Worst Wuthering Heights version ever.
Boring. Poor. Bad.
What a waste of time!
totally agree what absoloute rubbish
share
MovieChat Forums > Wuthering Heights (2011) Discussion > Worst Wuthering Heights version ever.
I Agree
shareWhat were they thinking? Or perhaps no one was?
shareI watched like an hour of it and got really bored. Wonder if need to read the book or watch another adaptation before this one. Geez, I really wanted to like it! I loved Fish Tank! (I'm aware there are different stories but it's the same director so)
shareyeah, this is a crappy film.
shareIt's a pretty fair disaster. It's like an experimental film more than anything, shot with shaky, hand held, jittery camera, and almost no dialogue so that you have no emotional connection to the actors. Plus the lead actors are completely unsuitable, including the horrid grown up Heathcliff. Also, young Cathy can barely speak a sentence that's audible and then suddenly grown up, she speaks like a lady.
shareThis film would have to set some sort of record wouldn't it? The least amount of dialogue spoken in any version of a Bronte film. Whilst the moors environment was rightfully highlighted, I just didn't think the shaky cam close-up stuff worked at all. I'd like to have a dollar for every time in this movie we followed an extended, nausea-inducing close-up of Heathcliff/Cathy/one of the two walking somewhere ... anywhere. IMO ... pointless padding! And the lack of virtually any musical soundtrack? Again, some films are suited to this, but not this one. All I think it succeeded in doing by its absence was downplaying the drama, suspense and passion.🐭
shareI found the acting good and the cinematography stunning but besides that it was a waste if time. By the end I felt nothing for the characters.
shareYou are so wrong; actually, after the Tom Hardy version, this is the absolute BEST filmed version of the book. It is intense, dark, moody, and recreates the world as seen through children's eyes, better than anything I have ever seen. The worst versions are the sappy, overly dramatic ones, like the original with Merle Oberon, that completely removes the entire second half of the book. And some idiot complained at the lack of background music? I guess they wanted violins and piano music to cue their "feelings." Granted, the second half is not as strong as the first half, which is absolutely brilliant. And this is the first version to really capture the rough, gloomy and harsh world of the Moors. As a longtime fan of the novel, I believe this to be an excellent adaptation.
Fabio Testi is GOD