Wuthering Heights

Style over substance? Not at all – it’s more that Fennell understands that style can be substance when you do it right. Cathy and Heathcliff’s passions vibrate through their dress, their surroundings, and everything else within reach, and you leave the cinema quivering on their own private frequency.

For nearly two centuries, Brontë’s book has been a romantic fantasy for readers. Fennell treats it as an erotic one as well, leaning into all that is sensual.

Between the two, I greatly prefer Wuthering Heights, which looks and sounds fantastic, peppers its torrid love story with a few moments of absurd humor — did I mention the veiny, fleshy wallpaper? — and carries itself with the assured confidence of its Byronic hero. (I’m a philistine, but I’m not a dummy.)

The problem – and it is no small one – rests with the leads. Elordi is fine as an unthinking hunk of abusive resentment. But the script cannot make sense of this Cathy as someone of Robbie’s age. At least one sarky crack confirms the character is no longer supposed to be a teenager (or anything close), but the dialogue does not satisfactorily retune Cathy to a woman in her 30s.

This is not an adaptation of "Wuthering Heights," but the result of what happens when you're playing an approximation "Wuthering Heights" without a full grasp on the material but all the money in the world to bring your questionable imagination to life.

For all of Elordi’s mutton-chopped brooding and Robbie’s vamping, there’s something shallow and glib about “Wuthering Heights.” Yet again, the psychosexual classic tragedy has been turned into a well-crafted mass-market potboiler.

Emerald Fennell's film is merely telling a shallow story about two people overcoming all obstacles to fall in love — not necessarily awful on paper, but it's an adaptation that feels like a 14-year-old skimmed the book and jumped to her own conclusions without any true understanding of the novel.

listen, as a Brontë purist who has read the book twice (currently reading it for the third time), I f-ing LOVED this movie. sure, it’s a very bold adaptation with A LOT of changes to the original plot - but that’s actually one of the things I enjoyed most about it. Emerald Fennell manages to capture what reading the book feels like, especially as a teenager (which, from interviews I’ve seen, was very much her intention). adapting Wuthering Heights in its entirety in just over two hours is almost impossible - there’s simply too much happening, too many interesting themes to explore. so stripping it down to the bone and focusing almost exclusively on the dynamic between Cathy and Heathcliff makes sense. in the end, this is just one of the many ways you can tell this story. I also appreciated that Cathy and Heathcliff are just as despicable on screen as they are on the page. I was worried the film might soften them to make them more “relatable,” but thankfully it didn’t. as for the casting - I understand the criticism around the two leads, but I thought Margot was absolutely brilliant (as she usually is). Jacob isn’t quite on her level here, though he still shines in some key scenes - especially the Thrushcross Grange face-off with Cathy, which is a 10/10 moment for him. by no means a perfect film (didn’t love that they cut Hindley, given how crucial he is to Heathcliff’s arc), and I completely get why some book fans didn’t like it - but as a fan of the novel, I had a grand old time. objectively? probably 8 out of 10 stars. subjectively? the costumes and Charli’s soundtrack alone earn those extra stars.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Emerald Fennell is a polarising filmmaker. Of course as she risks a lot where other director would stop, it happens that something goes wrong. Wuthering Heights is not her best work but still solid and not as bad as people say because focus solely on screenplays. I agree the screenplay is messy and is missing depth. Besides the screenplay, Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi are completely miscast for those roles. Not at any point did I feel chemistry between them. Jacob Elordi looks like he is just reading off his lines at times giving Heathcliff little to no depth. Sure this is the screenplay's fault but the best actors and actresses can still make it work. Hong Chau is on a different level compared to everyone else in the film, she outshines everyone in each scene. Moreover, the songs by Charlie XCX feel absolutely misplaced and they just dont work for me.Despite all those aspects that went wrong, it is still one of the best shots films of the year. The cinematography and production design are beautiful to look at. Linus Sandgren delivers again as one of the best cinematographers in the business. Definitely one of the most beautiful to look at films you will see all year.

I had high hopes for this film based upon the cast, however it failed to achieve everything that it set out to. The director attempted to recreate many aspects of other movies (bondage erotica from 50 Shades of Gray, visually stunning shots from The Fall, ironic humor from a Wes Anderson movie, etc.) and utterly fails in every attempt. It was very difficult to reach the end.

A film which left few cliches untouched, even audible ones. Nobody could open or close a door - or place a plate on a table - without it making a loud noise, enough to startle the audience. Misty shots of desolate Yorkshire moors are fine in this context, but does our heroine have to wander round them in bare-shouldered dresses? The screenplay was similarly predictable.