Not Your Grandmother's "Wuthering Heights"

"The discourse is intense with this one. Do you think that was inevitable, considering the hype that surrounded its release? I'd say the hype and the discourse began in July, 2024, when the movie was first announced. Fennell is a polarizing filmmaker, with a self-consciously provocative streak. So her decision to tackle a beloved, much-adapted classic generated predictable outrage from the start-and not just any classic but "Wuthering Heights," which is its own dark, contentious beast of a novel."

"I think it's the flip side of her audacity. She throws a lot at the screen here-a lot of skin, a lot of décor, a lot of boldly anachronistic touches. For all that, it's a thuddingly one-note movie, and one note is hard to sustain for two-plus hours. She's trying to hit at least two notes-on some level, I think she wants us to laugh at the torrid nature of Catherine and Heathcliff's romance and feel deeply moved by it-but she just doesn't get there."

"This adaptation was-and I think you might agree-the most sumptuous I've seen, even if it's also the most superficial. Would you say it is also the sexiest? I'm not convinced the movie is as sexy as it wants to be. Fennell plainly wants to turn us on, but how much erotic mileage does she really get out of all those closeups of oozy egg yolks?"

The adaptation premiered after months of public anticipation and intense hype, fueled by the director's polarizing reputation. The film presents lavish production design, sumptuous visuals, anachronistic flourishes, and overtly sexual imagery, but its emotional core feels thin and uneven. A bold, brazen style coexists with a wobbliness of conviction that undermines sustained narrative and tonal complexity. Attempts to balance ironic distance and sincere romantic feeling do not cohere, leaving the film one-note across its runtime. Visual audacity often reads as superficial provocation rather than deep erotic or emotional payoff, producing divided reactions.

Read at The New Yorker