Reviews

I might as well tell you now, I LOVED this film. But, deciding to think of others before myself; I am not going to right a page of worship on it. Instead, I am going to be entirely truthful.

The massive let down of course, to viewers, to literature bugs, and ultimately to Bronte... is they leave out half the book. Cathy's daughter and Hindley's son are not included. I have not read the novel, but I can understand how much this means to people by the mere reaction of my friends. I got the DVD last weekend, saw it myself, was left gobsmacked by everything, and decided to watch it with two of my friends; one of which had read the novel, and another who had read the simplified version. Within the first two minutes, they had noticed so many things wrong or missed out or changed that it almost drove me mad. This almost blinded them to the brilliant performances and great settings.

That done, now I'll tell you what I thought of the film. First I'll tell you, if you love Laurence Olivier half as much as I do, you will cherish this film for life. Not only has he ever looked so gorgeously handsome, but this filmed also displayed the versatile range of his talent. He did not act Heathcliff. He WAS Heathcliff. Whoever goes on about how "hammy" he acts, or that he was far too civilised in the role, I believe, are mistaken. He inserts into the role full-blown passion, poignant emotion, and menacing jealousy; and that, from Laurence Olivier, is enough for me.

Merle Oberon in the role of Cathy was most exemplary; she knew when to look tearful, when to shout, stamp, act the spoilt child; and when to love Heathcliff with all her heart and soul. And yet I felt one element was missing. Naturalness. She had yet to acquire the accomplished polish of actresses such as Miss Leigh and Miss Simmons; but that said, she was thoroughly convincing and her poignancy in the last scene left me torrenting tears.

David Niven was also well suited to the role, and Flora Robson was no disappointment as Ellen. I found the children's acting amusing, but although talented, it annoyed me how William Wyler had decided to be typical and cast Amercian kids as Cathy and Heathcliff. This is Yorkshire, dude! Whatever. Still, their performance was impressive.

And now for the overall view; I loved the vast, landscape scenery, despite the fact it was filmed in Calafornia, and the dark and damp dingyness of the stables in which poor Heathcliff had to sleep. I loved the scenes on Pelleton (is that right??) Cragg; they were beautiful and passionate. Something else I adored, and what almost made the film to me was the music by Newman, which was incredibly beautiful.

That's it. You have their my opinion, and recommendation for people who have read the book. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Bronte fan myself and I know the aggravation of enjoying a book then seeing a crammed-in film. To Wyler, my dearest Olivier and Oberon; don't get me wrong, I know how hard it was in 1939 to even MAKE a film; it was far more expensive back then, and you did an exceptional job in 1 hour 40 minutes.

To everyone who's read this, unless you are ENTIRELY and might I add foolishly prejudice against a shorter adaption of Bronte's fantastic novel, words cannot express how much I urge you see this film. If the last scene with Cathy and Heathcliff doesn't at least draw two tears from your eyes (I know I torrented tears uncontrollably at that scene) then, as another reviewer said: You MUST be made of stone. This is an exquisitely enacted and beautifully filmed adaption which will stand as a classic for all time, and whatever your taste or interest, I recommend it. For any Olivier fans who have NOT seen this film, you're missing quite a lot here! You cannot call yourself a TRUE Olivier fanatic until you have seen this.

That's me finished, and I hope this review has helped. Esther xx

For me, this was a very good film. First thing is the cast. It is excellently casted. Second thing is the story: wonderful, passionate and tragically heroic. But there were somethings for me which perhaps spoiled it a little. But first let me praise the excellent things. Kirk Douglas, as the rebellious slave Spartacus; was terrific and most convincing. Jean Simmons as the lovely Virinia, was perfect in character as she was in beauty. Laurence Olivier, as always, was perfectly casted as the cruel ambitious General Craccuss; it was he that really made the film what it was. Peter Ustinov was also very good; and Charles Laughton was convincing to. So there you have a range of very fine actors; all suited to their parts. Well done Stanley Kubrick. But there were a few actors casted I did not like. First was Julius Ceaser. In this film, Ceaser is at the very start of his reign. Despite some moderate convincing portrayal, a nineteen-year-old looking Julius does not do much for me. He looked as though he had just rolled out of some American football team. Good looking though he was, he was in no way near the character which we know Ceaser to be; nor did he act like any sort of ruler. Secondly was Marcus Glaborous. Glaborous was drawled American-style by John Dall. Once again, despite some convincing acting, this ruined it for me. Every time he spoke, I felt I was being pulled out of the might of Rome to the yanky style of a western. Thirdly, and least importantly; apparently none of it is historically correct to the original tale. But despite all of this, I must say I enjoyed it; and prefer it considerably to the modern take-offs like Gladiator. The finest for me was Laurence Olivier, who sort of patched up some of the poorer cast. Despite all this AGAIN, I recommend it if you enjoy historic tension, romance, and a devastating battle... and its great to see Olivier in his blood-thirsty role.