Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

DowntonR1 A gritty, earthy version filmed on the North Yorkshire moors, which are a star in their own right, the wet and the wind make you feel like you're there. The use of mostly non professional local actors, worked for me, adding to that realistic feel, other assets were the use of a hand held camera and the use of natural light indoors. Kaya Scodelario makes a fiery, troublesome Kathy and maybe the pick of the cast. James Howson is fine as the brooding, mono syllabic Heathcliff. Andrea Arnold has directed an excellent different take on a classic novel.

hattyukigyo I adored the filming of nature. The moors were once really made important in the story - I think the filming itself was the best among all trials so far. I liked the bleakness and the slowliness. The characters were put there with style as well, but had little to do with Emily Bronte's novel. Actors were good-looking and empty. Not even their silence was enough meaningful. The children were especially unnaturally dull. (The kids were described pretty much the opposite in the book!) And the adults, well - they lacked also the spirit of the moors. Yet, it's a very, very good film.

sapphire I couldn't see or here anything in this film. The lighting was so bad it was like the studio must of spent the budget on other prodjects, the horid camera work when Heatcliff covers his eyes, the wind that blocked out all sound probably because the sound crew realised the unintellgible filth coming out of the actors mouth was not worth hearing and the child nudity the actor of young Heathcliff was barley 14 at filming I hope this edition fades from public memory as the infinitely better 1978 version did, I gave up ten minutes before the end after exepting this was not Emily Brontë's masterpiece that I know and love.

ajnoiter I'm not trying to spoil it, but there is one tidbit that may spoil a few minutes of the movie.Most of the other reviews would otherwise be echoed here, so instead I'm going to pinpoint the few things that destroyed the movie for me. In fact, the movie was so bad based on these items that I'm currently 40 minutes from the end, with no intention to continue.1) According to Wikipedia, in the 1600s a fancy device was first noted for its use. Undoubtedly, they were used before then, but there wasn't a term allocated to the item. The name of that item is "tripod" - and they're relatively inexpensive. In more recent history there have been other developments, such as a monopod - a tripod with one leg - which I would assume to be even more inexpensive. In the 1970s a device called a "steadycam" was invented. Throughout the 1 hour and 18 minutes that I've watched, a device to steady the camera has been used exactly 1 time. It was on a shot viewing the mountains in the distance. Sadly, that wasn't the only shot of that type - in fact, there have been many shots like that throughout the film thus far. Far too many of the shots in this film should be shot using a device (or software, essentially by removing the edges) to steady the camera.. however, none are used.2) It seems like the majority of the film you're staring at the backside of an actor's head. With this in mind, you're not really seeing much... except the back of an actor's head.3) When you can see more than the back of a head it's likely to be so dark that you can't tell what you're looking at anyway. The lighting of the shots is horrid. One of the most recent scenes was simply nothing more than a black screen for about 30 seconds. I'm not talking "it was dark but you could make out movements" - no, the screen was black.4) Jump in time .. in the blink of an eye without any kind of notification. Seriously, I blinked my eyes and everyone aged a good 5 years or so. I can't tell you exactly how many years, because I wasn't told. I thought I was watching a different branch of the movie for a moment or two. For those who have seen the movie, it was right after the black screen mentioned above.With the points above there is no doubt in my mind that this was filmed and directed by amateurs. My rating of 2 is 100% on the pain that the camera man had to be going through from holding up the camera all those hours of shooting, because it is undoubtedly done that way. Kudos to him, though he should have taken more pride in his work by using a stabilizing device.