jippie2007
Let's start with some things I didn't really like. The movie only covers the first half of the book, the clothing and hair are very seventies (hippy Catherine with flowers in her hair, Heathcliff needs a haircut) and the ending is so unlike the book (why did they do that???!!) But still: I love this movie, it's so passionate and sensual! Timothy and Anna are perfect as Heathcliff and Cathy. The music is beautiful and so are the colors of the scenery: contrasting dark and light, clouds and sunlit sky, purple brown heather versus lilac and grey interiors.. I think it truly captures the spirit of the novel!!
pkspringstocker
I first saw this film in 1970 and it had such an effect on me I saw it three times and cried all the way home each time.In fact it still has the power to make me cry now. I remember in the cinema the gasps from the women in the audience when Heathcliffe returned to Wuthering Heights. Wow! The whole movie was so atmospheric right from the beginning with that fantastic scenery and haunting music. Timothy's portrayal of Heathcliffe is by far the most passionate and sensitive I've seen and I would have liked to have seen him in other similar roles. Naturally I have bought the DVD and also the music on vinyl-both are played regularly!One of my daughters is now a huge fan of the movie.
morgana-31
I read Wuthering Heights as a teenager. I just loved it so, after being sadly let-down by the Merle Oberon film version - it seemed to make Heathcliff into some sort of romantic hero rather than the totally unpleasant type that he was - I was overjoyed that it was finally being remade.I had great expectations for this film. What a pity I went to see it. It was just a rehash of the first part of the book. If I'd wanted that I'd have sat through the original another time.And an apology to all of you who find Timothy Dalton soooo sexy. He reminds me too much of a ferret to get my pulses racing.Well at least someone did a pretty good mini-series for TV in 1978 but my advice is READ THE BOOK!
Bob-45
I remember reading the review of this version of "Wuthering Heights" in VARIETY in 1970. The reviewer said, "While suffering only in comparison to the 1939 classic ...". Well, I recently saw the 1939 version and this version is in every way superior. From the haunting, soulful score to the sensitive acting, to the realistic countryside, this "Wuthering Heights" is more passionate, more brooding, more obsessive. Anna Calder-Marshall did not possess the stunning beauty of Merle Oberon, but she hits all the right notes essaying the social-climbing Kathy. Those only familiar with Timothy Dalton's sour work as James Bond will be astonished at his sensitive, magnetic Heathcliff. The dowdy Flora Robson has been replaced by the buxom, nurturing Judy Cornwell. Cornwell's "milkmaid dresses" almost overflow, and she is so nurturing one almost expects her to "pop one out" and feed Heathcliff or Cathy at some critical moment. Nonetheless, Cornwell's expressive face and body language at times nearly steals the movie, but, by no means throws it off balance.Other fine performances include Ian Ogilvy as Edgar, Harry Andrews and father and Hillary Dwyer as Isabella.Even the photography, editing, and, most important, directing by Robert Fuest is superior to the 1939 version. It's especially amazing, given AIP's product at the time, that this masterpiece could be made. I don't like costumers particularly, but I watch this "Wuthering Heights" about once every two years. It's worth my time because it's THAT good.I give Wuthering Heights (1970) a "10".
