A snared rabbit, dogs hung by their collars. There's no excuse for this to be depicted on film. A good film, which turned into a travesty due to the cast and crew's lack of respect for animal welfare.

Arnold's cinematic approach to Brontë's novel "Wuthering Heights" results in an adaptation that is original not only because it rearranges the narrative and provides a fresh new take on the characters but also because it powerfully delivers the story's experiential content, and makes it a central tenet of the spectator's engagement with the story. In other words, the description of the physical and material world of the story, which was observational in most of Brontë's novel, becomes the very engine of Arnold's film through the voice of the two narrators and through the characters' observational description. In an essay I published in The Victorian journal, I expand this idea of adapting with the senses ("Adapting with the Senses: Wuthering Heights as a Perceptual Experience.")

First, it's been MANY years since I read the book. It is not a book I plan to read again... too dark and depressing.That said, I felt, with all its flaws that have been pointed out here, the film did a fine job conveying the mood of the book. Dark, hopeless, despair... all of that. I always wondered about that Bronte sister... what was her emotional state most of the time?I found the dark, foggy, muddy location to be perfect. And the actors really got filthy - they lived in mud. That's how it would have been there. I disliked the animal cruelty, but I'll give it a pass, as it probably is realistic for the times and for people in such ongoing despair. But I did fast forward through those scenes. I don't need to see that and I cannot understand why the filmmaker felt compelled to put them in there. And Heathcliff walking away at the end whilst that boy hung those dogs? Wow. That was very off-putting.I felt the actors were splendid. Every one of them inhabited their character with brilliant skill. I felt the direction was perfect. Some may find the time spent on shots of the surrounding moor to slow the whole thing down too much, but for me, it fit the mood.The wild characters fit my memory of the book. Cathy was as fickle, selfish, cruel, and passionate as I felt she was in the book... which I read decades ago, so memory can certainly be wrong.I loved the black Heathcliff. Although he certainly was not black in the book, I felt that was a creative re-imagining. I sat through the film whilst working on paperwork. I had no interest in investing in intently watching. The book had nothing positive in it for me, and I dislike depressing stories. I felt the film represented the mood, tone, and message - if you will - of the book. I wasn't crazy about it... but I didn't like the book, so it seems to fit.I vote an 8 because of these things. I knock 2 points off just because I dislike the story.

So I already warned you about my review could bee containing spoiler of some type. Therefore be aware!I know every artist should enjoy the artistic freedom, but am sorry I couldn't enjoy this movie ... First of all the movie is too long. Those two hours of nothing happening made me sleepy. It is more of a documentary type of a film than some real film genre. The characters are nothing like the original Wuthering heights characters and it is such a shame that Hitcliff was turned into love sick boy turned into a necrophiliac. The story is just some dark version of Romeo and Juliet. I haven't seen a picture that could resemble Wuthering Heights.Honestly speaking I am not able to recommend this movie to anyone. Maybe I may be accused of not understanding artistic freedom and such, but the movie did not fulfill my expectations.