Because misery, and degradation and death, and nothing that god or satan could inflict would have parted us, you of your own will did"
- When Cathy dies, Heathcliff has a good page of speech that goes from being kinda angry, then saddened and pathetic. In the film he never even said "Take any form- drive me mad! Just don't leave me in this abyss where I cannot find you! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!"
There we have it, the four cornerstone pieces of the first half of the Wuthering Heights story. Let's hope the next representation of Emily Bronte's work is a good one!
-
-
Mermaid_Maiden — 17 years ago(August 28, 2008 07:31 PM)
Uhhhh.have any of you seen the original 1939 version?? It's really amazing. I haven't seen any of the remakes (yet), but because the 1939 version was so good, I have a feeling I wouldn't like the other versions (at least not as much as the original).
The fact that Heathcliff is shot and killed in the end of the 1970 version makes me not want to bother watching it at all. -
nelsonv2001 — 17 years ago(November 27, 2008 10:12 AM)
Laurence Olivier IS Heathcliff!! The 1939 version is truly a masterpiece.. Haven't seen the other versions though I will watch the more recent version soon.
I find usually the original the original version of most films are better than the remakes.. after all, the original sets the tone for the others. -
perorewen — 17 years ago(February 06, 2009 04:46 AM)
The 1939 version is a total mess!! I will not touch it again.
So you can't accept he's shot at the end (ok, I know it's wrong, and I don't like it either) but you accept him just running off at the end of the film? What was that all about?
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!
-
ContinentalOp — 13 years ago(December 29, 2012 02:14 PM)
''I find usually the original the original version of most films are better than the remakes.. after all, the original sets the tone for the others.''
Except that this version, like all the others after the 30s, is not a remake, but readaptation of a classic novel. Your view is somewhat ignorant, if I do say so
''I can't even comment on the costumes as they were pretty dreadful too.''
As a historian of fashion, I can tell you that the clothing is perfectly fine. Maybe you think they got the costumes wrong because you expect them to move on with the time, instead of the film being so condensed?
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget. -
angelosdaughter — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 10:30 PM)
For me the 1939 version is too genteel. The characters in the novel were anything but. Dalton and Calder=Marshall more closely resemble the characters, emotionally and physically in their wild, untamed spirits and the intensity of their obsession with each other. Granted his version in other respects is less faithful to the book, but to the main characters, in my opinion, spot on.
-
judithw100 — 16 years ago(June 04, 2009 01:08 PM)
This version is horrible:
except for the very lupine Dalton, who is hot/hot/hot. I would have kept the free movie just to watch him in those great boots. but only cut to that scene.
However, the worst part is Kathy's voice when she is running across the moors screaming "Heathcliff" like a braying donkey.
Then Heathcliff later screams "Cath - AAAyyyyy." awful
argh!! like nails on a blackboard.
Pick either one of the later two newer versions, but avoid this one. -
kalexschroeder — 16 years ago(July 18, 2009 07:15 PM)
I completely agree. I was watching this on the road going to a college visit for the first time a few days ago and I didn't like it. I brought plenty of other things to do, but the only reason I kept watching it was that I thought Timothy Dalton was really good as Heathcliff. Not my favorite (Laurence Olivier is), but he clearly stood out as the only truly good actor in this version.
This is the 3rd film version of Wuthering Heights I've seen, and no matter who covers it, I never like it, and this one, by far, had to be the worst one I've seen. I didn't like the 1939 one mostly because of 2 things: the first, I hated who played Cathy (I find I never do, though maybe that's just proof of greatly terrifying the relationship between her and Heathcliff is), and I didn't think she and Olivier had the right kind of chemistry. The second reason is that it didn't cover the entire book, which I considered the better half the first time I saw it, but even after I reread the book and changed my mind about that, I still hate that the 2nd generation's story isn't covered at all.
I then saw the 1992 version. I don' remember it too well, since I haven't seen it in quite a while, but I do remember, again, that I didn't like Cathy, and while Ralph Fiennes is remarkable actor, I didn't think he fit the character of Heathcliff well. For me, it's redeeming qualities were that it covered the whole book (though I thought it was really weird how they used the same actress to play both Cathy and her daughter), and it's musical score. I love it, and can't get enough of it.
And, finally, this version.. Horrible, just horrible. There was no chemistry between Cathy and Heathcliff. In some parts, there were, but it just wasn't convincing enough for me throughout the entire movie. Again, I don't like CathyI think this version had the worst I've seen. Like another said, I hated that so many important lines from the book were missing, or just wrongly used in the movie. I didn't like how Cathy said her famous line, "I
am
Heathcliff," after he leftI think you feel more sorry and angrier at her when she realizes he's overheard and left her after she's realized her true feelings for him. That being said, there were many important lines about Edgar and how her love for him is pale in comparison to how she feels for Heathcliff weren't included (how her love for Edgar is like a "foliage in the woods" that changes with the seasons). And when she speaks of Heathliff, about how "the universe would turn into a mighty stranger" and how she could not be part of it should have been included as well. Ii can't remember if that was left out in any other version, but I realized immediately how much they left out. I was particularly mad that Heathcliff's speech after Cathy's death was cut so short. He didn't even say "I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!" Also, why is Hareton pronounced
dead
in this movie?! When I saw this, I was like wtf are they doing? I had to rewind to make sure I heard right. And
why
do they
shoot Heathcliff
?!? Oh, it was horrible.
And while I remember, I also didn't like how, in the 1939 version, they make Heathcliff say, "I cannot
die
without my soul!" For one thing, that doesn't even make
sense
, and it always irks me.
One more thing, I didn't find Cathy's mental breakdown particularly convincing in this version. She's not even supposed to realize she's pregnant either! In this movie, she seemed virtually, er, normal, I guess, though clearly not entirely well when she was quarantined to her room, and it isn't until she sees Heathcliff that she just gives up. If I remember the book right, doesn't she go in and out of a state of consciousness and madness? And Heathcliff's visit is what pushes her over the edge? I could be wrong, but still.
My goodness this ended up much longer than I expected..
Why did I write? Because I found life unsatisfactory.
~Tennessee Williams~ -
BelleDameSansMerci — 16 years ago(July 20, 2009 07:15 AM)
Oh, and I find Timothy Dalton's intensity a little much.
Dare I venture an opinion on why this is so?
It's not that Dalton was too intense - he was right on target, almost perfect for the role, as for most of his roles (why he is so underrated I'll nver know), but the lead actress showed about as much "dark passion" - as she should have as per the book - as a fish that's been dead for a week. (She stank alright!)
Anyone playing opposite a broomstick would come through as "too intense".
I hate crticizing actors, but the reality is she was probably the worst case of miscasting I've ever seen.
Whoeever thought she would make a good Cathy?!
She was beautiful - here my opinion differs from yours - but that's hardly the point with Catherine Earnshaw: she should be passionate and sexy, not necessarily conventionally pretty. -
PommeraieVasundhara — 16 years ago(November 06, 2009 05:29 AM)
I am up and down with this film.
Part of me watches it and sees things to admire; I think that the atmosphere of the film was suitably forlorn and desolate. And I think that Timothy Dalton was appropriate as Heathcliff-he certainly pulled off Heathcliff's anger, physical aggression and emotional sensitivity. What he
didn't
pull off-or even try to pull off-was Heathcliff's raging, violent darkness and his social politics.
In the end he came across as being a little too hunky for the role. Don't get me wrong, I think he's handsome and of course Heathcliff SHOULD be handsome. Its just the way that he makes his exit after insulting Lintonits so "heroic".
And Cathy?? Don't get me started. It would be cruel and intolerent to say that thingy is a bad actress, but I don't think she quite manifested the character of Catherine. Again, I'm up and down with her. She's suitably emotional, sensitive, absent-minded. But I don't think she had Cathy's selfishness, ferocity, independence or violence. She seemed to depend very fixedly on the men in her life.
When Nelly announced at the beginning "and a whip for little Catherine" with that soft, sympathetic pronunciation, I knew already that Cathy was NOT going to be what Bronte wrote her to be. And the way they decided to shorten and condense the story so that it resembled a sort of Northern Romeo & Juliet got to me a bitthey cut out A LOT of the social politics of the book, and to have Heathcliff be shot by Hindley after being lured to Wuthering Heights by Cathy's ghost was unconvincing, even though I think that the tragic atmosphere was conveyed.
"Always be a poet"-Charles Baudelaire -
BelleDameSansMerci — 16 years ago(December 21, 2009 04:23 AM)
You are right, Pommeraie. They did leave out practically all of the social politics. (Haven't really thought of it until now.)
It pains me to see such a powerful text reduced to so little.
(Not to mention how it pains me to see Dalton's talent go somehow fall through crevices - again.) -
thatoneoverthere — 16 years ago(January 06, 2010 11:36 PM)
You probably have a good point; Cathy in this version was pretty blah and that might be part of the reason I felt like he was overacting to the max. But in addition to that, I can't think of a thing that I really like Timothy Dalton in. I always associate him with this unfortunate flick or that scene where he cries in Jane Eyre. Blech. Too much, too much.
-
ssmith-121 — 15 years ago(July 13, 2010 08:43 AM)
All I can say is that the whole end of the story is missing. When they "killed off" the brother's son early on, actually the first clue was when he was named for his father, I wondered how they were going to deal with the end of the story but basically they dealt with it by ignoring it. I have four versions of this, including the MTV version, and I find it fascinating to see what movie makers find important.
"No opinion negates anotherit just enriches the discussion" -
kraisins-1 — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 05:19 AM)
Apart from the delicious Dalton, I utterly loathed this version. As awful and rude as it sounds, I kept watching Cathy wondering if she was born.developmentally challenged. She clearly has subpar intelligence and her face looks like a deformed Who from The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Case in point when Hindley comes back and Cathy runs in to tell Nelly, this is the first time we see a grown up Cathy. As she stood rocking from foot to foot and grinning inanely, I honestly thought the girl was some slow-witted servant girl telling CATHY that Hindley was home. Then I realized it was Cathy and it was all downhill from there. It's only saving grace again is Dalton who is wild and fierce and perfect. The only scene worth watching is the confrontation in the kitchen where Cathy tosses the key into the fire. The rest is unwatchable junk. I can't even comment on the costumes as they were pretty dreadful too.
-
Mandyjam — 14 years ago(January 31, 2012 03:49 AM)
I loved Anna Calder-Marshall as Cathy, and I loved Dalton as Heathcliff.
But the movie was seriously cr*p!
There were ridiculous additions and implications that are not in the book. As I recall, from all those years ago, there were lines like "What does Linton say about the baby?" "He is waiting to see the colour of its eyes!" What total nonsense! It was never suggested or hinted that Cathy's baby was Heathcliff's, and in the context of the movie, both actors happened to have blue eyes.
Oh yes, and that's another thing!
The little boy that played the young Heathcliff was a round-faced, dark-skinned child with that thick wiry black hair that gets slightly bleached to a rusty tint. His eyes were as black as eyes could possibly be.
He somehow grew into a man with a long face, creamy-white complexion, jet-black sleek hair and remarkable piercing blue eyes.
While the choice of that little boy to play a lost gypsy child might have been appropriate, choosing him to play the child that would grow into Timothy Dalton is seriously ridiculous!
Given that the child doesn't speak, and appears only briefly, almost any black-haired blue eyed child would have done.
"great minds think differently"