User reviews

I have not read the Emily Bronte novel on which this film is based so obviously I cannot comment on the effectiveness of it as an adaptation (I understand that almost the entire second half of the book was excised). However, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Oberon and especially Olivier, one of my favorites, are very convincing and moving as the doomed lovers Cathy and Heathcliff (according to my friend, Heathcliff is written as being much more likeable in the film than in the book). The supporting cast was also very good. Wuthering Heights just deals very poignantly with the effect that birth and status have on people's lives. Yet another winner from Wyler. My score 9/10.

I saw this film many years before I read the book, I know which I prefer - OK, maybe with rose-tinted spectacles on. The book by Emily Bronte is an undeniable classic as is this film version but imho this is a much better use of one hundred and five minutes of life. And though they keep trying, this will remain the best condensation of the story, Wuthering Lites c/o the original Fantasy Factory.

Waif brought into well off Yorkshire home, grows up to fall in violent love with the masters daughter and violent hate with the son, and eventually owns the estate but not the woman. Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon are perfect as the manic birds of a feather Heathcliff and Cathy with David Niven as the elegant sidelined husband. Everyone is portrayed as faulty or unlikeable in some way, romance is seen as hopeless childishness leading at best to passionate petulance, at worst to death; love is as strange as people. It's relentlessly beautiful stuff, gloriously photographed by Gregg Toland with a glowing atmosphere and a most assured production than has not been possible to achieve again. The spirit of nonsensical romance has been lost in this more cynical age. Favourite bits: Miles Mander's melodramatics at the beginning resulting in Flora Robson's picture-long flashback; the windswept pair on the rocks; the pair gatecrashing the dance; Oberon's unravelling to Niven and the tear-jerking finale. Director William Wyler had a long and illustrious career, but to my mind he never bettered this effort.

Watch it and weep; not only at the film's content but for a cinematic era long dead and never coming back.

Director William Wyler and star Laurence Olivier bring to life the atmosphere and most important characters of a classic novel in "Wuthering Heights". While necessarily omitting much of the material for cinematic purposes, and having a slightly different emphasis, the film version will still be appreciated by those who enjoy classic stories.

The Emily Brontë novel on which the film is based is one of the greatest books of its kind. It is far deeper than any film version could be, so for this movie only a portion of the story is used, and several characters are omitted. The movie also has more of a melodramatic feel than did the novel. It does retain the flashback-style of narrative, which works just as well in the film as it did in the book.

The story opens with a weary traveler meeting up with a now-aging, hostile, and excitable Heathcliff (Olivier), after the main action of the story is in the past. Unsettled by this strange man, the traveler is told Heathcliff's story by the housekeeper Ellen (Flora Robson). This begins with Heathcliff's childhood, and goes through his relations with the Earnshaw family and the Linton family. The heart of the story is his troubled romance with Catherine Earnshaw (Merle Oberon), whom he has known since being taken in by her family as a child. This relationship in turn leads to conflicts with most of the other characters, and affects the lives of everyone involved in profound ways.

Olivier memorably portrays this difficult character, and helps the audience feel his longing and restlessness. Oberon is also ideal as Catherine - a mercurial character who is both a complement and a contrast to Heathcliff. The other main strength of the film is its realization of the main settings, which are almost as important to the story as the characters are: once-fine but now gloomy and declining Wuthering Heights; the pleasant but vapid Thrushcross Grange, home of the Linton family; and especially the wild, mysterious Yorkshire moors, the only place where Heathcliff and Cathy are ever really happy. These settings are all effectively created and photographed, and provide an appropriate background to the events and tensions in the characters' lives.

The result is a movie that, while lacking the complexity of the novel, is a satisfying realization of the most important aspects of the book, and which effectively brings the audience into the lives and hearts of the characters.

Being a classic film buff, I had the chance of being introduced to this film by chance one late evening when it was being aired on TCM. I fell in love with the movie, and when I was told that it would be required reading over the summer, I was ridiculously happy. As many have noted, the 1939 adaptation of "Wuthering Heights" is, more or less, merely the first volume of Emily Bronte's beautifully and powerfully written classic -- focusing less on the detail of Heathcliff's wrath post Cathy's death, but moreso on the sheer complexity of Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship (the scenes at Penniston Crag of them among the moors and heather are not in the book because Bronte had to stick to Ellen's point of view -- it was nice that we could finally have an in-depth look at the tumultuous relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff). While characters are omitted (Frances, Hareton, Linton and the baby Catherine), it still retains much of the very nature of the novel. (If you will recall, many parts of "Gone With The Wind" were changed and characters removed in the process of transferring Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece into a screen epic. After all, this is Hollywood.)

The cinematography is divine (very much worth its Oscar), perfectly capturing the very essence of the bleak, chilling, haunting Yorkshire Moors that Bronte described in her book. Laurence Olivier is, in my opinion, a very fine Heathcliff. Indeed, in the book his nature is more animalistic and devilish, but Olivier superbly exhibits what Heathcliff is all about -- dark, brooding, and terribly bitter. Even at our first introduction to him, we know by the tone of his voice that something is very, very wrong with this man and that something is very, very off in that household. Olivier expresses Heathcliff's wildness and devilishness through his voice, stance and through his facial gestures, rather than so much in other physical ways. Merle Oberon is remarkable as Cathy -- a much more dark and exoctic beauty than Isabella whose good looks are very wholesome and pure (perhaps to match the darkness of the gypsy stable-boy Heathcliff), and capturing the duality of personality that is Catherine Earnshaw -- part of her wanting to love a wild, evil, wicked stable boy... the other part longing to be part of a higher society. Particularly coming to mind is her scene in the kitchen with Ellen and that marvelously disturbing death scene -- her eyes wild. (I do wish they would have left in the part of the book where she refuses to eat and begins hallucinating -- Oberon could have performed it so well.) Also to be noted are the stunning performances of David Niven and Gerladine Fitzgerald as the long-suffering Edgar and Isabella Linton (respectively), their lives made miserable by Cathy's selfishness, vanity and greed to be part of a higher way of living, and by Heathcliff's undying love for Catherine and his course of revenge and destruction. Flora Robson is also wonderful as Ellen Dean, narrator of the whole sordid story.

Someone mentioned that this film (by focusing on the love story and by the ending, I suppose) tried to say that Heathcliff and Catherine were perfect for each other and could have, eventually, found true love. I disagree, wholeheartedly. I believe what director William Wyler was trying to say here was that Heathcliff and Catherine were not good people. Cathy was right when she said that she and Heathcliff's souls were made of the same basic fiber -- they were both greedy and selfish (he wanted her passion for him to be as deep as his passion for her and she wanted and if he couldn't have it, no one else deserved to have it, and God forbid those around him feel any kind of love, compassion or humanity; and she didn't even really know what she wanted, except to be part of the upper crust and to rise above what she had lived through when Hindley became master of their house) and because of that, their love could have never meant anything BUT tragedy. They could never have found happiness together because they were not happy people. But they could find love in death -- because in death, they could be what they really were all along -- children; mere children forced to grow up all too quickly with the death of the man who cared deeply for them, thus forcing Hindley to become head of the household. There would be no Hindley in death. And as children they were good together -- as children, Cathy, wicked as she was at times as a youngster, could restore hopes of prosperity to Heathcliff's dark, bitter soul. They were, as children, more or less all one another had. And so they could go on, as children, without a care, happily picking heather and being King and Queen on the moors.

You've GOT to see this movie.

"Wuthering Heights", based on the novel by Emily Bronte, gets a first rate treatment from its director, the genial William Wyler. The adaptation was done by Charles McArthur and Ben Hecht, two of the best writers working in the Hollywood of that era. The great cinematography by Gregg Toland makes it visually stunning. Alfred Newman's music score plays in the background, making this film a classic that will be cherished by movie lovers.

Some comments to this forum express their displeasure in the adaptation one sees on the screen. Most people forget what a task it must have been to get the essence of the Bronte novel in a cinematic form, something the adapters did with elegance and charm.

The cast that was assembled for "Wuthering Heights" is a dream come true. Presenting the young Merle Oberon in all her beauty makes one almost fall instantly in love with her. Ms. Oberon had a fantastic presence, which translated in probably her best work in films.

The dashingly handsome Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff, creates the right chemistry against Ms. Oberon's Cathy. Mr. Olivier was at the pinnacle of his career. He responds well to Mr. Wyler's direction. His Heathcliff shows a mean streak, but over all, Olivier gives an impressive performance.

David Niven is excellent as Edgar Linton, the man who wins Cathy's heart with his kindness. Flora Robson does also an outstanding job as Ellen, the housekeeper, who serves as the narrator. The young and beautiful Geraldine Fitzgerald makes a brilliant Isabella.

The rest of the players are equally wonderful, Donald Crisp, Hugh Willimas, Leo G. Carroll, Cecil Kellaway, made contributions to the movie.

Ultimately, this film is a love story doomed from the beginning. This tale of the passion between the lovers in the moors is a perfect way to lose oneself in the magic of the movies.

The film starts captioning on Emily Bronte novel : ¨On the barren Yorkshire moors in England , a hundred years ago, stood a house as bleak and desolate as the wastes around it. Only a stranger lost in a storm would have dared to knock at the door of Wuthering Heights¨. Heathcliff(Laurence Olivier)is a foundling gypsy boy adopted by a God-fearing landowner(Cecil Kallaway). In the murky and isolated Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff grows up along with his foster brothers, Cathy(Merle Oberon), his soul-mate, and Hindley(Hugh Williams), furthermore are the servants(Flora Robson, Leo G. Carroll). When father dies, Hinley sends Heathcliff to the stables . When Heatcliff and Cathy spy their upper class neighbors, Edgar(David Niven) and Isabella(Geraldine Fitzgerald), they are pursued by the dogs and Cathy is wounded. Them begins an affair between Cathy and Edgar. Bitter Heathcliff escapes but long time after returns, now rich, to disrupt the life of Cathy now married to another. Desperate Heathcliff wreak vengeance on those he hold responsible of the separation . Meanwhile, Hindley is utterly embittered, turning a drunk unable to care of Wuthering Heights.

This moody drama about a dammed love contains awesome performances by main casting and supporting roles. This haunting story displays impressive production designs as enjoyable interior as sweeping exterior. Strikingly moors with rain and eerie gloom on North of England designed mostly in studios . Splendid and dark cinematography cinematography by classic cameraman,Gregg Tolland(Citizen Kane), won an Academy Award. Interesting screenplay by Ben Hetch and Charles McArthur( usual writers for Billy Wilder) and mesmerizing score by the master Alfred Newman. The film gets numerous and inferior remakes : 1956, by Luis Buñuel with Jorge Mistral; 1970, by Robert Fuest with Timothy Dalton ; 1992, by Peter Kosminsky with Ralph Fiennes ; TV, 2003 with Erika Christiensen and Mike Vogel. Rating : Sensational, well worth watching for cinema classic lovers and ultimately successful version on Emily Bronte novel.

With Olivier, Oberon and Niven for stars, a Hecht/MacArthur screenplay and William Wyler direction; it would be hard to miss. Some scenes, however, are devastatingly powerful in there simplicity.When Heathcliff returns after a long absence he looks at Cathy and Linton and says " It occurs to me that I have not congratulated you upon your marriage (pause)I've often thought of it." Cathy's eyes drop. We all know what he was thinking of and so does Cathy. It needn't be said. The most understated(and perhaps finest) performance is given by Hugh Williams as Hinley. His portrayal of a man broken by inner weakness and failure, to me, has always been a film highlight. Add to this a score by Alfred Newman as haunting as the moors themselves and Wuthering Heights is forever in your heart.

"Wuthering Heights" is considered to be one of the best movies of all times. Technically speaking this movie is great and it definitely deserves Best Black-and-White Cinematography Oscar and all nominations for actors. Merle Oberon is fascinating. Still, I barely forced myself to the end. Not because it's boring, but because the story is atrocious. I suppose this should be a romantic drama about tragic love, but for me, tragic love is when two people who are meant for each other can not be together because of unhappy circumstances or other people's bad intentions, not because they are complete idiots. This is a morbid and sleazy story about a group of sick and sadomasochistic people, with the accent on two repulsive, selfish persons who, by their selfishness, stupidity and immaturity, destroy lives not only for themselves, but to everyone else around them, and pretty much intentionally. And after all the crap they put us through, I should feel sad for them?! The last scene should be romantic happy-sad- end?! Ew! If this movie really is faithful to the book, I can not describe how happy I am that I never read it. Two hours spent on this movie do not hurt too much, but I could not forgive myself the time spent on the book.

6/10 (4/10 for story and 8/10 for everything else)

Two of the most complex characters in all English literature are Hamlet and Heathcliff. Is it any wonder that one of the most capable English actors of them all should play both on celluloid? There is no better movie Hamlet than Olivier's. He also gives the definitive Heathcliff movie portrayal. Neither Hamlet nor Heathcliff are saints or sinners. Both are somewhere between heaven and hell. Both have dark, indistinct hues as part of their aura. Heathcliff's Ophelia is Cathy played to perfection by the wonderful Merle Oberon. Added to the immense acting talents of the two leads is the matching shadowy cinematography of Gregg Toland. Mix well and serve with just the right touches by master director William Wyler and you have a film that for once is almost as good as the literary masterpiece on which it is based. The only element missing is part of the story left out for several reasons, one being brevity. Few can argue that the best part of "Gone With The Wind" is the first half. Following the burning of Atlanta the film becomes much more melodramatic and sentimental. This does not happen to "Wuthering Heights."

The almost perfect country household in 19th century England is disrupted by the entrance of an interloper, a street urchin picked up by Cathy's do-gooder father. He is called Heathcliff, no last name. From the very beginning he is a disturbed and fanciful child, attempting to ride away and disappear on the wild moor. Also from the start, there is a bond between Cathy and Heathcliff, just as there is resentment and loathing from Cathy's profligate brother, Hindley. When the father dies, Heathcliff is turned into a lowly stable boy by Hindley. Cathy and Heathcliff find a secret "castle" where they create their own isolated paradise. This cliff hideaway continues to be their haven for the rest of their lives. Heathcliff ultimately runs away to America and only returns when Cathy marries someone else to spite him. Eventually, he spites her by gaining ownership of Wuthering Heights and then marrying Cathy's sister-in-law. What sounds rather simple in outline is one of the most complex relationships in literature created by one of the greatest literary minds of the ages, Emily Bronte. "Wuthering Heights," the movie, is one of the pivotal films of the 1930's, and one of Hollywood's finest pictures ever.

Remember those annoyingly popular couples in high school whose drama-filled romance was more than you could stomach as they alternated between syrupy stargazing and enraged jealousy? Well, the lead characters in this movie are a little bit more mature than your obnoxious 10th grade friends but they share the same illusions about what love is.

Not that I'm an expert on love but like pornography I know what it isn't when I don't see it. This reminds me of the awful tabloid stories about that dirtball Chris Brown beating the hell out of his delusional girlfriend Rihanna and both of them imagining that theirs is some great love story for the ages when in reality they're just a couple of self-absorbed nimrods.

On the other hand, I did like this movie because I can certainly relate to eagerness for revenge, impure love, and self-absorption.

I have read the novel. I could write a long review about how brilliant the novel was and how it did not go with the tradition love story one would expect. Furthermore, the novel did not have the traditional heroes and villains. That is why the novel is so great.

Hollywood, however, just couldn't stand it could they? They had to turn it into a traditional soppy love story about soul mates (Heatchcliff and Catherine.) The truth is, Catherine, in the novel, loved Edgar, maybe more than Heathcliff. Furthermore, Heathcliff, in the novel, though starting off as a victim, turned into a horrible villain. The movie makes him out to be a hero for the most part, though he is cold to his wife Isabel. In the novel, he is downright abusive to her.

This film version took away everything that was original and great about the novel. Many who have read the novel didn't like it because their simple minds can't handle going form sympathising with Heathcliff to hating him. Hollywood certainly pandered to that crowd.

The only thing in this film worth seeing for actual entertainment is Olivier. The acting is brilliant, as one would expect from the greatest actor of all time. I don't like traditional love stories, but Olivier did it as well as it could be done. The early scene with him looking out the window calling for Catherine to come to him is moving. I also have to give credit to the music. It complemented Olivier's acting perfectly.

Olivier gets a 10, the rest of the movie a 1. I decided to give it overall a 4 out of 10. Even with Olivier, this garbage must have a below average rating.

Talk about a brooding outdoors, those moody moors may represent a sense of liberation for the lovers, but they're not exactly inviting. Besides, it rains all the time, so best to be in the house even if mansions represent the confining space of class and class privilege. That's the trouble. Cathy is 'to the manor born', as they say. Thus she's really torn between the wild outdoors and the comforts of ballrooms and servants.

Then there's the enigmatic Heathcliffe, a dark wild-souled type guy, perfectly at home in those bleak rolling hills. He was a street ragamuffin before Cathy's elderly father adopted him into the manor as a stable boy. But he and a young Cathy manage to bond despite the class difference, a bond that eventually blossoms into true love. But that true love only breaks to the surface in the wild outdoors where a common humanity replaces artificial social distinctions. If only Cathy could find the will to break free of the leisure class.

What a great visual experience, the b&w expertly coordinated with the settings. When the two lovers approach the rocky crag, there's almost a feeling of an outdoor altar calling to them amidst the brooding hills. It's such a perfect visual contrast to the high-key ballrooms and parlors of the Lintons. The Lintons, however, are not to be despised despite their airs and privileges. In fact, they are very real victims of Cathy's suppressed feelings and Heathcliffe's cold calculations. As it turns out, there is no spectral salvation for them. As a result, the love being portrayed here is a kind of mad love, one that brings tragedy to all concerned. Thus, there's a reason those moors brood in dark fashion, while the movie itself remains the best of the many makes and remakes.

I still think this is the best adaptation of Bronte's novel out of the gozillion remakes out there. This one has so much intensity and heart. The performances are just incredible. The music is incredible. The cinematography is absolutely magical! And of course, the direction is first rate.

I won't recap the story- since many here have already done that- but I will tell you that this version is heads & shoulders above the rest. Movies do imitate life, and in parallel to that imitation, this movie is filled with moments that are absolutely unforgettable. This is due to the actors- everyone in this movie is first rate. All the supporting roles (Geraldine Fitzgerald, Donald Crisp, Leo Carroll, Flora Robson, David Niven) are all seamlessly committed to their roles in a way that makes watching them vicariously enjoyable. Even the children that play the leads in their youth are incredibly good!

The leads, played by Oberon & Olivier are so well matched, you'd believe they were really in love. They have a chemistry and an intensity that makes you believe in them. After all, this story is one which does require some suspension of disbelief, but the artistry of Oberon & Olivier make it easy and quite frankly, unnoticeable.

One of my favorite things that no remake can compete with is the score by Alfred Newman. His light and joyful children's theme and the brooding themes are so organic and seem come from the action in the film. But probably the most memorable is "Cathy's theme." It defines the love of Cathy in the movie in musical terms. It is, as they say, the language of the soul in this movie.

The beautiful cinematography by Gregg Toland is absolutely RADIANT. Despite a dark story full of longing, angst and pain, his radiant cinematography illuminates the faces of the actors in a way that is almost supernatural. In fact, the scene where Cathy turns to Ellen and says, "Ellen, I AM Heathcliff!" with the lightening in the background actually does seem almost supernatural! In the scene with the ball, the skin of the actors seems to reflect light in a way that is bewitching and fascinating. The jewels the ladies where look more like they're under a jeweler's light than just things hanging off the necks of actresses. Somehow his cinematography has a clean crispness that I've seen in very few black & white movies. I have to say, his work in this movie is another reason I prefer this to any version in color.

William Wyler's direction is spot-on as well. He tells the story as much with the choices of camera angles as the screenwriter. Each frame is composed in such an artistic way- yet not in a way that you notice. I have noticed due to repeated viewings, but the fact is, this movie comes off as almost voyeuristic. We watch almost as if we were eavesdropping on the lives of these people. Like any great movie, it pulls you in & holds you.

While I realize (having read the book myself) that this isn't the most complete adaptation, it is the one that moves me the most. That's part of why we go to the movies- to feel - and as someone once said in a movie, "to know we're not alone." 5 out of 4 stars!!!!!!! :)

A servant in the house of Wuthering Heights tells a traveler the unfortunate tale of lovers Cathy (Merle Oberon) and Heathcliff (Laurence Olivier).

The 1940 Academy Award for Best Cinematography, black-and-white category, was awarded to Gregg Toland for his work. Nominated for original score (but losing to "The Wizard of Oz") was the prolific film composer, Alfred Newman, whose poignant "Cathy's Theme" does so much "to maintain its life as a masterpiece of romantic filmmaking." I love Gregg Toland, and William Wyler is quite underrated. He was prolific and had a string of hits, but is rarely recalled today (2015). He was a contemporary and friend of Howard Hawks, but somehow Hawks is now the legend and Wyler is second fiddle. How can this be?

Dark, beautiful version of Emily Bronte's master work. Unquestionably Merle Oberon's selfish, conflicted Cathy is her best work and she's matched every step of the way by Olivier, perhaps at the peak of his attractiveness, who also gives one of his best performances as the tormented Heathcliff. All the actors acquit themselves with distinction but what makes this stand out is both the assured touch of Wyler and the stellar photography which is so effective it almost becomes a character in the piece. A story of doomed love and revenge it can hardly be described a happy film but it is an emotionally involving one. Every few years there is a new version trying to improve on this, they can't. Catch it if you can.

While I did not hate this movie, my feelings aren't nearly as positive as the average reviewer. That's because although it is a lovely film to watch and has such beautiful music, I just can't get past the performance of Laurence Olivier. While he has a fantastic reputation as an actor, I felt his performance was just "too earnest"--in other words, there were too many pained looks and stares. His Heathcliff just seemed awfully wussy and perhaps constipated. Perhaps part of this is the result of the direction he received or it was just the style of the day, but I really don't feel that his performance translates well to the present day. Otherwise, the only minor quibble was the stupid tacked on ending (making it HAPPY)--I know this was NOT approved by William Wyler (the director) and it was later added by a studio hack to satisfy the execs' demand for an upbeat ending. How you could do this AFTER Heathcliff came to hate her so intensely is beyond me!

A movie is a thing unto itself. If it is a film based on a book, sometimes it is entirely enjoyable to have it closely follow the book. But there are times when a director, especially a director of the caliper of William Wyler, takes on artistic license and makes the film a different, if not better medium than the book. Both the 1971 and the 1992 movies try to cover the story of the entire book and both did it fairly well. However, neither movie was even close to the power of the 1939 version. Hauntingly beautiful in every detail. Wylers direction is wonderful. Newman's score was perfect, beautiful. Olivier and Oberon could not have been better. Toland's Academy award winning gorgeous black and white cinematography (which beat out the color of "Gone with the Wind") is breathtaking. Paul Neal's sound combined with matte painter W. Percy Day will send chill up your spine and tears your eyes. Those of you who didn't like it because it wasn't the entire book, need to watch this again. And if need be, again. For those of you that didn't like this film or the other fine films based on this book despite the timeless impact of Bronte's story.....well.....I feel for you. You must be composed of stone.

Wuthering Heights is directed by William Wyler and adapted to screenplay by Charles MacArthur & Ben Hecht from the novel of the same name written by Emily Bronte. It stars Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, David Niven, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Flora Robson. Music is scored by Alfred Newman and cinematography is by Gregg Toland.

OK, so it's only a part of Bronte's classic novel, and yes some liberties have been taken, but Wuthering Heights is still a wonderfully involving picture. Expertly played by the actors and directed with adroitness, it's a haunting tale of tragedy, love and passions never to be sated. Moodily photographed by Toland, who won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography in the process, tale unfolds in flashback style that's aided by retrospect narration from Robson's wily house keeper Ellen Dean. Characters are perfectly formed as children, expanded upon into adulthood; with Olivier and Oberon coming into their own on the acting front, then the story reaches its denouement to leave the viewer flushed with emotion. All given dramatic impetus by Alfred Newman's sweeping score.

1939 was a stellar year for classic cinema, Wuthering Heights is deservedly a part of that upper echelon number. Brilliant. 9/10