Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

loschavez I'm forever a William Wyler fan. Yet must agree that he had a peculiar take on this Bronte classic. For one thing Cathy is far from a typecast Hollywood heroine. The love affair of Heathcliffe and Catherine demanded better than Merle Oberon, IMHO. This Mexican production directed by the legendary Luis Bunuel has a far lovelier girl in Cathy's role. Irasema Dilian underplays Cathy with listless gravity that ideally serves her sexual attraction.It's plainly what this brilliant director took from Emily Bronte's own Gothic palette. Spoilers near: Just look at this creature so hysterical about Heathcliffe *here Alejandro* as to die for love of him. Irasema was likely directed to taunt her weak husband openly, displaying her passion for Alejandro. Dilian is poker-faced throughout, yet ravishing to look at. Just as the great novel paints her. Bunuel features the unlucky spouse as just a poor cuckold and nothing more.As for Jorge Mistral; he was a top-notch matinée idol in Mexico, with nothing to ask of anybody in Wyler's film, not even Olivier. Of medium stature with virile good looks, he recalls Jeff Chandler to me. Not a bad Alejandro (Heathcliffe.) Mistral's brooding portrayal of Bronte's anti-hero is very persuasive. It's quite clear Luis Bunuel knew what he wanted for this important part. The other actors take some warming up to; but no more than those in Wyler's Wuthering Heights. Willy Wyler wasn't crazy about Laurence Olivier as Heathcliffe, bawling him out mercilessly on set. So also David Niven as Cathy's brother; --Wyler laughed to his face saying: "Look at him! An actor who can't ACT!" Of course that role was tripe, just as in this Spanish-spoken script. In Bunuel's version, the settings are bright, hardly dismal. Yet photographer Agustin Jimenez caught them as sober and forbidding enough. Playing an orchestral Love/Death sequence of Wagner's Tristan and Isolde at intervals of unpleasant stress for the lovers didn't seem very Gothic at all, unfortunately. It came together smartly, however. As a romance too obsessive not to end in tragedy. Excellent contrast to the Hollywood rendition in which Heathcliffe and Cathy ended up embracing amidst towering clouds, like angelic beings. Luis Bunuel's version is superior. I suspect Emily Bronte would have preferred it.

gabriela-zayas Believe or not, this is the best adaptation of the marvelous and romantic story written by Emily Brontë in the Yorkshire Moors! Of course there are more faithful to the letter of the novel in those series made by the BBC long ago, but not the recent ones. The line story is so complicated that is very difficult for a movie to cover it fully. It's hardly believable that this Mexican movie does it so well as to be the best film on the subject, but that is the miracle of Art,It doesn't belong to a place, but to all places, nor to a particular language, but to all languages. Buñuel's genius operates the miracle, aided by his excellent cast and team. This is the one version that captures the roots of Cathy's and Heathcliff's deep and contradictory emotions, the passions, the love and hate they shared and suffered, being all of them doomed to be unhappy in this world and hoping to be redeemed and united in the other. Placed in Mexico, black and white excellent photography, with a believable and intense cast, and a passionate, yet sometimes ironic direction, you must not judge before watching it. It is a great movie!

Oslo Jargo (Bartok Kinski) This film was quite powerful and it kept me fastened to my seat for the whole duration. On the whole, there isn't much holding the story but Bunuel allows us to become voyeurs and begin to understanding what primitive love and adoration is. One of his best works next to (Milky Way).

smrger Briefly, my comments are directed to those who know the 1939 movie "Wuthering Heights", the novel "Wuthering Heights", and the work of Luis Bunuel. I love the novel. I love its intensity. I love its passion. I love its brutality. I love its carnal passion and its carnal brutality. Yet the 1939 Wylder version is practically sterile. Bunuel brings alive that passion and brutality. Frankly, Wylder's Wuthering Heights is embarrassed by Bunuel's when it comes to capturing the essentials of Bronte's novel. In my opinion, this fact is a reflection of the limitations put on 1930's Hollywood directors by studios looking to sell movies to a society that was unbending in its unwillingness to allow artists to truly stretch the art of film. Hollywood was slow to come around in expressing the same sexual and violent expressions that has always been present in literature from which it found its inspiration. As you might know, Bunuel has never let anything hold back his artistic expression. And in his version of Bronte's novel he takes full hold the emotion that Bronte intended us to feel.