MovieChat Forums > Wuthering Heights (1939) Discussion > Horrible

Horrible

posted 9 years ago by spazberryme
9 replies | jump to latest

This movie had some balls to cut up a classic book! I started getting angry as hell at this movie. If you wanted to tell a different story, fine- but call it something else!

They used dialog straight from the book but it doesn't even make sense because of how they changed the plot! "Heathcliff isn't a man, he's a monster"... but what in this movie did he do that was monstrous? Took Henley's house?

I don't even care if people want to get liberal in adaptation, but the POINT of Wuthering Heights is obsession, abuse and it's cross-generational ripples, isolation, and class struggle... this movie kind of brushed on class struggle but that was IT!

When Ellen happily said that they where finally together and their ghost walked into the sunset I was like ahhhhhhhhhh kill me

[–] GunsGirlsCars 9 years ago

Horrible?
Been watching this flick since the 60's and still to this day enjoy it big time. Having both VHS and a Internet Copy..yet to be bored.
How is it that you read the book?
I never did, but have seen different versions, the this one making it to the top of the heap.

[–] scopeland28 (107) 2 years ago

I agree! People need to stop expecting something different with movies that are adapted from a novel. They’re going to steer from originality every time! Look what they did to the movie, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” (2014) and “Noah” (2014). They portrayed a descendant of Cain as a stowaway on the Ark. This stowaway also slaughter one of the animals which would’ve made reproduction for that species peculiar.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cindykoerner 9 years ago

I love it.
It's possibly my favorite movie ever.

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

Heathcliff WAS a "monster," in a way, and the movie may be a sanitized version of the book (though what else would you expect from Hays Code-era Hollywood?) but it's still plain enough even in the film that the mutual obsession between him and Cathy brought misery on everyone around them.

Cathy was no better. Neither she nor Heathcliff cared for anything but their own wanton passions.

Mind you, I'm not slamming the movie. Very well acted and directed; one of the gems of Old Hollywood, to be sure. However, I find little to admire in the two protagonists other than the compelling aspects of their story.

[–] Dmitri_King 8 years ago

Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite novels.

Despite hating almost all adaptations of my favorite novels, I decided to watch this one.

And I agree with you, it was terrible, specifically for the reasons you mentioned.

[–] thegr8defender 8 years ago

On its own, without the book, it stands up. But I have to say after maybe 10 yrs of regular (monthly?) viewing, it was a shock to read the book.

[–] rc1990 8 years ago

Watch the 1992 version. It's all in there.

[–] cpmorr 7 years ago

Radical revisionism of novels is nothing new to Hollywood. Movie adaptations of books are usually quite different from the original story, usually in the interest of keeping the movie to two hours...otherwise you have a miniseries.

Other cases in point; I'm sure there are many others:

Gone With the Wind
Mildred Pierce
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
The Prince of Tides
The Birds

Films quite often tweak plot points and endings to make them more cinematic.
Henry James never had Catherine Sloper bolt the door on Morris Townsend, but it made for a great movie ending.