Wuthering Heights (1970)

Fantastic!

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Better Late Then Never

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Hopefully that does make sense. The book is a masterpiece but is almost unfilmable, so no matter the quality of the final product any attempt should be given some credit. This Wuthering Heights was a little disappointing, especially compared to the Laurence Olivier and even the 1998(the most faithful adaptation) versions, but it's not best at all, it is better than the 2011 film which was too avant-garde and had the child and adult actors/counterparts looking and acting nothing like one another. There are things that could have been done better. The main problem is that the story does jump around a bit too much though not quite in an incoherent way, I did wish that some scenes were given more depth and that we got to know the supporting characters more. The ending was bungled, dramatically it underwhelms in how clumsy it is and will leave one infuriated rather than moved. And while what was in the script was good, well-written and brooding some of the famous lines are either omitted or don't have the impact, if it were the opposite there may have been more emotional punch and depth.At its best though, this adaptation of Wuthering Heights is great, especially in five areas. The best thing is definitely Timothy Dalton as Heathcliff, handsome and brooding Dalton has never been more savage or tortured, he never overplays the brutish side of this truly difficult character to pull off and he doesn't underplay the more humane side either. Then there's the music, which is unforgettably melancholic, enough to make you cry often, of all the Wuthering Heights adaptation this gets my personal vote as the one with the best and most effective score. Like the 1998 adaptation, the scenery is enough to take the breath away yet there is a wonderful atmosphere about them too and in an evocative way. The photography is very fluid and allows us to enjoy the atmosphere and scenery, doing this without being too flashy, while the costumes are beautifully realised and true to period, never too over-opulent or drab. And then there is the memorable scene with Heathcliff at Cathy's grave and the luring of Heathcliff by Cathy's ghost, which is incredibly haunting. A shame that what followed didn't work anywhere near as well.The cast are fine on the whole, though Dalton dominates and the only one perhaps who stays long in the memory. Anna Calder Marshall is a fiery and sensitive Cathy and shows some intense and tender chemistry with Dalton. That is not to say she doesn't have some poor moments, her screaming of "Heathcliff" were even more grating than Sally Field's "Don-kee" in the 2000 adaptation of David Copperfield. Ian Ogilvy is a gentle and very likable Edgar, if at times a little too on the meek side(not his fault, Edgar is not the strongest of characters in the book either). Julian Glover is appropriately menacing as Hindley, though the Hindley in the 1998 adaptation brought some tragedy and torment to the character which made him somewhat more dimensional. Harry Andrews brings warmth to a kindly character and Judy Cornwell is similarly spot-on as Nellie. The storytelling is uneven, but the atmosphere is very well-done and there are some good scenes like the one mentioned above. The script is a little skimmed-over quality but it's not badly written at all and doesn't disgrace Emily Bronte's prose(much more however could have been done with the famous lines). The direction is far from amateurish too.Overall, far from a bad version but as an adaptation of the book it will be left wanting. It has a lot of good things, some like Dalton, the music and scenery can be classed as great. But a few big areas like the ending, the flow of the story and some parts of skimming-the-surface writing are lacking quite a fair bit. 6.5-7/10 Bethany Cox

OK - first let me say that there has been a lot of talk about this version vs the 1992 version with Fiennes and Binoche. In fact, both productions made one fundamental mistake which would have otherwise rendered each version near perfect - they cast the wrong female leads. Calder-Marshall is far too posh for Cathy. My goodness me though - Dalton is perfect as Heathcliffe. I'm going to put this down to the make up department but it's actually hard to believe that Calder-Marshall is about 3 years younger than him. I actually think she is a good actress, but certainly miscast as Cathy. What really galls me though is the screenplay which takes such liberties with the story, much of which is simply left out and a completely different ending formulated. The last time I felt so cheated was when I watched Captain Corelli's Mandolin! Bottom line - a great example of a real missed opportunity to be the definitive version...

My mother's fond memories of viewing this in the cinema as a teenager lead me to seek out this film on DVD. After seeing it, it's fair to say that the only way a person could enjoy this movie is if they are a dizzy, romantic thirteen year old who can look past the bad acting and weak production. Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall are Heathcliff and Cathy, and their casting is one of the film's main weak points. A young Dalton may look darkly handsome, but he's no match for Laurence Olivier (who director Robert Fuest clearly wants him to channel) in the 1939 William Wyler version, who simply IS Heathcliff. Merle Oberon gets routinely bagged for her work as Cathy in the same film yet next to Calder-Marshall's work she's excellent! As with the 1939 film, the entire second half of the novel is cut out, but that's the least of the film's problems. It just never manages to fire-there is no passion in this movie. The colour is washed out, the script fails in just about every scene and none of the cast are memorable. Case in point is Heathcliff's return to Wuthering Heights, a reborn gentleman after being abroad. Olivier's vengeful return is unforgettable, Dalton just walks through the door and the film continues lagging on.

Having seen this movie some years ago on video, I'm very excited that it is available on DVD. While Sir Laurence Olivier and Ralph Fiennes have both done respectable turns as Heathcliff, Timothy Dalton is just glorious. He embodies the character's passion, ambivalence and consuming torment and longing for Cathy splendidly. Anna Calder-Marshall, while perhaps not one would think would make an ideal Cathy, is wonderful as the Yorkshire lass. Oh, how these two sizzle! Whenever Dalton speaks, or broods, the room temperature just seemed to skyrocket! The ill-fated lovers find themselves separated and bound by circumstance and other people, leading to tragic results.Sure, the consummation of their relationship did not occur in the book, but with young hot actors like Timothy and Anna, how could the filmmakers not succumb to temptation? The locations (complete with windswept wild moors) and music score by Michel Legrand are intoxicatingly gorgeous as well. I don't know how Emily Bronte would feel about this adaptation, but I'd like to think that this production would have done her proud.Like some other viewers, I was disappointed that the second generation were not featured and that the ending seemed tacked on. Also, I seem to remember a few other scenes from the VHS (there is a still from one of them on the DVD jacket) that are not included on the disc. Those are the only things that stop me from giving this movie 10 stars. But this version captured the passion and intensity between Heathcliff and Cathy.The DVD transfer has been wonderfully restored, a big improvement over the VHS print. A few specks and scratches show from time to time, and other than that, aside from the hairstyles (which indicate the decade in which it was made), you wouldn't think the movie is 40 years old.Make sure you've got a fan going, as well as ice cold drinks, because the heat will go way up!