User Reviews

Don’t believe any negative hype. This is a classic tale that’s beautifully crafted. Two attractive leads take center stage in this tragic love story. They prove they’re more than just pretty faces in this masterfully acted feast for the eyes. The cinematography allows the viewer to truly appreciate the beautiful nation it was filmed in.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Well made, but controversial adaptation tries to modernize the literary classic. For newbies like me, it works. It's a similar approach that has been used in the past. Casting Jacob Elordi is also a good choice. Seems that he plays a good looking, highly toxic, yet symphathetic individual exremelly well. Yet, Robbie is way too old for this role and that really affects the movie's effectiveness.

I was not prepared for how good this movie was going to be. Based on reviews and the trailers, I figured it would be a fine movie to sit through with my wife on our couch. Man, what does it take for a real movie that’s an actual piece of art to get some attention? First off, it’s fun, not a stuffy, pretentious period piece (though those can be great, too). But it’s not just frivolous fun. It’s interesting, deeply emotional fun, beautifully shot, performed, scored, everything. Also, it’s not afraid to be controversial. It doesn’t play it safe. It challenges your thoughts while stirring your feelings. I absolutely loved it. And it made me feel young again, with the youthful emotions it tapped into. Deep feelings after viewing. Wonderful surprise!

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.

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.

Even if we take this movie on its own terms, it comes up short of capturing the torrid romance between Catherine and Heathcliff. Instead, we get a wild swirl of visual imagery designed to convey the deep passion these two young lovers feel for each other despite both being well beyond their late teen years when they first met. The secondary characters are all cardboard cutouts with the exception of Nelly, played by Hong Chau. Needless to say, Emerald Fennell massively reworked the novel but didn't give it any new feel. Jacob Elordi was sufficiently brooding as Healthcliff, but Margot Robbie seemed like she was in a near constant state of rapture rather than the unstable character in Emily Bronte's masterwork. The novel is so good that you hate to see it picked apart like this just to suit a filmmaker's questionable sensibilities. There was virtually none of the Gothic feel that made Wuthering Heights so enjoyable to read. It's really a shame because I like Fennel's work and thought she might give the story a new edge. Sadly not.

Guilty pleasure. I don’t fully agree with the consensus that has formed around this adaptation of 'Wuthering Heights'. It doesn’t strike me as the disaster most people have labelled it. It certainly diverges from the literary work of Emily Brontë, but I wouldn’t call it a pure betrayal either. Of course, there are differences—some of them hard to justify—but I don’t feel it represents a complete rupture with the original material. The core emotional threads are still there, even if reshaped; they don’t drift as far as it’s often claimed. What does concern me more—though it’s not my main issue—is that the film feels like it stops halfway through the novel. The absence of Catherine’s daughter is not just a narrative cut; it removes any sense of continuation, evolution, and consequence. Heathcliff is not merely a character who burns with intensity; he is a force that seems to bend time itself, contaminating everything that follows in the second half of the story. That dimension is missing here. Fennell sacrifices the sense of resonance that is so central to Brontë’s novel. What bothers me the most is the hypersexualisation. It has been marketed almost as a period version of '50 Shades of Grey'. I think that reading is slightly exaggerated, although it is not entirely detached from reality either. There is sex, but it functions as the main language of the relationship rather than as provocative spectacle. The issue is not the presence of these scenes, but their function: they replace emotional abstraction with something almost purely physical. Robbie and Elordi carry that dynamic quite well. Some people claim there is no chemistry between them, but I disagree; I do see it. The problem is that in this film they function more as a sexual impulse than as the embodiment of a destined, inseparable love. That changes the entire meaning of their relationship. The supporting characters are the real victims of this reduction. Many of them are flattened, pushed into superficial roles or redirected in ways that feel underdeveloped. Had they been handled with more care and narrative precision, this could have been a far more respected adaptation. Still, I found Isabella particularly interesting; she is portrayed in a more chaotic, less contained, and more unsettling way, which I didn’t dislike. Much has been said about the technical aspects of the film, often praising how visually appealing it is. I’m not entirely convinced. The music, for instance, never truly integrates; it feels incoherent with the period setting and fails to build a consistent atmosphere. The sets do appeal to me, but they also feel somewhat artificial, almost cardboard-like, though with a dreamlike quality that I actually find fascinating. Visually, everything feels designed to capture attention rather than to fully immerse the viewer emotionally, in this case myself. There is a clear aesthetic ambition, which is not without merit, but it doesn’t fully convince me. The lighting works better than the colour palette, which, throughout most of the film, doesn’t quite win me over. Even with all of this, I still like the film. Not from a place of admiration, of course, but from something more contradictory. It interests me despite its flaws, despite its sometimes unforgivable missteps. It is a clear case **** pleasure: I am fully aware of its shortcomings, yet I cannot deny that there is something in Fennell’s vision that draws me in, that keeps me watching even when I know it is not working as it should. That “something” is mainly its scenography. Robbie and Elordi also appeal to me, to be honest. They may not deliver performances of the year, but there is also room to enjoy things that were never designed to “win”. I completely understand the harsh reception it has received. It is an adaptation that gives up too many essential elements to come out unscathed. However, I also believe that within this failed attempt at reinterpretation, there are still details worth appreciating, and that its mistakes should not entirely overshadow its strengths. In fact, I find myself connecting more with this adaptation than with the remake of 'The Bride', by Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Going into this movie knowing only the basics of the history of wuthering heights and the book. Amazing visuals really carry this movie, solid film if you don't go into this with pre-conditioned bias from previous titles or the book.

It gave new life and modernity to a classic, which i never read, so i'm first of all glad to have seen this since i would have never decided to buy the book on my own. Overall quite enjoyable, i liked the choosing of the actors for each character and the acting itself, but the movie is very long and boring sometimes. I dont know if i would watch again, but surely recommended for a 1st time watching or if u are a fan of Brönte

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Que história problemática. Não achei romântico, não achei bonito, só achei bem zuado. No início eu fiquei curioso pra ver o desenrolar da história, mas fui perdendo o interesse por causa dos personagens. Gostei apenas do design de produção e a fotografia que tem frames bonitos no início, mas depois fica bem apático.

I left in the middle of the movie. Everything about it was just soooo bad...

Wuthering Heights is gorgeous, but it has no charm. The only character I can almost like is Nelly. I also understand the protagonists' actions, but some of what they do and who they become repulsive me. The story is somewhat predictable, but I had no idea how it would end, which is a great thing. I know it's very different from the original novel, but since I haven't read it, I can't compare. I always feel like that period films use unnaturally Shakespearean language, but this one managed to be pretty well-written in my opinion. The directing is good, but the cinematography is out of this world. The VistaVision blended perfectly with 3-perf 35mm. The lighting, the colours and framing are perfect. When there was a tonal shift in the middle, the colours also shifted, which I loved to see. If this isn't going to be nominated for best cinematography at the Oscars, the only reason would be the release date. I'm sad I couldn't catch this in IMAX during its first week. The editing is good, there was one particular transition that gave me chills. The production design is spectacular too, with good visual effects that almost always stayed hidden from my eyes. The score and soundtrack are epic, while the cast is good and the performances are great. Wuthering Heights is a visual feast and that's why it's my favourite film of 2026 so far.

I really liked it. I loved the new interpretation of the OG story. I wouldn’t have unwanted to see another faithful depiction of the book. Jacob and Margot have really good chemistry and it’s a fun movie to watch.

“Wuthering Heights”, the latest film by Emerald Fennell, has both critics and audiences divided, not least because of its significant deviation from the source material (hence the quotation marks in the title, implying that this is merely a loose interpretation of the book rather than an accurate, beat-for-beat adaptation), but when you also consider accusations of whitewashing in the casting of a white actor in a non-white role, you have a recipe for controversy that has a lot of people making up their minds about the film even before the opening credits. Now, I must preface this by saying that I have not read the book, and whilst I too baulk at the whitewashing of minorities, I will only be judging the movie on its own merits, ignoring the surrounding controversies, and I can safely say that “Wuthering Heights” does one heck of a job of making the romance at is centre feel like an epic despite its relatively modest runtime. Fennell, like in her previous films, Promising Young Woman and Saltburn, is on both directing and writing duties here, and credit to her for being in full control of the creative process in conceiving three very distinct films that have all contributed to the zeitgeist in different ways which, regardless of the general consensus on their individual quality, is an impressive feat. Margot Robbie is fantastic in the role as Catherine Earnshaw, the precocious daughter of the sometimes charitable, sometimes belligerent, and ultimately tragic Mr. Earnshaw, (shout out to Martin Clunes as you’ve never seen him before) owner of the titular Wuthering Heights estate. When Heathcliff, a young boy, is adopted by the Earnshaws, the petulant Catherine quickly clashes with the young boy’s occasionally fiery temperament, and these staples of angst and juvenility only become seemingly more ingrained beyond their adolescence, forming the bedrock of their steamy, adult passions. What might’ve come across as an ambiguous romance in the original text is now a full-blown epic love story, full of unrequited love, miscommunications with vast consequences, and love triangles galore, albeit with enough toxicity in the mix to poison a river, and enough red flags for an Encierro. But perhaps, this is a more true to life fairy-tale in which the phrase, “the course of true love never did run smooth” is taken to the extreme. Once the film has laid the groundwork by establishing the “will they/won’t they” dynamic between its two leads, the sometimes sweet and sometimes embittered fruits of its labours can be enjoyed. Instead of giving us a clear narrative love story, despite the feeling that these two characters are meant to be together, we are given the uglier side of love – the detached obsessiveness, the unbearable weight of emotion, the lines the broken-hearted are willing to cross in order to break the other’s heart in return. Resolutions are hard to come by here, and when they come, they are hard fought; they aren’t achieved gracefully. You have to admire the rendering of the scale of their relationship. The casting of Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff will have girls (and boys) swooning, though at times his boyish qualities seem at odds with the gruffness and cruelty of his character. However, this Heathcliff is a somewhat more sympathetic character than his literary counterpart. So, perhaps his boyishness gives him some much need humanity that he otherwise would’ve lacked. And what would a story with the word “Wuthering” in its title be without weather? The fog, the misty moors, the bleak rain – whenever these elements are shown on screen, it feels like we’re entering another world entirely; a private, almost ghostly, otherworldly space where Catherine and Heathcliff are free to blossom and steal moments of what feels like forbidden love, and whose chances of ending up together feel almost as ghostlike. Maybe I’m just a junkie for the backbiting. There is something tragic and yet fascinatingly enthralling about this “Ross and Rachel” kind of drawn-out love story. The climax, whilst potentially divisive, serves as a beautiful crescendo, the entirety of someone’s life flashing before their eyes in the form of a balladic music video. Whatever the soul of the book and the soul of this movie are made of, they might not be the same, but don’t let stop you from enjoying the movie.

“Wuthering Heights” may be the most unromantic and unerotic story about doomed lovers ever made. Its message, about how tragic it is to deny our urges, is delivered with the subtlety of cannon fire. On another level, it offers an interesting, if bombastic critique of the novel upon which it’s based. Not recommended. detroitcineaste

Pure ragebait for three hours never watched such **** before. If u like this ur mentally ill !!!

Não deveria ter esse nome, é uma parte da história de um livro indescritível. Assistivel, mas sem alma.

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.

Esta versión de Wuthering Heights intenta resaltar el lado más crudo y tormentoso de la historia, apoyándose en una atmósfera densa y una puesta en escena marcada. Sin embargo, la conexión emocional entre los personajes no siempre logra sostener la fuerza trágica del relato. Aunque visualmente es sólida y ambiciosa, la narrativa presenta altibajos que impiden que la adaptación alcance todo su potencial dramático.

Wuthering Heights was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Like Vishal Bhardwaj is a director to look forward to, the same applies to Emerald Fennell. I loved both Promising Young Woman and Saltburn and had high hopes for what was meant to be a very Emerald Fennell-esque take on a classic. Catherine and Heathcliff grow up together and are very close to each other. When Catherine falls for their neighbour because of his rich lifestyle, Heathcliff leaves home. When Heathcliff returns after a few years, Catherine proclaims her love for him and as a result her married life is thrown into turmoil.Emerald Fennell took the core element of the source material - Catherine & Heathcliff and rewrote their story with a lot of the supporting characters either written out or combined with others. And the movie has Fennell's stamp all over it - the Charlie xcx music, the overly sexual elements, and a very aesthetic production design. However, the only things that are notable are the production design and costumes. The performances are nothing to write home about, despite having Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi in the lead. Their chemistry doesn't feel organic enough except for maybe one or two moments at the start. Hong Chau's character was my favourite. The Charlie xcx songs don't have the intended effect and are mostly lost in the myriad of things onscreen. Wuthering Heights is a tedious watch. Except for visually pleasing frames, nothing works in its favour. A big disappointment for me.

A sensual and destructive storm of love and hate...........................

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Wuthering Heights is a visually striking adaptation that leans heavily into sensuality, with several intense and explicit scenes that may not appeal to every viewer. If that isn’t your preference, this film may not be for you.Margot and Jacob share compelling on-screen chemistry, carrying much of the film’s emotional weight. The direction embraces abstract, almost art-house storytelling, layering symbolic imagery throughout.That said, the pacing occasionally lingers longer than necessary, and the film could have benefited from tighter editing. Having not read the original novel, I can’t compare its faithfulness to the source material.Overall, it’s an ambitious and stylistic interpretation that I would still recommend watching.

Having never read the book, I thought it was a great movie. Definitely a rollercoaster of emotions with this one. Were some things unnecessary? Maybe. But as a whole I think it’s worth watching.

A edição opta por um exercício de estilo, pena que é focado unicamente num romance tórrido, como se tivesse o peso de um "Romeu e Julieta" da vida. O resultado: um filme choroso, arrastado, salvo pelo carisma dos protagonistas. Uma lamúria sem fim. OBS: Grazy > Margot

"Wuthering Heights" is a lifeless Gothic romance that even Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi can't elevate this material. Emerald Fennell's desire to provoke discourse around this legendary novel falls apart as she slips into the same kind of primary-color melodrama that she tries to satirize. It’s evident within minutes of her third directorial feature, her much-discussed and pre-emptively maligned “Wuthering Heights,” based on Emily Brontë’s legendary novel. The hanging of a local criminal sparks a bacchanal amongst the onlookers, with liquor flowing freely, hands groping, and tongues lashing at each other. It’s utter chaos, and very much the point. Fennell puts her stake in the ground before we formally meet the volatile, tragic couple at the heart of this film and its source material. This is not your great-great-grandmother’s Wuthering Heights, nor is it your great-grandmother’s (assuming they watched the 1939 film by William Wyler). Hell, it isn’t even your mother’s, the 1992 film starring Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche. No, Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” (the quotations are intentional) is something else entirely. It is an unabashedly brash and bawdy interpretation of the years-long romance between Catherine Earnshaw (Margot Robbie) and Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi). The film adapts the first half of the novel, beginning with an adolescent Catherine (Charlotte Mellington) discovering a near-mute Heathcliff (Owen Cooper) hiding under her bed after her father brings him home. They quickly become devoted to each other, but their devotion is tested as they become young adults, and they try to make sense of society’s expectations of them and their fledgling sexualities. Further complicating their budding romance is Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), the owner of a neighboring estate with a younger sister, Isabella (Alison Oliver), who takes a liking to Cathy, and Nelly (Hong Chau), Catherine’s companion, who harbors complicated feelings for her. Although the film retains the novel’s Victorian English setting and style, “Wuthering Heights” possesses a thoroughly modern tone, steeped in wink-wink-nudge-nudge irony. Fennell seems to think that modern, Gen Z-driven audiences might receive the sweeping epic romance genre with skepticism, so she beats them to the punch with scenes that have an absurdist rhythm. She reserves much of that for Catherine and her penchant for self-importance. The film treats her antics, from admonishing Heathcliff for not taking his reading lessons seriously to fretting over Edgar whisking her away from spinsterhood, as trivial pursuits, apropos for top-shelf melodrama. The irreverence works in Catherine’s and the film’s favor, framing her in a charming, campy light that endears her and her relationship with Heathcliff to us. Because the film sets aside self-serious pretense, it allows us to focus on the deep sincerity of Catherine and Heathcliff’s feelings. We want them to win, even though it’s clear that they won’t. Look I'm never a person who says you must be faithful to the original text, obviously Emily Brontë fans are probably not going to appreciate Fennell having a laugh at the expense of bodice-ripping romantic epics. If you wanna adapt a book as crual and miserable as this you get auteurs like Catherine Breillat or Lars Von Trier It does make for an entertaining experience that allows you to relish in the film’s joyful shamelessness. Hearing Isabella recount the story of Romeo and Juliet to her aghast brother is blissfully unhinged, setting the stage for the film’s secret weapon. The slight satirical bent also adds a playful bite to Fennell’s continued fascination with ostensibly transgressive sexual behavior, as if she’s in on the fact that finger-licking really isn’t that scandalous. (And there is a lot of finger licking and **** in “Wuthering Heights.” There’s also a scene that will be familiar to anyone who follows “Donut Daddy” on TikTok.) Unfortunately, “Wuthering Heights” loses grip of its playful tone halfway through and devolves into what it appeared to be poking fun at. It starts to fall apart when Heathcliff returns to Wuthering Heights several years after Catherine has married Edgar. Operating under the assumption that Catherine had never loved him (fueled by Nelly’s interference), Heathcliff is haughty and obnoxious, waving his wealth and Isabella’s attraction to him in Catherine’s face. In return, Catherine is downright nasty to Isabella, pettily mocking her schoolgirl crush on Heathcliff. It’s an abrupt heel turn in the film’s atmosphere that is less compelling than ill-fitting and off-putting.

Embarrassingly bad. Miscasted, salacious, thoroughly cheap and nasty. Promising Young Woman was good, but it seems more by luck than good judgment. Saltburn was horrible, this is worse.

AWFUL. Zero chemistry between Heathcliff and Cathy. The much discussed 'horny' scenes were an hour into the movie, with staccato cuts of them grabbing each other in carriages to moors to tables (The Postman Always Rings Twice?). Many French kisses, fingering, Heathcliff's gold crown the focal point in the darkness, never any deep lovemaking from say, Sea of Love with Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin or even Claire and Jamie in Outlander. Art direction was a kitchy distraction - leaches artfully assembled in a pattern on the wall when in the bed, Cathy was being drained by them. Terrible script, Heathcliff to Cathy angrily : "Do you not remember your tongue in my throat (or mouth)!?" I didn't feel a thing for any of the characters, with the exception of Cathy's sister-in-law, who was terrifically acted and written. OH and, cracked eggs and yolks as a viscous "I'm here" love note when Heathcliff or Cathy would pull off the bed cover, then run out the door to find each other. Vomit in the open scenes, etc. WAY too long, precious direction. Withering Lows.

A hiper sexualização mesmo que esperada me encomenda bastante, e consequentemente diminui consideravelmente o teor do filme

Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi play the adult versions of the famed star-crossed, ill-fated lovers. (BTW, the young version of Heathcliff is played by Owen Cooper, the lead in “Adolescence”) This attractive couple faces numerous odds in this version, thanks to writer/director Emerald Fennell (writer of “Saltburn” & “Promising Young Woman”). She’s taken liberties with the story and setting. Then entire film is dark, literally and figuratively. The clothes are brighter in the later “rich” scenes, but the tragic story has virtually no moments of joy. Instead, they have furtive heated sexual exchanges. Robbie suffers appropriately, while Elordi smolders in the early scenes before becoming dashing (and mumbles a lot). There are some attractive elements, including the cinematography and production design, but Fennell has indulged herself to the point of tedium. Some of the film is wonderful, but it bogs down more than it inspires.

A film that mistakes aesthetic moodiness for emotional depth, Wuthering Heights looks far more profound than it actually is. The cinematography is polished and occasionally striking, but style can’t compensate for a hollow core. Performances fluctuate between committed and unintentionally theatrical, and the tone wavers as if unsure whether it wants to be raw passion or prestige drama. What should feel consuming instead feels curated intense in theory, distant in execution. Ambitious, yes. Moving? Not really.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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.

Emerald Fennell, once again, prioritizes style over substance. While it's always interesting to see an adaptation that takes a different route, this 'Wuthering Heights' isn't as subversive as it seems; the promised erotic element has little impact. The acting, cinematography, and production design are very good, but the story can't help but fall into a certain tedium and redundancy. And then there's Heathcliff's race change, which detracts significantly from the meaning of this work.

it was preety aight an ok film ngl type **** xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxoxox

Gorgeous, hot, breath-taking, funny, ****. Bold, feminine and wild. Kudos to Fennell for directing and Robbie for producing a modern masterpiece. Brilliant acting across the board, led by a phenomenal performance by Elordi. This dude is so profoundly talented. Cannot wait to see what he does next.

A depraved, hollow adaptation of a classic. The director continues her streak of disgusting films

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Me pareció una adaptación cruda, intensa y visualmente muy cuidada. La atmósfera es oscura y melancólica, y transmite muy bien la pasión y el sufrimiento de los personajes. A veces el ritmo se siente un poco pesado, pero emocionalmente funciona y deja huella. No es para todo el mundo, pero tiene fuerza y personalidad.

Poking fun at the supposedly sacred can sometimes be a source of perverse glee, particularly when targeted against works of art and literature that many might consider off limits and untouchable. Undertakings like that, however, were made for writer-director Emerald Fennell. As a filmmaker with a reputation for unapologetically telling stories with outrageous narratives, she was the perfect choice for the assignment of skewering Emily Bronté’s classic 1847 novel Wuthering Heights. Long considered one of the best works of English literature, this Gothic romance with a tawdry underbelly has long passed itself off as a respectable piece of writing thanks in large part to the carefully managed protection afforded by literary purists. However, in this latest cinematic adaptation of this time-honored tale, the filmmaker holds nothing back in bringing its kinkier aspects to light, all presented with a deliciously wicked sinister grin. While the film admittedly takes considerable license with the original narrative, its core characters and much of its basic storyline have been spared, albeit with a twisted approach in doing so. The film basically follows the exploits of ambitious social climber Cathy Earnshaw (Margot Robbie) who comes from a once-moneyed family now experiencing diminishing financial means. Cathy’s smitten with an orphan boy whom her father (Martin Clunes) rescues from the streets whom she has named Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) in honor of her deceased brother. Cathy and Heathcliff grow up together, almost like siblings, but there’s an undeniable attraction between them. But, for Cathy, giving in to her romantic impulses would be imprudent in light of her ambitions to become socially respectable. And, as a consequence, she abandons her love for Heathcliff in favor of Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), the landed owner of a neighboring manor, a move that breaks Heathcliff’s heart, who subsequently flees in despair. But, when Heathcliff returns several years later as a wealthy man, Cathy’s hormones stir to life once again, especially since her love for him now has money to back up the considerable pheromones he exudes. Thus begins a tale of erotic intrigue involving this romantic triangle, a deliciously campy romp brought to life and further seasoned by the maneuverings of Cathy’s longtime (and supposedly trusted) servant, Nelly (Hong Chau), who has a vested interest in how affairs ultimately unfold. The filmmaker thus spins a pulpy web on par with the best plots found in classic 1980s prime time soaps, suitably peppered with witty one-liners and hilarious sight gags. These antics are sufficiently facilitated by the superb performances of Robbie, Elordi and Alison Oliver as Edgar’s naïve sister Isabella (who’s not nearly as innocent as she seems, especially when she takes a shine to Heathcliff upon his triumphant return, adding more spice to the stew). While some viewers may not take to the deviations from the novel’s original story, and despite some tonal inconsistencies on the part of the filmmaker. “Wuthering Heights” is nevertheless a delightfully juicy guilty pleasure. It’s not meant to be taken as seriously as previous cinematic versions of this work, but there’s nothing wrong with that, as it’s intentionally following a different approach from those earlier offerings. And, in this case, Fennell’s version isn’t afraid to brazenly expose the hitherto-cloaked dirty little secrets of those iterations. I can’t imagine any other filmmaker capable of taking on the task of telling this story in this particular way. The outrageousness that the director unabashedly brought to the screen in previous works like “Promising Young Woman” (2020) and “Saltburn” (2023) is again present here (though handled far more skillfully this time), deftly combined with top-shelf production values in areas like cinematography, costuming, art direction and set design, not to mention the aforementioned spot-on performances. This release definitely won’t appeal to everyone, especially among those who prefer their adaptations of classic literature unadulterated. But viewers who have a pronounced mischievous streak in their movie preferences will no doubt revel in this release’s refreshingly bawdy frankness and clever tongue-in-cheek humor. This is truly a cup of tea with a hefty shot of a potent potable added to it, so, if that’s your taste, by all means drink up and enjoy.

why charlixcx?the production team couldve use atleast billie eilish or adele? no budget thats why they chose charli which is not really suitable for the viewer. i dont feel it will be bop and just make america great again. hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah

Very boring movie, over the top sequences, nothing original or memorable about it.

Why not just make Romeo and Juliet. The director can paint a pretty picture but no clue on these characters. Becoming slowly more convinced on Elordi's acting ability. I liked the one Charli XCX song.

Personally, I think this film is a successful reinterpretation of a novel, and also it is one of the best film adaptations. It is fresh, provocative, and emotional… I loved it.

A pleasant surprise. More humour than I expected - particularly at the beginning. Good cinematography. Nellie appears framed as if in a Vermeer painting sometimes. More sensual that I expected. The film ultimately delivers the essence of English love - beyond wealth, intense in nature and in it’s own world.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]