A One Mann’s Movies review of “Wuthering Heights”. (2026, 3*, 15).
I was late to see this new film from Emerald Fennell, and even later to review it. But “Wuthering Heights” seems to have divided audiences. I suspect most haters will be lovers of the Emily Brontë book, since the film has taken a number of liberties with the original source. I must admit that I don’t think I’ve read the book (or if I did, it was many, many years ago). But taking this as a standalone romantic bonkbuster, it was an entertaining ride (in more ways than one). But it is probably my least favourite Emerald Fennell film to date.
One Mann’s Movies Rating:
Plot:
Young Cathy Earnshaw (Charlotte Mellington) is growing up with her alcoholic and difficult father (Martin Clunes) at “Wuthering Heights”, a remote mansion in the middle of the Yorkshire moors. Her father brings home a mute abused boy (Adolescence’s Owen Cooper, in his film debut) that Cathy calls Heathcliff. The pair grow close but when adulthood has ways of throwing obstructions between the love of Cathy (Margot Robbie) and Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi).
Certification:
UK: 15; US: R. (From the BBFC website: “Disturbing images, strong sex, sex references, language”.)
Talent:
Starring: Margot Robbie, Jacob Elordi, Martin Clunes, Hong Chau, Shazad Latif, Alison Oliver, Ewan Mitchell, Amy Morgan, Owen Cooper, Charlotte Mellington.
Directed by: Emerald Fennell.
Written by: Emerald Fennell. (Based – loosely! – on the novel by Emily Brontë.)
Running Time: 2h 16m.
Summary:
Positives:
- Some astonishingly memorable visual images.
- Some good performances, but scene-stealing ones by Martin Clunes.
- Interesting soundtrack.
Negatives:
- It’s almost impossible to like any of the characters in the film.
- The choice of design for “Wuthering Heights” – the building – is odd.
Full Review of “Wuthering Heights”:
More Emerald Fennell visual magic.
This is Emerald Fennell’s third film (after “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn“). In those films, Fennell presented startling visual images that stick in the mind (Carey Mulligan in a slutty nurse outfit! Barry Keoghan humping a grave!). This film doesn’t disappoint!
With the help of her “Saltburn” cinematographer, Linus Sandgren, there are some stunningly framed visual masterpieces of film-work. A friend of mine commented on one of the shots “by a square window with the look of a Dutch master”; Cathy, walking across the moors with a flowing wedding dress billowing behind her. But a shot, late in the film, of a snowy white bed and a well-occupied headboard is the shot of the film for me. And another shot reminded me of our glass-waste bin after a Mann-family Christmas!
There are some clever directorial touches as well. The opening titles are overlaid with a soundtrack of grunting and moaning and a creaking noise that can only imply one thing. But looks can be deceptive. And trust Fennell to throw in a lewd shot into the subsequent reveal!
That being said…
A curious choice is the visuals for the property Wuthering Heights itself. After lovely shots of the moors themselves, we come round a corner into “studio land”. Ridiculously shaped, artificial crags frame a bizarre neo-gothic house set, with tightly-honed white and black marble blocks. The artificiality of the set just took me completely out of the story. I was taken back to the moorland property in Spielberg’s “War Horse” which was actually filmed on Dartmoor. That used a real property (I’ve been there… it’s well worth a visit) but used great cinematography (by Janusz Kaminski) to make it a magical and special place. This film should have done the same.
Despite the casting, I never really felt the passion between Elordi and Robbie. Robbie is too old for the role: in the book she is just 17 when she marries Edgar Linton; she is not supposed to be “well past spinsterhood”. And I found some of the lines from Robbie and Elordi delivered as if coming out of hollow vessels. Not their best work imho.
Fennell also layers on the sexuality with a heavy handed trowel. No opportunity is missed to titillate, from the dribbles of sweat on the skin; to Zillah (Amy Morgan) being literally bridled and ridden by Joseph (Ewan Mitchell) (audio only); to Cathy fingering a fish’s mouth in aspic to Cathy also dreamily running her fingers through the albumen of smashed eggs on a bed. Most on the nose is a pop-up toadstool in a book: I’m just thankful the film wasn’t done in 3D!
I’ve read that Fennell wanted to capture her feelings about reading the book at the age of 14. Hence the title of my review.
Unlikable people.
This is almost certainly the fault of the book, but it is almost impossible to like or root for any of the characters in the book.
Mr Earnshaw (Martin Clunes) is portrayed in the book as a kind, compassionate, and generous man but here adopts a combined role of the father and the son Hindley (missing from the film) and comes across as a monster when under the influence of drink. It’s a tour de force of a performance from Clunes, worthy of awards attention, but the two sides of the character don’t always sit comfortably with each other.
Nelly (Hong Chau, from “The Whale“) puts in another good performance as the companion Nelly, but again is a difficult person to like, thanks to some dubious decisions and spiteful actions. But Cathy (Margot Robbie) gives as good as she gets, making you thoroughly dislike her too.
And you’d like to think that Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) would be the sympathetic man, stuck on the wrong side of a love triangle. But his appalling treatment of the pitiful Isabella (Alison Oliver), trapped as a semi-willing partner in an abusive dom/sub relationship, is terrible.
The only person you really feel any sympathy for is the third leg in the triangle, poor old Edgar (Shazad Latif).
Mixed reviews from book lovers.
I think it’s fair to say that the film is dividing lovers of the book.
Some commentators have disliked the changes made to the story: for example merging Cathy’s father and son into the same person. And the portrayal of Isabella has provoked criticism. But some have thought the film well captures the ‘spirit’ of the book. For example, “danielle41515” on Threads commented to me that:
It actually does a great job maintaining the essence of the novel. It’s not so much that it changes things, it’s that it omits A LOT. Still, Fennell nails the characters and story.
She also comments (to my lack of love for the characters) that “if you hate the characters, that’s a common critique dating back to publication”, which is fair!
Charlie XCX.
An nod to the unusual soundtrack by Anthony Willis and the original songs by Charlie XCX, which suited the mood of the film well for me.
Summary Thoughts:
It’s a bold swing at doing a classic novel in a different way. And bits of it really worked for me, but other choices seemed strange and took me out of the story. A bit of a swing and a miss for me.
Where to watch?
Trailer:
The trailer for the film is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fLCdIYShEQ.
Subscribe
Don’t forget, you can subscribe to One Mann’s Movies to receive future reviews by email right here. No salesman will call!
