Her wearing that stolen necklace from Indian colonial rule was the last thing I needed right now. I won't be watching and think less of her for sure.

I’m a pp who hated the book and past films, but I just watched the trailer and it actually looks interesting.

The movie looks nuts. Why bother making an “adaptation” when you are going to go so far off script, just to make it porno-y. I mean, the whole things seems so devoid of any creativity.

Anonymous wrote:The movie looks dreadful. I'll rewatch the Oberon/Olivier version, the only one that comes reasonably close to the book. Though I wish Vivien Leigh had been cast as Cathy, had more of the character's innate fire.

same

Anonymous wrote:I hated this book so much, I don't know if I want to watch the movie even though I love Margot Robbie and costumes.

I just hate how the characters don't grow at all. Get a life! Then Heathcliffe goes off and gets a life but somehow absolutely no perspective.

Agree so much. We know how they Eyres lived so this kind of insane, passionate and stupid selfish "love" is just ridiculous. It was for the times and is now.

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested to see this. The story is so strange and everyone is awful but people also like the love/erotic story and forget the rest. I think it's going to focus on that aspect and I'm interested to see what they do with it. The screenwriter wrote Saltburn, I believe, which was over-the-top and I'm in the mood for this kind of take on the novel instead of a faithful recreation.

Hated Saltburn. Not remotely interested in this WH

I'm interested to see this. The story is so strange and everyone is awful but people also like the love/erotic story and forget the rest. I think it's going to focus on that aspect and I'm interested to see what they do with it. The screenwriter wrote Saltburn, I believe, which was over-the-top and I'm in the mood for this kind of take on the novel instead of a faithful recreation.

Anonymous wrote:WH is one of the dumbest, overhyped books I ever had to read. A minority of people in Cathy's socioeconomic bracket would have married a first cousin, let alone twice. Heathcliff's wealth acquisition is improbable. More improbable is the fact that he was informally adopted by a member of the gentry and treated as the favorite, over biological children. None of the characters' actions and motivations make sense. It's as if the person who wrote the book was a social outcast and didn't really know how people operate.

Lol tell us you don't know anything about the Brontes without telling us you don't know anything about the Brontes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow I have made it all the way to my sixties without ever having read Wuthering Heights

I do have a large hardbound volume of the works of Emily and Charlotte Brontë and have seen the film “Emily” and read Jane Eyre and have seen many iterations of those films … but never WH

I just don’t have much interest in this movie

Kind of how a lot of Dickens also throws me off. I get how Dickens works and how they were intentionally drawn out the way they were because they were serialized, but they usually just don’t jump out at me no matter how I sometimes try to start them

I remember that being the whole joke about Palliser’s 1989 novel The Quincunx and somehow I read that, but I think I enjoyed it more than Dickens because of the inside joke

Jane eyre reads like a Disney fairytale compared to WH.

lol

Yep.

I hated this book so much, I don't know if I want to watch the movie even though I love Margot Robbie and costumes.

I just hate how the characters don't grow at all. Get a life! Then Heathcliffe goes off and gets a life but somehow absolutely no perspective.

Anonymous wrote:Somehow I have made it all the way to my sixties without ever having read Wuthering Heights

I do have a large hardbound volume of the works of Emily and Charlotte Brontë and have seen the film “Emily” and read Jane Eyre and have seen many iterations of those films … but never WH

I just don’t have much interest in this movie

Kind of how a lot of Dickens also throws me off. I get how Dickens works and how they were intentionally drawn out the way they were because they were serialized, but they usually just don’t jump out at me no matter how I sometimes try to start them

I remember that being the whole joke about Palliser’s 1989 novel The Quincunx and somehow I read that, but I think I enjoyed it more than Dickens because of the inside joke

Jane eyre reads like a Disney fairytale compared to WH.

Somehow I have made it all the way to my sixties without ever having read Wuthering Heights

I do have a large hardbound volume of the works of Emily and Charlotte Brontë and have seen the film “Emily” and read Jane Eyre and have seen many iterations of those films … but never WH

I just don’t have much interest in this movie

Kind of how a lot of Dickens also throws me off. I get how Dickens works and how they were intentionally drawn out the way they were because they were serialized, but they usually just don’t jump out at me no matter how I sometimes try to start them

I remember that being the whole joke about Palliser’s 1989 novel The Quincunx and somehow I read that, but I think I enjoyed it more than Dickens because of the inside joke

Anonymous wrote:WH is one of the dumbest, overhyped books I ever had to read. A minority of people in Cathy's socioeconomic bracket would have married a first cousin, let alone twice. Heathcliff's wealth acquisition is improbable. More improbable is the fact that he was informally adopted by a member of the gentry and treated as the favorite, over biological children. None of the characters' actions and motivations make sense. It's as if the person who wrote the book was a social outcast and didn't really know how people operate.

Of course.

Do you knkw anything about the bronte sisters?

Read the previews before attending.

The movie sounds horrific and disturbing, not in a wow that was creepy and good way, but in a truly awful, what is wrong mentally with the director kind of way.

Don't take your daughter too it for sure.

Anonymous wrote:WH is one of the dumbest, overhyped books I ever had to read. A minority of people in Cathy's socioeconomic bracket would have married a first cousin, let alone twice. Heathcliff's wealth acquisition is improbable. More improbable is the fact that he was informally adopted by a member of the gentry and treated as the favorite, over biological children. None of the characters' actions and motivations make sense. It's as if the person who wrote the book was a social outcast and didn't really know how people operate.

Imo the "I found him in the streets starving" story about Heathcliff is a coverup Earnshaw tells people but it makes no sense at all and is not the truth. I think Earnshaw received a letter from Liverpool telling him a woman he once deeply loved died and her son is now an orphan. So he concocted this whole story about going to get gifts in Liverpool (something really unusual for him and Leeds is a lot closer) and then finding him as a way to bring him into the family and care for him. It explains the dead son's name, his affection and him being a favorite.

And the book is set in the late 1700s to early 1800s. People did marry their cousins all the time back then to preserve assets, and that became frowned upon later on in 19th century when inbreeding consequences came to light.