Kieran Wright
OK - first let me say that there has been a lot of talk about this version vs the 1992 version with Fiennes and Binoche. In fact, both productions made one fundamental mistake which would have otherwise rendered each version near perfect - they cast the wrong female leads. Calder-Marshall is far too posh for Cathy. My goodness me though - Dalton is perfect as Heathcliffe. I'm going to put this down to the make up department but it's actually hard to believe that Calder-Marshall is about 3 years younger than him. I actually think she is a good actress, but certainly miscast as Cathy. What really galls me though is the screenplay which takes such liberties with the story, much of which is simply left out and a completely different ending formulated. The last time I felt so cheated was when I watched Captain Corelli's Mandolin! Bottom line - a great example of a real missed opportunity to be the definitive version...
beresfordjd
The two leads in this dogs breakfast are two of the worst actors it has been my misfortune to witness. I watched this open-mouthed at the ineptitude of the story telling and Daltons performance. At least he was matched by Anna's Cathy!! I have seen them in other things and they are no better, so it may not be down to the script or director, though I do not absolve them of blame. I cannot believe that anyone still casts them in anything at all. After seeing earlier representations of Wuthering Heights it makes it difficult to divorce oneself from comparing the newer versions. Ralph Fiennes appeared in another dreadful remake which was awful mainly because of the cutting and direction- the name of the actress playing Cathy escapes me. A diabolical travesty - come back Oberon and Olivier - all is forgiven!!!!
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 The dowdy Flora Robson has been replaced by the buxom, nurturing Judy Cornwell.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".
nicolesez
I guess I will just say "ditto" to the review by sphynx7-- that review echoes what my feelings are for the film- especially that Timothy Dalton IS Heathcliff-- looks, voice, attitude, awkwardness, inability to express his deep and passionate feelings and touch of tenderness.... an extremely hard character to capture, and Timothy got it all. And those green eyes................(sigh) One of my all time favorite movies (and books) Just figured out that I must enter 10 lines of text, so I must add that 2 of my favorite instrumental pieces I like to listen to are both by Michel Legrand, and both from movies-- the score to Wuthering Heights, and the one from Summer of '42.
