Home > Drama >

Wuthering Heights

Watch Now

Wuthering Heights (2012)

April. 09,2012
|
6
|
NR
| Drama Romance
Watch Now

Yorkshire moorlands, northern England, in the late 18th century. Young Heathcliff, rescued from the streets of Liverpool by Mr. Earnshaw, the owner of Wuthering Heights, an isolated farm, develops over the years an insane passion for Cathy, his foster sister, a sick obsession destined to end tragically.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

VividSimon
2012/04/09

Simply Perfect

More
Pacionsbo
2012/04/10

Absolutely Fantastic

More
CrawlerChunky
2012/04/11

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

More
Nayan Gough
2012/04/12

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

More
raypowell
2012/04/13

I didn't like this adaption of Wuthering Heights and the only saving grace for me was Shannon Beer playing the young Cathy. In some scenes you could see her wilful mischievous demeanour.I couldn't see any bonding between the main characters, and Heathcliff was too moody. I couldn't see how Cathy would fall in love with this person.

More
subxerogravity
2012/04/14

So I herd that this adaption of Wuthering Heights is considered Arnold's mainstream endeavor. That does make me like it more. In comparison to Fish Tank, Arnold did nothing to change her film style. It's still extremely raw and emotional and does not care anything about the linear story as much as it does the connection you get following these characters around.I feel this most with the main character, Heathcliff (not surprisingly) A black kid taken in by a man who owns a farm, and becomes the foster child of a family that does not want him there. All except Cathy, his foster sister who grows an attraction towards him and the feeling is mutual, but the two kids never act upon this, and her father's death causes a change of the guard that forces Heathcliff to leave.When Heathcliff comes back to extract his revenge on those who wronged him, it becomes bitter sweet when his feelings for Cathy instantly resurface, but her new life makes things more strained on the both of them.I instantly felt a connection with Heathcliff. There is no background on where he came from, but I get the feeling he's far more upscale than what his new family expect from what they see on the surface. Cathy really likes him, but his new brother only sees the color of his skin and how that makes him lesser in society in their eyes, which is constantly pointed out. I understand Heathcliff's rage and frustration and his need to prove who he is by coming back and stirring trouble.The movie is done somewhat it two parts with half the film being about Cathy and Heathcliff as young adolescents and the other half with them as adults. The former half was very captivating as it focus on the two's complex relationship, never fully shying away from there feelings but unwilling to take it to the next step, mostly because of the bridge society put between both and they are unable to break out of.Cathy was a more interesting character as a young girl than she was as an older woman, but this has more to do with how the movie is laid out as the first half was all about the two main characters interacting for us to see how intense their feelings are towards one another, while the second half has a agenda that concentrates more on Heathcliff.I usually don't like slow paced movies but I do like the way this film moves. It puts you there with the showcase of all the landscapes and scenery and the atmosphere, very nicely done, and very Terrence Malick, but a little more grim (Just as beautiful, however).With all that said, I did not like the movie as much as I like Fish Tank. The story (or lack there of) was not so impressive that you can make it so obscure. If you are the kind of film watcher that is totally fine with a story less film, than this version of Wuthering Heights will suit you good, but I watched an old black and white version starring a young Ian McShane as Heathcliff which filled so many small gaps that this film has.It's very interesting. One thing that can mess up a reboot of a franchise is the fact that you constantly have to do an origin story for the next generation, but now after seeing Arnold's version of this classic novel, I understand more the need to keep updating the origin. By British standards, Wuthering Heights might as well be the story of Jesus Christ considering how many times it has been done (I've only seen two, but noticed that it happens once a decade), and I feel that Arnold takes that into consideration when making the film, so you don't get the full accept of the story by watching it, which is better if you know about the story prior.But honestly, if you really want the full accept you would have to read the book. Andrea Arnold's, Wuthering Heights makes me feel like a young Cathy and Heatcliff, very instance emotional built up that never gets release.http://cinemagardens.com

More
luisrochaantunes
2012/04/15

Arnold's cinematic approach to Brontë's novel "Wuthering Heights" results in an adaptation that is original not only because it rearranges the narrative and provides a fresh new take on the characters but also because it powerfully delivers the story's experiential content, and makes it a central tenet of the spectator's engagement with the story. In other words, the description of the physical and material world of the story, which was observational in most of Brontë's novel, becomes the very engine of Arnold's film through the voice of the two narrators and through the characters' observational description. In an essay I published in The Victorian journal, I expand this idea of adapting with the senses ("Adapting with the Senses: Wuthering Heights as a Perceptual Experience.")

More
ajnoiter
2012/04/16

I'm not trying to spoil it, but there is one tidbit that may spoil a few minutes of the movie.Most of the other reviews would otherwise be echoed here, so instead I'm going to pinpoint the few things that destroyed the movie for me. In fact, the movie was so bad based on these items that I'm currently 40 minutes from the end, with no intention to continue.1) According to Wikipedia, in the 1600s a fancy device was first noted for its use. Undoubtedly, they were used before then, but there wasn't a term allocated to the item. The name of that item is "tripod" - and they're relatively inexpensive. In more recent history there have been other developments, such as a monopod - a tripod with one leg - which I would assume to be even more inexpensive. In the 1970s a device called a "steadycam" was invented. Throughout the 1 hour and 18 minutes that I've watched, a device to steady the camera has been used exactly 1 time. It was on a shot viewing the mountains in the distance. Sadly, that wasn't the only shot of that type - in fact, there have been many shots like that throughout the film thus far. Far too many of the shots in this film should be shot using a device (or software, essentially by removing the edges) to steady the camera.. however, none are used.2) It seems like the majority of the film you're staring at the backside of an actor's head. With this in mind, you're not really seeing much... except the back of an actor's head.3) When you can see more than the back of a head it's likely to be so dark that you can't tell what you're looking at anyway. The lighting of the shots is horrid. One of the most recent scenes was simply nothing more than a black screen for about 30 seconds. I'm not talking "it was dark but you could make out movements" - no, the screen was black.4) Jump in time .. in the blink of an eye without any kind of notification. Seriously, I blinked my eyes and everyone aged a good 5 years or so. I can't tell you exactly how many years, because I wasn't told. I thought I was watching a different branch of the movie for a moment or two. For those who have seen the movie, it was right after the black screen mentioned above.With the points above there is no doubt in my mind that this was filmed and directed by amateurs. My rating of 2 is 100% on the pain that the camera man had to be going through from holding up the camera all those hours of shooting, because it is undoubtedly done that way. Kudos to him, though he should have taken more pride in his work by using a stabilizing device.

More