Reviews & Ratings for
Wuthering Heights (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
MTV, I beggeth thee: cease perverting the classics..., 15 September 2003

Author: LE020

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Bad movie. Avoid it. Never, ever, watch it., 11 April 2006

Author: matin_kun88 from Bosnia and Herzegovina

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.

guy: all we need is here.

girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.

guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.

... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
A Commendable But Ultimately Disappointing Effort, 1 February 2004
Author: Electroglyde from Los Angeles, California

Remember that this movie is not a version of the classic novel-as with numerous other movie versions in the past-but an update, a free-wheeling variation on Brontë's somber theme.

There are strokes of genius interspersed with much banality. One of the former is to take the brooding socio-ethnic outcast of the novel-a gypsy foundling there-and rethink him as a petulant blond rockstar, a drifter from childhood whose only home is music. Mike Vogel alternately smolders and dazzles in the part, but the writing is ultimately too weak to sustain his efforts, which are commendable, and give us a character who is by turns passional, poignant, and heroic.

Erika Christensen is less compelling as the update of the tempestuous and incomparable Catherine. And this is partly due to the fact that, once again, the writing fails to elevate her character to a level of true complexity. When she delivers what must be one of the most famous lines in all English Literature-"I am Heath(cliff)"-we reach, emotionally, for a pinnacle that lies far below our literary flightplan. When I reminded myself that these characters were (and were meant to be) kids, and that they couldn't play out the grand adult passions of their counterparts in Brontë in a viable way, I connected better with the work.

The film's greatest strengths, aside from those observed, are what may at first appear to be its weaknesses, its earnestness, its flickers of post-modern flippancy, its fast-cut MTV style. The music is quite good, and there should've been much more of it. The symbolism of linking the electric guitar with the feral and blue-collar Heath and the cello with the effete and white-collar Edward is another masterful stroke and one has to wonder why this pairing of two seductive and powerful instruments was not used to better and more sustained effect in the score. The one scene in which the instruments duel illuminate the action and its psychological subtext with exhilarating but, regrettably, only meteoric effect. With that lovely musical moment and a few others of true emotional thrust, the film flashes its occasional strengths a us, like the lighthouse which houses its protagonists, but as at whole it cannot keep our hopes for what it could have been from the rocks beneath.

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
withering flop, 15 September 2003

Author: Oedi from US

I was skeptical when I first saw the Calvin Kline-esque commercials, but thought I'd give it a chance. So I've watched it, and all I can say is bleh. This movie was so bad. It's rare that I hate a movie this much. Watching this flick reminded me of those funny scenes in Altman's "The Player," when the writers pitch their bizarre ideas to producers. I'd like to know which MTV producer decided that an hour and a half long music video adaptation of Bronte (but this time Heathcliff's name is Heath and he's a rock star, and Hindley's name is Hendrix) would be a good idea.

Even that might not have been so bad, had they not gotten every other aspect of the film so horrible wrong as well. The direction must have been "you're lonely, pout for me." I laughed out loud during all the "serious" scenes and was bored throughout the rest. The camera work was jagged and repeatedly reminded me that I was watching a bad movie trying to be edgy. My theory is that the sound guy got bored and went down to the beach for a few beers with his boom -- all I could hear in half the scenes were the waves. And in the other scenes, I wish that's all I could hear. And speaking of sound, what they did to the Sisters of Mercy song "More" is absolutely inexcusable, then again, it's inexcusable what they did to Bronte.

On the bright side, there was one entertaining scene -- specifically the moment when Johnny Whitworth licked Katherine Heigl's face -- and if you can tell me what that scene had to do with all the rest of the story more power to you.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Mentally ill, isolated youngsters behaving badly, 14 August 2010

Author: Sarah Perry from St. Paul, MN

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The real tragedy is that most of the problems these characters have could have easily been solved by a bit of therapy and some Prozac. That's the real tragedy to me. Not Cate's death (have ANY of these characters heard of a hospital?! A woman is dying in a cave, so you take her home to your lighthouse where she can give birth and then die? Real smart, Heath), not the tumultuous love affair, not even the depressing, whiny music.

Which is hard for me to say. I'm a huge fan of Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman music in general. I pretty much HAVE to like the songs in this movie. But the whiny vocals and the pasted-on angst just ruined the couple songs that were actually decent to begin with ("The Future Ain't What It Used to Be" and "Break It").

I went into it knowing it would be bad, and I wasn't disappointed. But I was terrifically bored.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Abysmal version of a great novel, 19 April 2005

Author: zeiko from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A terrible adaptation of this classic story!, 14 September 2003
Author: LTripp from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie sets the story in modern times and in America. Like in other modern adaptations such as "O" and "Scotland, PA" they have changed the character's names to modern names close to the original names. Heath(Heathcliff) gradually becomes a rock star. (SPOILERS) Like several versions of this story it ends with Cathy having the baby and then dying, only this time before she dies she tells Heath the child is his. And then we see that Heath is happily raising the child. It is also a more shallow love story. Wuthering Heights is a great story. The only version worth owning is the 1992 version the outstanding actor Ralph Fiennes made his real performance debut. If you want to see good modernized old story rent "O" (Othello) or Leonardo DiCaprio's "Romeo and Juliet".

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Wuthering Shites, 18 January 2005

Author: pukkamedia from United States

What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
If you can let go of the original, this is a great movie. Not just for teens., 19 April 2005

Author: blackmagic1987 from canada

I've read a lot of reviews on different sites saying this was remade into a typical teen movie. Trust me I'm not a teen and I loved it. I haven't been glued to the TV and brought to tears so much or fast with any movie I can remember. Mike Vogel was amazing. He pulled off the tortured soul of Heath so well. I'd only ever seen him in Grind and what a transformation. He went from a young man with a dream to a man with a love. I couldn't believe Mike's voice and Erika Christensen not only complimented Mike's voice but was amazing on her own as well. The other characters however were typical rich kids with not quite as much depth but it was irrelevant because all a viewer is watching for is Kate & Heath to be together even for a moment. I shake my head every time I see someone standing at a doorway listening to a conversation only to miss the most important part as in "I am Heath". I believe a classic can be remade in many ways and era's only to reach new viewers. This remake done for the new generation can only entice viewer to want to know what the classic was really like. If it reaches any of the younger generation enough to want to read the book then it was well worth the money to make. It's a good movie, it has good actors and it's real and now. The music is amazing. What more do we need to make our younger generation seek out classics. Keep remaking the classics and keep reaching our kids.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
typical of MTV, 14 September 2003
Author: feverishpixie from Los Angeles, California

this movie is not, and i repeat, not a good version of the book. if you haven't read the book, you'd probably think it rocks, but then that's your opinion.

i have to admit that Chris Masterson looked pretty good playing Edward Linton, but i think that they overdid Heath's part a tad bit. and because it's MTV making this movie, there are a bit of intimate parts in here. Plus, personally, i didn't like the ending.

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another review

Related Links