Do you consider Wuthering Heights a romance film

No. I'd call it a love story but not a romance. The love it displays isn't romantic per se: it's raw, selfish, feral, sadistic, masochistic, painful, and without mercy. But it's love nonetheless. That's what makes the book so fascinating to me. I think most film versions go wrong in trying to romanticize it. It's beyond that. I think the closest film has come to depicted the animalistic nature of the Heathcliff/Cathy relationship was the recent 2012 version.

Great answer and you defined the story very well more than a romance it's a destructive love story and yes the book is fascinating.
I read it in two weeks I couldn't put it down.


So you liked 2012 version, Is true that its almost without dialog ?
I been curious to watch it but the almost no dialog it's a little of a turn off for me.

I've seen two versions the Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche version which I really loved and the 2009 version with Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley.

Tom Hardy was good but his Heathcliff was so toned down and I hatted the way they portrayed
Cathy's death.
The whole version was romantized even tough we see the whole story and well I most admit it was very developed it didn't feel rushed at any moment but like still very watered down version.

I need to the 2012 version with James Houson and Kaya Scodelario.
It's gonna be strange since I read on the trivia that the original plan was making it more commercial with well known actors like Natalie Portman and Michael Fassbender and the director was going to be the guy who directed some episodes of the series Rome and the Borgias.

But at the end we ended up with a more low budget and art house version, sad that now there's not gonna be a commercial version anytime soon.

It's a great story that now won't be known by all the main stream audiences

No there's dialogue in the 2012 film. It's not what I would call dialogue driven but it is there.

There's no music. The soundtrack is the sounds of nature: rustling leaves, animal noises, blowing wind, rain etc. I think that's to drive home that Heathcliff and Cathy are, at their core, part of the natural world: driven by impulse and instinct. It's only after Cathy's exposed to society and "civilized" that things really begin to go wrong. When we see nature at and around Wuthering Heights it's nature at its most brutal. Because when you think about it, nature is merciless. There's predator and prey. And the love between Cathy and Heathcliff is similar. It's harsh and unforgiving. Of course the natural scenes of Wuthering Heights are contrasted with Thrushcross Grange where nature is tamed into manicured gardens.

The film is not definitive for me, only because it doesn't present the whole story. It ends after Catherine's death when Heathcliff takes ownership of Wuthering Heights and begins his revenge. I understand why directors are reluctant to include the second half. It is less dramatic than first. But I maintain it's necessary to the story because it brings everything full circle and provides a sense of balance.

However, like you I've found previous versions to be too sanitized. I think Natalie Portman and Michael Fassbender in a mainstream film would've been sanitized as well. Not that they aren't talented actors. But Natalie has an elegance and a grace that's at odds with a wild character like Catherine. Michael, I think would've played Heathcliff as a romantic hero. A dark one perhaps but similar to his Mr. Rochester. The problem is that Heathcliff isn't like that at all. He is, as Cathy says "a wolfish, raving, man". I think we saw more of that in this version than we would have in something mainstream. It is a pretty well known novel and it's been adapted for the screen many times. If people want a mainstream, pretty, romantic version, they're out there. I'd rather have something out there that's faithful to the novel in tone if not in content.

Thanks so much for the information about this versions it was very helpful I'm definitely gonna see it.

And by main stream I meant that it would have been something like what the 2005 version of pride and Prejudice did for the novel.
The novel was benificiatted by that version and it would be nice to see a very famous versions with well known actors to give the novel a boost.
Maybe if not Natalie Portman, the other Natalie(Natalie Dormer) and Jonathan Rhys Meyers or Christian Bale.

Ralph Fiennes did became the Heathcliff of the novel and the film respected his personality, the only problem with this version, it felt a little rushed but the whole story is there and the cast was pretty good especially Ralph and Juliette Binoche who played Catherine Earnshaw and her daughter.

I know this novel already has many adaptations but like I said a main stream version would have been great, one that would have been relesed world wide in all theaters.

Probably my favorite is the 1992 because I know this story thanks to checking Ralph Fiennes Filmography, since im a big fan of him as an actor and eye candy lol

And friend of mine landed the book to me.

Sorry I already putted the whole name of the novel, I thought it was obvious the W.H. But no .

Yes. My favorite is the 1938 version. I rate it 8/10.

Volker Flenske: (While torturing David) I don't know why you're doing this to yourself!