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.
30 Reviews
Modern beachy take on the material leaves a mess
SnoopyStyle2 May 2014
MTV does the Emily Brontë novel in a beachy rocking take on the material. One day, Cate and Hendrix's father (John Doe) brings home their new adopted brother Heath. Cate (Erika Christensen) and Heath (Mike Vogel) would fall in love. Hendrix (Johnny Whitworth) is an angry young man who hates Heath. When their father dies, Hendrix takes over and drive Heath away. Cate has a car accident and is rescued by wealthy neighbor Edward (Christopher Masterson). Edward's conniving sister Isabel (Katherine Heigl) schemes to break apart Cate and Heath keeping Heath to herself. Cate would marry Edward. Heath becomes a rich rock star and his return causes havoc.
The acting is laughable for the most part. Erika Christensen is the only good part of this movie. Mike Vogel could be a passable douche but he's a horrible Heath(cliff). He overacts in every scene yelling and screaming. He just doesn't have the charisma. The production is acceptable for a TV movie. The music ranges from uninspired to horrible. The movie aspires to be so much more but ends up being a weak young adult melodrama. It's an experiment gone wrong.
The acting is laughable for the most part. Erika Christensen is the only good part of this movie. Mike Vogel could be a passable douche but he's a horrible Heath(cliff). He overacts in every scene yelling and screaming. He just doesn't have the charisma. The production is acceptable for a TV movie. The music ranges from uninspired to horrible. The movie aspires to be so much more but ends up being a weak young adult melodrama. It's an experiment gone wrong.
Mentally ill, isolated youngsters behaving badly
chibi cel-chan14 August 2010
Warning: 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.
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.
A Commendable But Ultimately Disappointing Effort
Electroglyde1 February 2004
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.
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.
withering flop
Oedi15 September 2003
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.
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.
MTV, I beggeth thee: cease perverting the classics...
LE02015 September 2003
Warning: 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.
Bad movie. Avoid it. Never, ever, watch it.
matin_kun8811 April 2006
Warning: 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?
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?
Abysmal version of a great novel
zeiko19 April 2005
Warning: 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.
If A Migraine Was Interpreted Into A Film...
flowerstardust197913 August 2021
Wow what a mess! Incredibly awful loud 90s type bad unknown rock soundtrack playing through over the whole movie. Terrible script and bad acting from some well known and usually good actors. It wasn't their fault. Low budget, poorly written and directed headache inducing mess.
Even if you pretend it's not an adaption of Wuthering Heights, the diabolical noise throughout makes you scream for the mute button. I was wondering if it was originally a music video that they shot 90 minutes of footage for and they added talking to it and decided to throw a load of scenes together and call it a movie. That's what it felt like. I only finished watching it because it cost me 2.50 to rent.
Even if you pretend it's not an adaption of Wuthering Heights, the diabolical noise throughout makes you scream for the mute button. I was wondering if it was originally a music video that they shot 90 minutes of footage for and they added talking to it and decided to throw a load of scenes together and call it a movie. That's what it felt like. I only finished watching it because it cost me 2.50 to rent.
I want my time back
d-o-c9 August 2009
Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.
I was wrong.
Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.
The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.
The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.
The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.
Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.
I was wrong.
Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.
The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.
The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.
The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.
Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.
If you can let go of the original, this is a great movie. Not just for teens.
blackmagic198719 April 2005
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.
Heathcliff would NOT sing!
basilthehamster28 March 2004
awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.
A terrible adaptation of this classic story!
LTripp14 September 2003
Warning: 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".
"Wuthering Heights" for the MTV generation
chorima7517 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Imagine: "Wuthering Heights" set in present-day California. A cast of teenage soap opera stars which includes Aimée Osbourne (Ozzy's eldest daughter) in an apocryphal, totally expendable role. Heathcliff (Heath in the movie) as a wannabe rock star who rides his motorbike with Catherine (Cate) on the back. Emily Brontë's novel (the first half, in fact) retold as an extended, insufferably cheesy music video. Is this a hallucination? Unfortunately not. It is the TV movie "Wuthering Heights", produced by American Network MTV in 2003.
In spite of everything, the movie was not the absolute mess I was expecting when I rented the DVD.It is significantly at its best when it decides to be faithful to the novel. The setting, which substitutes Yorkshire moors for a stormy lighthouse in front of a brave sea, is surprisingly effective. The same can be said of the womby beach caves where the young lovers hide, a perfect double for the wooden bed of the novel. Moreover, the characterization of Heathcliff (blond Mike Vogel) as a young Kurt Cobain lookalike is not as crazy as it might sound. The destructive,passionate nature associated to Cobain's myth was always there in Brontë's hero. In the movie, Cate (Erika Christensen) settles for snobbish Edgar/ Edward (Christopher Masterson) mainly because she is afraid of the intensity that Heath's love requires.
Logically for an MTV production, the use of music is quite intelligent. The lovers' attachment is reflected by their "secret song" (the title is "More"), a ballad composed by Heath featuring vocals by Cate. Instead of the "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff" scene, Heath runs away because he feels betrayed when he hears Edward playing "More" on his violin. Whenever Cate longs for her lost love, there is always a radio or a CD playing the song.
On the other hand, Isabella/ Isabel's (an extremely young Katherine Heigl) transformation from spoiled brat to pitiful figure feels painfully real. After she makes Heath famous on the Internet in order to lure him into bed (this is the 21st century, after all), he dedicates "More" to Cate in his presentation concert. A tearful Isabel has nobody to comfort her except the teacher she used to bully ("Couldn't it be that he never loved you, my dear?").
Will this movie attract the new generations towards the novel? Maybe not, but it is remarkable to see how even in this era of cynicism, we still long for irrational love.
In spite of everything, the movie was not the absolute mess I was expecting when I rented the DVD.It is significantly at its best when it decides to be faithful to the novel. The setting, which substitutes Yorkshire moors for a stormy lighthouse in front of a brave sea, is surprisingly effective. The same can be said of the womby beach caves where the young lovers hide, a perfect double for the wooden bed of the novel. Moreover, the characterization of Heathcliff (blond Mike Vogel) as a young Kurt Cobain lookalike is not as crazy as it might sound. The destructive,passionate nature associated to Cobain's myth was always there in Brontë's hero. In the movie, Cate (Erika Christensen) settles for snobbish Edgar/ Edward (Christopher Masterson) mainly because she is afraid of the intensity that Heath's love requires.
Logically for an MTV production, the use of music is quite intelligent. The lovers' attachment is reflected by their "secret song" (the title is "More"), a ballad composed by Heath featuring vocals by Cate. Instead of the "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff" scene, Heath runs away because he feels betrayed when he hears Edward playing "More" on his violin. Whenever Cate longs for her lost love, there is always a radio or a CD playing the song.
On the other hand, Isabella/ Isabel's (an extremely young Katherine Heigl) transformation from spoiled brat to pitiful figure feels painfully real. After she makes Heath famous on the Internet in order to lure him into bed (this is the 21st century, after all), he dedicates "More" to Cate in his presentation concert. A tearful Isabel has nobody to comfort her except the teacher she used to bully ("Couldn't it be that he never loved you, my dear?").
Will this movie attract the new generations towards the novel? Maybe not, but it is remarkable to see how even in this era of cynicism, we still long for irrational love.
Worse Remake Ever
gallagherwvic15 July 2022
It was Dull from beginning to end. It literally was like watching paint dry on a wall. The acting was horrible the storyline was poor and weak and most of all it was the worst remake ever. Do yourself a favor and don't watch this movie. Cruel Intentions was a way better remake than this. MTV could've done a lot better.
Pls make an exception & let me give this a ZERO!
marshap7922 November 2022
Oh my goodness...I'm tremendously and irrevocably EMBARRASSED that this rendition of such an amazing classic exists. I don't know why anyone would expect anything less from MTV but my God, they could've tried. The acting, the dialogue, the singing, ugh, the singing. I didn't know Heathcliff was a musician and singer 😂. What a travesty this piece of crap is. Also, Heathcliff was never this controlling. He allowed and let Catherine make her own mistakes. I know it's an adaptation but it's just all wrong. This movie or whatever you wanna call it is a slap in the face to everything wonderful about the original. You could feel the love, the longing, the passion and intensity in the original. Only thing you feel with this adaption is, I wonder how quickly I can pick up the remote to change the channel 😂 In other words, don't waste your time. It's awful. It's embarrassing. It's tragic. It's crap. It should've been shelved and never ever shown. Alas, that was not the case so MTV, you owe ALL of us Brontë fans a MASSIVE apology...👎🏼
horrible
ryanhastings115 September 2003
waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }
Believe the bad reviews
wmsfmly23 April 2023
Trust me.... It's that bad. The music...Ya it's bad also....not as bad as the dialog....it couldn't be. Please do not get this confused with any of the other 4 or so Wuthering Heights movies. This one should not even be allowed to carry the same title. I had to start writing this review so as to keep from watching the final 30 minutes as the Mrs. Does not have it in her to turn it off. Seeing the name of an accomplished actress in this movie caused me to TIVO it. I mean accomplished actor/actresses would not allow themselves to be part of garbage like this right? Lesson learned, although it was early in her career. I will say this, it could have been marketed as a comedy as some of the dialog was so painfully sad it evoked 4 or 5 laughs through the too long runtime. The only positive I got out of the movie was seeing Malcolm's brother Frances finally out of military school.
"This isn't your English teacher's Wuthering Heights"
MissSimonetta13 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Yeah, it's garbage.
Wuthering Heights is a story about two lovers whose obsession and yearning for each other destroys themselves and everyone around them. It is an examination of a dark, twisted love that can only be consummated in the afterlife. MTV has taken this timeless, haunting novel and turned it into a cheap teenage soap opera.
Updated plot: Cate and foundling Heath are raised together, but when their father dies Cate's brother Hendrix kicks Heath out. The lovers are as close as ever, but Cate ends up marrying their wealthy neighbor Edward. Angry, Heath shacks up with Edward's sister Isabel, who makes him a big rock star overnight. Now wealthy, he returns to Cate and they have an affair. Tragedy ensues.
The characters are totally butchered. Heathcliff is a monster in many respects, yet his love for Catherine and affection for Hareton humanize him. Heath is a whiny pretty boy with the depth of a soda can. Catherine is wild and passionate, yet she so aspires to be part of the genteel and civilized world represented by Edgar Linton that she is willing to abandon her true love. Cate's a wishy-washy mannequin completely lacking in fire and selfishness. Edgar is a gentle but bland man who loves Catherine honestly and strains to put up with her antics when Heathcliff returns. Edward's a possessive peeping tom that threatens Catherine's life. Isabella is a spoiled and demure rich girl who wants to escape the overbearing protection of her brother by marrying Heathcliff, foolishly believing him to be a romantic hero who needs the love of a good woman to be reformed. Isabel is a catty and crass Barbie doll who wants to bed Heathcliff rather than make him love her.
The relationship between Catherine and Heathcliff is ruined too. In the book, they were both jealous and obsessive with their love. Here, Heath comes across as an abusive jerk and Cate his frightened victim.
There are several songs in the movie: outside of "I Will Crumble", they're all lame. Expect lots of partying and sex scenes. And make sure you don't groan at Heathcliff's cheesy post-sex dialogue.
I don't care too much when adaptations change things. Catherine and Heathcliff having sex in the 1970 and 2009 versions does not bug me despite the fact that the relationship in the book is more spiritual than physical. Cutting off the second generation, while annoying, is not terribly criminal in my eyes as long as the adaptation holds up well and receives closure. But this strays so far from the spirit and intelligence of the original book that it comes across as an insult. Give me my English teacher's Wuthering Heights any day over this tripe.
Wuthering Heights is a story about two lovers whose obsession and yearning for each other destroys themselves and everyone around them. It is an examination of a dark, twisted love that can only be consummated in the afterlife. MTV has taken this timeless, haunting novel and turned it into a cheap teenage soap opera.
Updated plot: Cate and foundling Heath are raised together, but when their father dies Cate's brother Hendrix kicks Heath out. The lovers are as close as ever, but Cate ends up marrying their wealthy neighbor Edward. Angry, Heath shacks up with Edward's sister Isabel, who makes him a big rock star overnight. Now wealthy, he returns to Cate and they have an affair. Tragedy ensues.
The characters are totally butchered. Heathcliff is a monster in many respects, yet his love for Catherine and affection for Hareton humanize him. Heath is a whiny pretty boy with the depth of a soda can. Catherine is wild and passionate, yet she so aspires to be part of the genteel and civilized world represented by Edgar Linton that she is willing to abandon her true love. Cate's a wishy-washy mannequin completely lacking in fire and selfishness. Edgar is a gentle but bland man who loves Catherine honestly and strains to put up with her antics when Heathcliff returns. Edward's a possessive peeping tom that threatens Catherine's life. Isabella is a spoiled and demure rich girl who wants to escape the overbearing protection of her brother by marrying Heathcliff, foolishly believing him to be a romantic hero who needs the love of a good woman to be reformed. Isabel is a catty and crass Barbie doll who wants to bed Heathcliff rather than make him love her.
The relationship between Catherine and Heathcliff is ruined too. In the book, they were both jealous and obsessive with their love. Here, Heath comes across as an abusive jerk and Cate his frightened victim.
There are several songs in the movie: outside of "I Will Crumble", they're all lame. Expect lots of partying and sex scenes. And make sure you don't groan at Heathcliff's cheesy post-sex dialogue.
I don't care too much when adaptations change things. Catherine and Heathcliff having sex in the 1970 and 2009 versions does not bug me despite the fact that the relationship in the book is more spiritual than physical. Cutting off the second generation, while annoying, is not terribly criminal in my eyes as long as the adaptation holds up well and receives closure. But this strays so far from the spirit and intelligence of the original book that it comes across as an insult. Give me my English teacher's Wuthering Heights any day over this tripe.
The best MTV movie so far!!!!!
angelbaby15_2@hotmail.com18 September 2003
This movie was sooo awesome it left me in tears! The day after it premeired i told everyone about it it was the greatest movie i have seen in a long time... This movie was full of romance and a great surprise ending! LOVED IT! I HOPE IT COMES OUT ON DVD SOON
Shocked... SHOCKED!
casadeirony14 September 2003
I just saw this movie premiere on MTV. I must say this was extremely mediocre (at its best). The dialogue doesn't explain the story very well, and I was left feeling like there were a lot of plot holes. There isn't one likable character in this adaptation due to poor acting. I just find that all of the characters are way too possessive when it comes to someone they love. Also, Cate and Heath's love seems very incestuous. They seem more like brother and sister rather than lovers. I don't understand why the father would accept something like that under his roof.
I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.
I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different.
I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.
I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different.
A great movie!!! ;)
Sam01614 September 2003
Man! That movie was really good. I love the singing. Had me smiling and crying.It was a great story, I love everything about it. The actors did great in the movie. I wouldn't change a thing on the movie. To me, it was done really well. I can't wait to see it again on tv. :D
What a waste... of time, of money, of an original great story
charlottewander29 May 2019
I knew it would be bad, but I never expected it to be that bad. I mean, I know the Brontë story is not easy to put on screen, but please don't turn it into this s****y movie!
Cate? Cate?! Kathy is a strong and wild character, she is partly cruel, to everyone around her: how did they come up with shy submissive Cate?!
Heath... Now that was a disapointment... Heathcliff is like Kathy, wild, strong, capable of cruelty, withdrawn... What's that surfer dude from a boys' band doing here?! Heathcliff the rock star, I can hear Brontë scream at the writers
Hendrix: no point in going there.
Edward... Nah, not much to say there either
Isabel: basically they made a bad caricature of the original Kathy, and applied it to another character.
The ending: what the hell? trying to make people cry with that kind of c**p is a proof of high stupidity Really, give me my money back. My time. My patience, because I actually endured (not watched, endured, I mean it) the whole thing.
BTW we should be allowed to rate this 0. 1 is way to high
BTW we should be allowed to rate this 0. 1 is way to high
great film
blondebimbo-226 January 2007
I cant believe that the person that wrote that trash about this film being rubbish. If you are young like me and like rock music then this film is beautifully done, the cast are amazing and like most romance films if you are a big softy like me then this film will make you cry in the end. The constant fighting and all the love in this film makes it the perfect film to watch on a cold dark night with the fire burning and a big tub of popcorn. i will say that this film hasn't taken the classic route of following the book, but what has been done with the film and the contents is really enjoyable. i bought this film with out seeing it before hand and i have loved every minute of it. it is becoming one of my favourite films to watch
blah
kandigirlie16 September 2003
i was excited to see this movie because i had seen the commercials for it throughout the weeks but once i saw it, it was a disappointment. i never read the book but i'm sure that the book has to be better than this poor adaptation. is it so wrong that i cheered at what happened to cate at the end of the movie?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
