BEST adaption of the book so far . . .

Choke...gasp...gag...

I can't tell if you are being serious or not, but if you are serious, well...I'd have to assume you haven't seen any other adaptations of the book, especially the one from 1939. Or does the age of that movie automatically make you discount it?

This was nothing more than a typical Lifetime movie. Meaning, serviceable, but not challenging or original in any way. Plus it was completely unbelievable. The book, and first movie adaptation, were set in a time and place where you could believe the plot. Here, it was ludicrous.

The worst part was Paloma Kwiatkowski's Cathy. I don't think she changed expression once in the movie. You certainly could never tell what she was feeling without the narration. I haven't seen her in anything else; I wonder if she is this bad in general, or if her performance was the fault of the director?

"Heath" was almost as bad. I'll blame that on the director, since there was so little character development for him that we knew more about him from the narration than from anything else. When a movie depends on narration to tell you the feelings and motives of the characters, you know there is a problem.

I gave the movie 6 stars. I was being generous, giving it some slack because it was so typical of a Lifetime movie.

There were no likeable characters at all in this horrible movie.

Cathy a whiney rich brat who kept blabbering about her dead mother. Get over it little girl.

Heath the poor lttle boy who kept crying about his mother who was deported by the INS.

Lee, Cathy's drug addicted brother who had no purpose in life whatsoever.

I could go on but this was indeed a horrible adaptation of Wuthering Heights.

I beg to differ. The 1939 version was in black/white which we all know is inferior to color. Duh. Double duh. And the 1992 version starred Ralph Fiennes . . . a 3rd-tier actor at best. Honestly, what has he done recently or in the past 30yrs that was even half way decent? Ummm yeah, case closed.

First of all, if you're in your 40s or from a country suburbs, you should not be using the word hater. It's overly killed, abused by snotty little rich girls. The movie was a category 5 twister, a complete catastrophic disaster. The story was crap, acting was crap, had no focal point, no likeable characters, has an ungrateful kid stealing and ruining lives, Cathy is as vapid as a serial killer, and... oh yeah, the movie sucks. Only way someone can like this is if you're a teenage girl with a crush on a terrible actor who thought it was a Pantene Pro V commercial he was in.

Are you a child?

Meaning Steve Skoal. Only the ignorance of a child could explain your ludicrous 'opinion' Maybe you should try reading the book. But I really doubt that anyone who would make the claim that 'colour is obviously superior' is salvageable.

[deleted]