This movie and story is laughable

The story might be melodramatic but what a story.

Its that man again!!

I do not think any of the numerous screen adaptations do the novel justice. But in its own terms, and for its time, this is a rather good film. It just isn't Wuthering Heights -- a book of over six hundred pages and many more characters than there are in the film. The closing scene is about as far removed from Emily Bronte's intentions as one can get. But most screen versions try to work in a spook or two, even though it is not really a ghost story at all. True, Lockwood sees a 'ghost' at the beginning -- or rather thinks he does. But in the book there is a totally rational explanation for what he thinks he sees. The producer wanted to turn it into a ghost story, the director did not. What we ended up with was, indeed, a bit of a travesty in which half the story is left out. But then, would it have worked as a film twice as long?

If we can forget the original novel, we can enjoy a romantic story of love that survives the grave. When I saw it for the first time, quite recently, I realised that I would have to suspend my critical faculties, forget the novel and enjoy this story of two silly young people who did not know their own minds -- or perhaps I should say 'hearts'. The original story was about jealousy and revenge and the trouble such human failings could cause, not really about 'eternal love'.

Wuthering Heights, (1939) is a sentimental film; no doubt about it. In 1939 people needed films like this to take their minds off the world they lived in. It is rather harsh to say that they must have been disillusioned and disenchanted. They wanted something to believe in, something to reassure them that there was more to life than the cruelty that they saw all around them and that would shortly erupt into world-wide war! People today watch such films with a kind of nostalgia. I do not suppose for one minute that they believe the story. I am sure that they would find it rather twee and not really relevant to today. But I think a little gentle escapism never hurt anyone.

Moreover, look at the beautiful compositions, the fine performances by great actors like Olivier and Robsen. Young cinema goers may remain unimpressed, and that is their privilege, but for anyone old enough to remember these actors at the height of their powers, it is a delight to see them in this gem from another age.

As a film, Wuthering Heights caught the spirit of the times, and it was justly nominated for eight Academy Awards, and rightly won one -- for best cinematography. This says it all, really. I am sure there were better films with better screenplays and better performances in 1939, but for imagery and photography alone, Wuthering Heights deserves to be remembered.

Why contrived? Sure, the drama in this love story tragedy is relatively simple - her vice was propriety and his vice was revenge. Both stopped love from flourishing. But I don't see how it's contrived.

I've always found Heathcliff to be an incarnation of the devil. Katherine is self-centered and not all that sympathetic. "Wuthering Heights" is still great literature in spite of, and in embracement of, these major character flaws. Those flaws practically are the story. The mores of English high society of the time merely serve to hone the points of those flaws. It may be unpleasant, but it is compelling.

Olivier learned movie acting here. Merle Oberon is adequate, as always. My problem with "Wuthering Heights" is that I always think of Monty Python doing it in semaphore with Katherine flagging "Heathcliff" across the moors and Heathcliff flagging "Katherine" back. It's silly, but makes my present viewing of the this version even more entertaining.

This fictional world of Emily Bronte and the real world of February 27, 2007 are as far removed as the real world and movies themselves. Seen as an effort in its time, this movie is quite moving. But it does take effort to see it in that fashion. Second viewings sometimes alter one's perception dramatically. Perchance this will happen for you.

I agree with these comments. Wuthering Heights is one of those movies I’ve always heard about: it's really good; it's a classic; a must see; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, I saw this ‘masterpiece’ and I am not impressed.

I don’t like the story, the characters, the dark tone, the dim lighting, the scenery, the way the story is presented; there’s nothing I like about the move at all. While I have enjoyed the lead actors, Olivier, Oberon, and Niven, in other projects, in this movie they get on my nerves most of the time.

I understand some people enjoy and even love this movie but I don’t get what all the hoopla is about. Apparently, the actors didn’t enjoy making the movie (though Oliver retroactively said he learned a lot about movie acting) and when released, the movie was not well received. I don’t get it. How was this movie nominated for a Best Movie Oscar?

I’m particularly annoyed with how the story is described. Supposedly, it’s about a star-crossed romance. What?! Romance; star-crossed; no way! What Heathcliff and Cathy have is hardly a romance. It’s the childhood folly and escapism of two emotionally stunted characters that grows into adult obsession and dysfunction.

There aren’t any outside forces colluding and conspiring to keep them apart. Heathcliff and Cathy are to blame for their own unhappiness. In fact, their immaturity, selfishness, and vindictiveness not only ruin their lives, those traits allow them to use, abuse, and destroy the lives of the people around them too. So, who cares if these two end up together? They actually don’t belong together, shouldn’t be together, and, obviously, neither of them should be with anyone else either.

This is the kind of 'love' story that inspires stalkers, maniacs, and lunatics because it's not about love. What's portrayed is dark, disturbing behavior. The kind of ‘love’ depicted is something most normal people can do without.

Knowing you are long gone reasons we both know of. These reply is for the bew generation..best love story ever!

Since I'm late to the conversation, I don't expect to be taken seriously, but if MY stupid opinion counts a tinker's damn....I think think Kathy was a first class bitch....she knew exactly what she was doing and played it for all it was worth.
NoNo,never read the book, but if it IN THE LEAST follows the book, I get it. Kathy is still a first class bitch.