Tragedy strikes when Heathcliff falls in love with Catherine Earnshaw, a woman from a wealthy family in 18th-century England.

Director: Emerald Fennell

Adapted from: 'Wuthering Heights' by Emily Brontë (1847)

Cast: Jacob Elordi, Margot Robbie, Owen Cooper, Alison Oliver

Rotten Tomatoes: 71%

Metacritic: 62 / 100

Some Reviews:

Variety – Peter Debruge

While not as salacious as ‘Saltburn,’ the director’s operatic Emily Brontë adaptation allows its tragic couple — played by Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi — to consummate their passions, to a degree.

The Guardian – Peter Bradshaw – 2 / 5

Wuthering Heights doesn’t have the live-ammo impact of Fennell’s earlier films, or indeed Andrea Arnold's primitivist take on Brontë’s novel from 2011, which really did believe in the passionate truth of Cathy and Heathcliff’s love. For Fennell, it looks like a luxurious pose of unserious abandon. It’s quasi-erotic, pseudo-romantic and then ersatz-sad, a club night of mock emotion.

USA Today – 3.5 / 4

Emerald Fennell’s take on the literary classic isn’t exactly a Valentine’s Day pick-me-up. Yet it’s awfully stunning to look at with all sorts of toxic obsession, forbidden lust and gothic sauciness.

RogerEbert – Tomris Laffy – 2 / 4

It’s hard to feel freely when you are constantly and loudly reminded by every aspect of the movie that you are supposed to feel things.

AVClub – Natalia Keoghan – 'C-'

Overlong and undersexed, Fennell’s version of Wuthering Heights betrays her audience of edgelords and perverts. Even stranger, those who have fostered a distaste for the filmmaker’s sensibility will similarly find themselves disappointed. It’s one thing to make art that can be read as indulgent, ill-conceived, and tasteless—it’s another to turn around and make something that’s just boring in comparison.

Slash Film – BJ Colangelo – 5 / 10

This is not an adaptation of "Wuthering Heights," but the result of what happens when you're playing an approximation "Wuthering Heights" without a full grasp on the material but all the money in the world to bring your questionable imagination to life.

Consequence – Liz Shannon Miller – 'A-'

As soon as this project was announced, it was easy to assume that Fennell would show as much reverence for the classic text as she showed for the sanctity of a man’s grave in Saltburn. Except she defies that assumption by making sure that although “Wuthering Heights” remains a deliciously horny film, it does summon a certain degree of pure romance, especially in the few moments when its leads are able to see past their misunderstandings and actually connect. It’s a movie about how ugly people can be to each other, but also about the beauty they’re capable of — a message that, like the original text itself, remains timeless.

The Telegraph – Robbie Collins – 5 / 5

Style over substance? Not at all – it’s more that Fennell understands that style can be substance when you do it right. Cathy and Heathcliff’s passions vibrate through their dress, their surroundings, and everything else within reach, and you leave the cinema quivering on their own private frequency.

BBC – Caryn James – 4 / 5

Emerald Fennell's Wuthering Heights is not very faithful to Emily Bronte's novel, but we knew that. The trailer alone evoked so much hand-wringing from Brontë purists that the film became divisive sight unseen. This Wuthering Heights is very true to Fennell, the director of the scathing revenge drama Promising Young Woman and the lush, bitter story of class and obsession, Saltburn.

Collider – Therese Lacson – 2 / 10

What makes the original Wuthering Heights so powerful is the dizzying story at its core. The Earnshaws and Lintons have a complicated family tree, and Heathcliff comes in like a wrecking ball to blow everything up. On one hand, we want to believe that Heathcliff can change from his wicked ways with enough love from Cathy, but on the other hand, his actions are so cruel that it feels like Brontë is pushing us to the very brink of what is acceptable before ultimately redeeming him in his final moments. Emily Brontë's novel is about characters who are hateful and pitiable but still full of enough charm and complexity that we are desperate to learn their full, messy tale. Emerald Fennell's film is merely telling a shallow story about two people overcoming all obstacles to fall in love — not necessarily awful on paper, but it's an adaptation that feels like a 14-year-old skimmed the book and jumped to her own conclusions without any true understanding of the novel.

by ChiefLeef22

26 Comments

  1. Already mixed, and we’re not even ten minutes in. Emerald Fennell sure isn’t boring, at least.

  2. “Wuthering Heights doesn’t have the live-ammo impact of Fennell’s earlier films on Brontë’s novel from 2011”

    What does this mean Bradshaw? The 2011 film was by Andrea Arnold and Fennell hasn’t adapted Brontë before.

    EDIT: Looks like the pull quote badly paraphrased the review.

  3. I’ll be curious to see how big an audience “Wuthering Heights” will draw in today’s world.

  4. MrMojoRising422 on

    I’m sorry, I just don’t give a shit about how ‘accurate’ this is to a 1847 novel that has already been adapted like 10 times. I don’t care if it ‘butchers the characters’ or ‘the spirit’ of the novel.

  5. I love films where the director has a clear intention and goes for it — even if it’s not what I would have done or even agree with the intention. I hated Saltburn as a concept but really enjoyed it for what the director was attempting and achieved.

    It’s absolutely fine to watch movies only for entertainment, but it’s also fine to hate what a movie is saying or how it’s executed but also understand that for the director’s intention, it was knocked out of the park.

    There are good movies that are objectively well made and good movies that are fun. I think masterpieces are both. I will be seeing this no matter what reviews say because I like movies as an art form. I do feel that we as consumers allow publications and influencers to form opinions for us when consuming art, which feels so counter productive to the experience.

  6. ROBtimusPrime1995 on

    Two polarizing films, back to back.

    It’s like Emerald Fennell saw the wild reactions to the end of Promising Young Woman and decided to double down on it for the rest of her career, I guess.

  7. Here’s the thing, even a bad Emerald Fennell movie is striking and unique in ways that are fun to discuss afterwards with friends. It’s always a fun time, even if she sort of always narratively misses the mark a little bit.

  8. Im already too exhausted to even see this movie after being subjected to the marketing push with Margot Robbie going on and on about Jacob Elordi. lol

  9. HiddenbtsCamera on

    Saw early screening. Pretty poor. Fennell again given so much freedom to try and shock and be over the top. Not enjoyable.

  10. Significant_Kale1 on

    I’ve always been a bit surprised when people discuss emerald fennell they ALWAYS talk about saltburn and no one brings up Promising Young Woman. I find people often try to discredit her as being a provocateur by pointing to saltburn but no one ever talks about the emotional heart, gorgeous set design and ambitious plot of PYW (even if it wasn’t a perfect movie – but most debuts aren’t anyways).

  11. The difference in reception between the film and the soundtrack is gonna be really funny

  12. I’m just looking forward to that scene where Heathcliff looks right at the camera and says “it’s wuthering time”

  13. PossibilityFine5988 on

    I just know I’m going to love this and have to fight for my life to defend it at work lol so once again a Emerald Fennel movie

Leave A Reply