Wuthering Heights (1992)

Wow. Talk about miscasting! Ralph Fiennes is a beautiful hunk of man, and Juliette Binoche is undeniably lovely, but neither of them should EVER attempt to play characters that are supposed to range in age from late teens to late thirties. They belong solidly at the far end of that spectrum, and watching them try to pretend to be anything but is utterly ridiculous. Witness the scene where the family is supposed to be studying their Bibles and Catherine and Heathcliff cannot stop giggling and teasing one another, or where Heathcliff whines that Catherine spends more days with the Lintons than she does with him. Ugh. Additionally, Binoche turns Catherine into a flighty, stupid girl, with none of the original heroine's wild spirit and hot temper. (Nor does Binoche even TRY to suppress her French accent.)

Good things: yes, the storyline stays close to the book, more so than I ever expected of a Hollywood adaption. Also, the sets are good, and the scenery is lush and haunting.

However, don't expect to drool over the costumes; they are nothing special, and for some mysterious reason, everyone's hair looks HORRIBLE. It seems the director thought the problem of Fiennes' ethnicity could be solved merely by plopping a greasy black wig on his head. Instead, you want to lob a shampoo bottle at him. And Binoche's looks like some terrible, unflattering '80s nightmare, and it all but destroys her sex appeal. (I'm sorry to waste so much time on something as shallow as everyone's hairstyle, but after a while of cringing at everything else that was bad, it was all I could focus on!)

Fmovies: Although I would not suggest this film to anyone who has not read the book first (you would be thoroughly confused and missing out on major details of the plot!) I found Wuthering Heights (1992) to be the ideal visual aid to compliment the tragedy and passion of Heathcliff and Catherine's story. If Emily Bronte were alive, she herself would have cast Ralph Fiennes as Heathcliff (he was born for the role!) and Juliette Binoche was perfect particularly when she showed the more playful and childish sides of Catherine (her laughter was exactly as I had imagined - bright and bold...and just irritating enough that it really would drive Heathcliff - and later, Hareton - to suffer from wounded pride when it was directed at their egos). The beauty of this story is that you never really can decide who is the villain and who is the victim....

SPOILERS Much has been made of this version of Emily Bronte's novel being the first cinematic version to be really faithful to her book. For once, we see the story continue after Cathy's death, and Heathcliff is shown to be truly villainous. More importantly ,this version gets across the fact that BOTH Heathcliff and Cathy are mean, selfish people who destroy themselves, each other and don't seem bothered about destroying others too. Ralph Fiennes is almost Bronte's character on screen, and skillfully maintains a bit of sympathy for Heathcliff even when he is committing the most dreadful of acts. Visually the film, filmed for once in Yorkshire, is terrific- bleak in an almost beautiful way, and a few scenes, such as the hand of Cathy's ghost in the window, are indeed excellently done.

However the film is seriously flawed by it's odd lack of emotion. There is a stiff, 'Merchant Ivory' feel to the film, completely wrong with a story as full of powerful, destructive emotions such as this. Only one scene, when Heathcliff cradles Cathy's body in her grave, really has any real power. Heathcliff's end and reunion with Cathy should be tearjerking, but is hardly moving at all. The attempt to include more of Bronte's plot is not too successful either, because many important scenes are rushed to keep the running time low. And there are some odd changes which do not work. What is the point of having Emily Bronte at the start and at the end, especially when Lockwood still narrates the main story? Why do Heathcliff and Cathy appear to have a sexual relationship, and right near the beginning? Why have Heathcliff beat up his wife? Yes, he mistreated her but having him as a wife batterer makes no sense, is he not bad enough already?

Still a reasonably worthy attempt than, but, in terms of cinema, the 1939 version is far superior.

Wuthering Heights fmovies. It is puzzling that critics generally seem not to like this filming of Emily Bronte's tale of vengeance and woe. True, it is not a perfect novel as even Charlotte Bronte allowed in a preface to a later edition, but it evokes powerful images and emotions apropos of the Yorkshire country. This film, moreover, gives us the whole story to the bitter end, unlike some previous filmings. It is beautifully photographed in a bleak and forbidding setting. Color balances seem a tad weird at times and the editing is not always precise, but it is certainly a good attempt at a difficult story. For me, I found the acting good to adequate, often even excellent. This version deserves a look.

After all these impressive reviews, there is not much else for me to say except that, on the whole, this film worked for me. The screenplay was very good and at times even excellent, although I would not put it in the same league as "Dangerous Liaisons". The film was visually a masterpiece, capturing essential decadence in its set and on location in Yorkshire.

Supporting cast were notable, particularly Janet McTeer and Simon Shepherd, who was very touching at times, especially with young Catherine. However, the film's quality came from the amazing performance of Ralph Fiennes whose sexual magnetism and intensity stole the screen. Indeed, without Fiennes, the film would have been too under-rated and even slow. Whilst Fiennes exploded in scenes such as breaking into the chapel, I found Binoche very stilted in her "emotional" scenes. At times, she over-acted whilst at others she lacked any expression at all. This made her character quite difficult to understand and I found it hard to imagine how the brooding, precarious Heathcliff could be so infatuated with her. She killed any sense of sexual tension and her acting seemed out of keeping with the others'.

Having said that, the film managed to develop the theme of love/hate with extreme ferocity. It portrayed how love can evoke pity and repulsion, blending passion with destruction, and life with death. Such contrasts effectively convey the eternal dichotomy of human love.

I just saw this movie a week ago. And, I loved it. Then I read the book (I couldn't do it before, but now I tried to find a chance), and I must say this movie is very faithful. It shows the real darkness from the book, even when I was reading this book I couldn't help some images from the movie come into my mind.

The cinematography, the music and, overall, the performances, are great. Actually, I love Ralph Fiennes's acting the most. His Heathcliff is just as dark, evil, tormented and hurt as Emily Brontë describes him. Despite of his evil, one feels sympathy about him, one feels sorry for him, one wants to know more about his origin, who is him truly. Very good job, indeed. It doesn't surprise to me that Spielberg had chosen Ralph Fiennes as his Schindler's List's Amon Goeth after had seen such a good work.

I also think that the scriptwriter chose the best phrases from the book, I especially love Heathcliff's speech after Cathy's death, next to that tree, very touching, and when he says "I cannot live without my life, I cannot live without my soul" (which Cathy had already said before when Heathcliff runs away and she goes to Linton's home) I almost burst in tears.

Those who love classic stories and very good movies based on them, must see this.