The New York Times has an article on 'What Brontë Country Tells Us About Britain Today'. Nestled among the wide-open moors of West Yorkshire sits Haworth, the English village where Emily Brontë wrote “Wuthering Heights,” the gothic romance that inspired Hollywood’s latest steamy adaptation. The cobblestone streets and rugged hills here still conjure the hardscrabble life and wild forces of nature that underpin the novel. As it did in 1847, when the book was published, the region offers a window into the stark contrasts and economic struggles that challenge Britain. Now, as then, social and demographic change, rising food prices and widening wealth inequality are driving populist political movements, calls for reform and spasms of unrest. Haworth is eight miles from Bradford, a town that Emily’s father, Patrick, visited often in his role as an Anglican priest. In the mid-19th century, Bradford was a wealthy, fast-growing center of textile manufacturing, home to powerful parliamentary lawmakers and a destination for tourists and traders. The city’s decline is typical of the hollowing-out of many postindustrial towns and cities in northern England, fueling the poverty and frustration that are shaking up British politics. [...] One afternoon in November, tourists gathered to listen to a banjo player outside the Villette Coffee House in Haworth. Couples walked their dogs. Parents struggled to push their strollers along the deeply rutted cobblestones. Bradford’s woes can seem far from here. Many people believe, incorrectly, that the Brontë siblings grew up in a remote, backward place. As Juliet Barker writes in “The Brontës,” Haworth was actually “a busy, industrial township” with 13 small textile mills in the area when Patrick Brontë became curate in 1820. The village had its own surgeon, a wine merchant, a watchmaker and three cabinetmakers. It was overcrowded, however, and had primitive sanitation. An 1850 report found that more than 2 in 5 children died before their sixth birthday and average life expectancy was under 26 years. While Bradford now struggles economically, Haworth became a destination for literature fans around the world, exemplifying the value of Britain’s heritage to its tourism industry, which employs over a million people and contributes more than $100 billion a year to the economy. A local couple spent one Saturday stringing bunting from the wooden beams of Haworth’s recently refurbished old schoolhouse building, where Charlotte Brontë, Emily’s older sister and the author of “Jane Eyre,” had her wedding reception in 1854. Down the street, tourists quietly filed through the Brontë home that is now a museum. Outside, the moors stretch as far as the eye can see, rolling hills of dark green and brown divided by bare stone walls. (Michael D. Shear)
Daily Mail reports that 'Wuthering Heights fans go WILD after discovering Cliff Richard giving Jacob Elordi a run for his money with his own questionable Yorkshire accent to play Heathcliff in 90s musical: 'This is what Emily Brontë would have wanted!'' Wuthering Heights fans have gone wild after Cliff Richard's 90s musical based on the novel, which he co-wrote and starred in as Heathcliff, has gone viral. Aussie Jacob Elordi may be smouldering on screen in Emerald Fennell's new big screen adaption, but first came Sir Cliff, now 85, with his own strangely wig and questionable Yorkshire accent. Gone is the crooner's squeaky clean persona to play the rogue in the 1996 show which was a huge hit with fans but loathed by critics, who hit out at Cliff's casting. [...] Taking to TikTok fans joked: 'This is what Emily Brontë would have wanted!': 'Cliff heard a Yorkshire accent, once, in a dream': 'I'm screaming!!': 'Sorry but this is what all movie to musical adaptations sound like to me': 'Why didn't they call it Heathcliffe Richards?': 'I am only surprised that Cilla Black wasn't cast as Cathy'. (Geraint Llewellyn)
A contributor to Salon wonders about all the hate for the film. That’s a real shame, considering how interesting Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is if you can divorce yourself from the film’s source material, as its writer-director does with palpable glee. Her take is a maelstrom of splendid beauty and doomed love, colliding at a feverish pace that makes the fidelity to Brontë’s book moot. This is Fennell’s vision, her creation. Its bones are the same, but its cells are different. Why, then, is Fennell’s adaptation of a classic met with such ruthless scrutiny, when another recent Jacob Elordi-starring remix on an equally beloved, oft-remade tale — Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” — was lauded by both critics, viewers and awards bodies alike? Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” pivots the novel toward fantastical anachronism and open-hearted femininity, while del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is a dour, dark spin that blunts the sentimentality of Mary Shelley’s book for an adaptation that plays more like a superhero origin story. Both filmmakers chose to make Elordi their 6 ‘6 muse, using his imposing stature to their gain — strong and rugged as Fennell’s Heathcliff, while towering and intimidating as del Toro’s Creature — and the cinematic story arcs for both characters regularly deviate from their respective novels. Despite these and other glaring similarities between these films released just four months apart, only one movie was met with virulent animosity from the jump, and somehow, it wasn’t the worst movie of the two. This isn’t just the latest layer in the longtime double standard for films made by women compared to those made by men; the reaction also indicates a frightening lack of curiosity among stubborn viewers unwilling to consider a reality beyond a prevailing narrative. [...] That may be the most disturbing aspect of all. Whether people enjoy Fennell’s work is a matter of personal taste. But refusing to keep an open mind and stay curious about a film simply because of a filmmaker’s reputation for (relatively tame!) smuttiness is detrimental to the cinema that Fennell’s critics purport to uphold. “Wuthering Heights” may not be to many people’s taste, but what Fennell has done is irrefutably interesting. She’s made something different from your typical adaptation, a movie that brings a fresh perspective to a very old and frequently retold tale. How very frustrating that so many people have closed off their minds and hearts to the film before they’ve even seen it, or before the credits rolled. Such baseless reticence only makes us more defiant and less inquisitive. Social media might be the modern watercooler — the dominating force of cultural conversation — but taking its narratives as gospel without considering art for ourselves only reinforces our worst instincts and upholds the systems that a surprising, offbeat and altogether different film like “Wuthering Heights” rallies against. (Coleman Spilde)
Thred has an article on how 'Wuthering Heights yearning feels out of step with Gen Z dating'. Wuthering Heights may be romantic for some, but in today’s culture, no one ought to regard the relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff as something to aim for; it’s at best absent, and at worst innately toxic. (Annie Dabb) Marie Claire thinks that 'Isabella and Her BDSM Ribbons Are What Hold "Wuthering Heights" Together'. It’s Alison Olivier’s character, Isabella, in particular, whose journey embodies the symbolism behind the ribbons. At her residence, Thushcross Grange, the wealthy, sheltered young woman spends her days in a room dedicated to sashes and bows, making creations like dolls crafted from human hair. While her proclivities may make her appear naive, her girlishness ultimately comes to represent her own self-discovery and how she revels in control. [...] In the second part of Isabella’s arc, her hair is now worn loose, but bows and rosettes still line her gowns. Oliver plays the character like she’s constantly frothing at the mouth, eager for something more, but she’s still the woman with the ribbon room in these fetishistic scenes; she’s just now allowed herself to come undone. (Sadie Bell)
A contributor to Her Campus discusses 'The Withering of Wuthering Heights: Deviation from Brontë’s Original Vision'. Another contributor to Her Campus reviews the film. Woman Alive uses the film to discuss 'Faith, truth and the temptation to romanticise in Wuthering Heights'. Herald Sun has 'Acclaimed sex historian' and author Dr Esme Louise explain whether the film is historically accurate. El Diario (Spain) discusses Heathcliff's race. El Confidencial Digital (in Spanish) has an AI-illustrated article on the filming locations of Wuthering Heights 2026. The rise of 'Brontë beauty' on Body and Soul. The Irish Independent suggests readers 'Go wild with the Wuthering Heights trend' when it comes to interior decoration. Independent reports that 'Corsets are back in fashion – and it’s all because of Wuthering Heights'.
We have some more reviews of Wuthering Heights 2026:
If one can separate Fennell’s adaptation from its source material, it’s altogether captivating. However, the film’s title, enclosed in quotation marks, emphasizes an important point: It is only “Wuthering Heights” in essence. Fennell’s version raises a consequential question — if you replace a story’s substance, is it still the same story? How much can creative liberty justify before an adaptation becomes a rip-off? (Abbey Conley) Actually, the whole film is probably best enjoyed as a kind of offshoot of Barbie. Call it “Wuthering Heights Barbie,” featuring the famous doll boxed up in a tightly corseted nineteenth-century gown with BDSM accessories like whips and hangman’s nooses and horse’s bridles. It’s also sold with an elaborate new Barbie’s Dreamhouse, the glamorously dreary Gothic version, with a dark-haired Ken in heavy sideburns grinning fondly at Barbie from the doorway. And Fennell has thought of practically all the sex positions those blank-eyed dolls can be put into, with their arms that go up and down, and bendy joints, and heads that turn all the way around! (Eileen Jones) “Wuthering Heights” is the rare studio film where the below-the-line work doesn’t support the vision — it is the vision. Having been introduced to Emerald Fennell’s filmmaking through that Promising Young Woman panel, watching the team she has built and the scale at which they now operate, this is exactly the trajectory you hoped for. The moors look magnificent, the obsession feels real, and the craft is impeccable. This is a film made by people who care deeply about every frame — and it shows. (Byron Burton) What fascinates is not whether this adaptation is faithful, but why it feels so precisely calibrated to now. We live in a culture that celebrates emotional extremity, provided it remains interpretable and contained. We want intensity, but we want distance from its consequences. We want the experience of witnessing emotional chaos without surrendering to its destabilising force. This film reflects that instinct. It offers devastation as an encounter rather than a transformation. Something to observe, not something that alters you. In doing so, it adapts not just Wuthering Heights, but our diminished tolerance for emotional risk. The original story confronted readers with emotional violence that refused resolution or distance. This version allows you to remain safely outside it. I left impressed by its craft, but more struck by what its restraint represented. The film doesn't weaken the story so much as reveal the conditions under which stories now exist. They must be legible. They must be shareable. They must survive translation into image. The moors remain wild. What has changed is our willingness to be undone by them. (Anoushka Madan)
Fennell’s masterpiece (so far) is her 2020 thriller “Promising Young Woman” starring Carey Mulligan. That film earned Fennell a well-deserved Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Her ultra-weird 2023 offering “Saltburn” (also starring Elordi) was a letdown. “Wuthering Heights” falls somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the best compliment I can pay “Wuthering Heights” is to say it’s not as bad as you’ve heard. But I realize that is faint praise, at best. (Andy Ray) I feel this film is adequately okay. It is not a conventional period drama, but it’s also not a smoothly organized one (or a carefully designed one) either. (Casey Allen) The film’s abrupt ending inverts our expectations, circling back to Cathy and Heathcliff in their youth. They are bonded from the very beginning until the very end. Cathy is headstrong in defending Heathcliff against her father, even when it scares her. Heathcliff is guarded and protects Cathy, even when it costs him. We see just how much each of their inner children resurface in their adult relationship: Deep down, they are emotionally sensitive, although they fight to appear otherwise, both to outsiders and each other. In my viewing experience, I felt compelled to consider the notion of forgiveness. At one point, Cathy says to Heathcliff, “You’re too late,” and I was left asking: When is it too late, and where do forgiveness and regret intersect? I find myself still pondering these questions as I write this, a few days after my viewing. I’m unsure whether I appreciate or detest these unanswered questions, but perhaps that’s what Fennell’s “‘Wuthering Heights’” is all about — an invitation to face those haunting thoughts, whether we like them or not. (Olivia Barkwill)
For those avid Brontë fans willing to loosen their grip on strict fidelity, the film offers something compelling - a strikingly immersive and carefully curated vision that asserts its own identity. [...] It's dramatic, gruesome, and confrontational - Fennell immediately signals that this will not be a museum piece adaptation. [...] These changes transform ambiguous cruelty into explicit manipulations, heightening emotional stakes and making the story more immediate and cinematic for modern viewers. Fennell clearly favors intense layered drama. (Nawal Ahmad)
At the time of its 1847 publication, Brontë’s novel was considered brutal and coarse, devoting unconventional time to themes of female liberation and the racial hierarchy of late Georgian England. In her film adaptation, Fennell has stripped the story of most of this core meaning. Instead, she injects “Wuthering Heights” with excessive and shiny contemporary touches as though they automatically make the film subversive and thought-provoking for modern audiences. (Isabella Konecky) Fennell set out to recreate how the novel felt at 14: intoxicating, dangerous, erotic. And at moments, she succeeds. It comes across very differently from Brontë's original novel, which endures by being about two forces so volatile that they destroy everything around them, including themselves, not because of how sexy or shocking the story is, as Fennel depicts in this film adaptation. (Nora Siddique) Conversely, Fennell’s adaptation is messy and watered down, all tied up in a pretty little bow that fails to mask its disingenuity. Some may argue that the quotation marks around the film’s title suggest that it is merely an interpretation. However, Fennell’s film borrows too much from the source material to be thought of as anything other than an adaptation. As much as I tried to see this film as its own entity separate from the novel, at the end of the day it cannot be totally removed from the context of the original work. As hard as Fennell tried to depict Wuthering Heights in her own way, she missed the mark entirely, making a mockery of Brontë’s magnum opus. (Sarah Toman)
A gorgeous set design is not enough to make up for a flawed production that badly misinterprets the story Emily Bronte set forth to tell in the 19th century. There are a bare handful of good moments, but it isn't nearly enough to save the film from itself. Should be remembered as a cautionary tale as to how adapting a book can go wrong even with the best of intentions. (Becky O'Brien) A filmmaker with genuine concern for her characters’ minds, hearts, and bodies alike could have perhaps employed this approach to mine the material for a new and unique interpretation. Fennell, instead, has not created a film but a walking, talking, sexual Pinterest board—maybe a fine Bridgerton fanfic, but no excuse to desecrate a classic. (Avantika Jagdhari) Esta interpretación entiende que el verdadero terror de amar no radica en perder al otro, sino en descubrirse irreversiblemente transformado por ese vínculo. Y es precisamente en esa devastación emocional donde radica su fuerza, en recordarnos que las historias de amor más memorables no son las que consuelan, sino las que dejan una marca imborrable. (Mónica Castellón) (Translation)
WDIY has an audio review of the film.
An alert for today, February 24, a the Brontë Birthplace in Thornton: Speaker: Charlotte Jones, Education Officer Tuesday 24th February 6:30pm Bronte Birthplace, 72-74 Market Street, Thornton, BD13 3HF
Step into the turbulent world of the Brontë sisters and explore why their novels shocked, unsettled, and enthralled 19th‑century readers with our Education Officer, Charlotte Jones. This talk examines how Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall challenged Victorian expectations around morality, gender, class, religion, and emotional restraint. Filled with passionate heroines, morally complex characters, and unflinching portrayals of desire, anger, and independence, the Brontës’ novels were seen by many critics as dangerous, improper, or even immoral. Why did reviewers struggle to believe such bold, transgressive stories were written by women—and what anxieties did these books provoke? With the release of the new Wuthering Heights film, this talk offers the perfect chance to look beyond the screen and return to the fierce, unsettling novel that inspired it. We’ll explore how Emily Brontë’s original vision compares with modern interpretations, why filmmakers continue to be drawn to its wild emotional landscape, and what the latest adaptation reveals about the story’s enduring power. Whether you’re coming fresh from the cinema or revisiting the book, this session opens up the raw, radical heart of Wuthering Heights in a whole new way.
An Audible original was recently released:
by Gracie Oddie-James Audible Originals Length: 2 hrs and 32 minsDirected by Mahalia Belo Produced by Nicole Davis Starring Daryl McCormack (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande) as Heathcliff; with Arinzé Kene (The Pass), Charlie Rowe (Slow Horses), Gracie Oddie-James (The Lady from the Sea), Sagar Radia (Industry), Raffey Cassidy (The Brutalist) and Tanya Moodie (Silo).
A feverish re-imagining of literature’s most infamous romantic villain. The Heathcliff we know is obsessive, possessive and cruel, bound and beholden to his childhood love and would-be soulmate Catherine, and their home at Wuthering Heights. But before his descent into monstrous revenge, there were three missing years. A time of possibility, freedom and a different kind of love… With Cathy’s rejection burning hot in his ears, Heathcliff flees the moors and arrives in London, seeking distraction and oblivion. There he is rescued by Sir Francis Barber, the Black adopted son of Samuel Johnson who urges him to forge his own path. Along the way he meets the reckless gambler, Lord Montgomery and the beautiful courtesan Rhoda Pascal, and begins to chart a path towards fortune, and belonging. In growing closer to Rhoda, he starts to untangle the mystery of who he is, but Cathy's ghostly presence, calling to him like a siren song, draws him ever back to his own dark nature, and the bewildering memories of Wuthering Heights...
Variety shares the weekend's box office. This weekend at the global box office was the tale of two holdovers as “Wuthering Heights” waltzed to $150 million while “GOAT” hit the $100 million mark. Director Emerald Fennell’s gothic romantic drama “Wuthering Heights,” which ceded the top spot in North America to “GOAT,” was No. 1 at the international box office with $26.3 million from 76 markets. In a theatrical surprise, the R-rated film has been a bigger draw overseas with ticket sales having climbed to $91.7 million to date. Top foreign territories include the United Kingdom with $22.5 million, Italy with $9.4 million and Australia with $8.3 million. So far, “Wuthering Heights” has grossed $151.7 million worldwide against an $80 million production budget. (Rebecca Rubin)
A columnist from The Daily Tar Heel discusses the Wuthering Heights 2026 in particular and adaptations in general. Last weekend on Valentine's Day, I sat down at the movie theater with my three best friends from home, celebrating the holiday the best way I saw fit: watching the new “'Wuthering Heights' ” film. I was glued to the screen the moment the scene opened with groaning sounds, and uncontrollable tears fell down my face as the credits rolled almost 2.5 hours later. So it was much to my surprise when I opened the Letterboxd app once back at home to see the movie only had 2.8/5 stars and a plethora of negative reviews, all with much the same sentiment: Emily Brontë would be disappointed by Emerald Fennell ’s portrayal of her story. [...] While I didn’t feel this strongly on the topic of titles before I watched “'Wuthering Heights,'” I think movies need to be enjoyed for their simple craft and not whether or not they are exactly like the original source. And frankly, not everyone reads every book ever written. I don’t want to love a movie so deeply and be met with contorted faces and silent judgment, just because I didn’t read the book and notice every difference between the two. It’s inevitable that a screen adaptation will not maintain every single plot point of its original book, but directors can make a simple fix to avoid total hatred of their productions: just change the name. (Rebecca Savidge)
A contributor to Mamamia argues the case for so-called 'toxic love stories'. Firstly, let's quickly address whether Wuthering Heights could have existed in its original form — it certainly could, and predictably will again (I foresee a historical limited series adaptation asap), but that doesn't mean Fenell's vision shouldn't have a right to exist either. But let's face it, would the dating standards of 1847 translate to today? I'd hazard a guess that 2026 audiences wouldn't particularly enjoy watching their internet boyfriend, Jacob Elordi, in his full monstrous glory as Heathcliff, a character who didn't simply use his wife Isabella to torment Cathy, but physically and emotionally abused her in the novel… and murdered her dog. Audiences certainly wouldn't root for him and Margot Robbie's Catherine after enduring such horrific scenes. Fennell's story is still a romance — it's just not the type we're used to seeing play out. For one thing, Heathcliff and Catherine are both largely terrible people. That's just a fact. In many ways, they do deserve each other — if anything, to keep them away from everyone else. This is the kind of toxic love story that I, personally, can't get enough of. And these kinds of anti-love stories have a place in pop culture — even if they don't fit neatly into the romance box. (Tara Watson)
While Feminism in India argues that 'We Don’t Need Another Romantic Heathcliff: Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” And The Aestheticisation Of Male Violence'. Ultimately, Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” feels like a ‘cynical co-option‘ of a radical text. The film reaches for mature emotional complexity but lands instead on the simplistic, all-consuming feelings of teenage infatuation. By reducing Brontë’s examination of class structures and racial othering to surface-level eroticism, it sidesteps the very discomfort the novel was designed to elicit. The film’s poster famously puts the title in quotation marks, perhaps signalling Fennell’s awareness that this is a limited interpretation rather than a faithful adaptation. Yet, in a world where elite male violence is still routinely excused as complicated behaviour, we do not need another “Wuthering Heights” that makes abuse look like a high-fashion editorial. We need adaptations that refuse to make the destruction of human beings look beautiful. We need art that recognises that when violence is aestheticised without political clarity, it ceases to be a critique and becomes an enablement. Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights”, for all its vibrant visuals and maximalist noise, remains a missed opportunity to address the very real and ugly ghosts of our present moment. (Aryaa Singh)
Some more reviews of the film:
Fennell did what she set out to do when making this film. She wanted to make a version of “Wuthering Heights” that reflected what she remembered from reading it for the first time as a teen. In that regard, this film succeeds as a heart-racing, sweeping dark romance. By thinking about this film as just that, it’s pretty successful. The film depicts the lure and attraction of this doomed romance, even if it’s a bit overplayed. However, to achieve this, it becomes far less interesting than the original novel to the point of making viewers wonder why the film is called “Wuthering Heights” in the first place. (Kristopher Caalim)
Not every film needs to be deep or meaningful, but it would be nice if filmmakers could respect their audience with subtlety and take a commentary further than the superficial every now and again. Fennell instead squandered a golden opportunity to bridge the divide between literature snobs and casual romance enjoyers. I’ll get off my soapbox now, but this movie was not “‘porn’ for women.” It was porn for Emerald Fennell. Was I successfully rage baited by this “adaptation”? Yes. But Fennell’s superficiality and mishandling of her source’s thematic elements in favor of flashy aesthetics is simply a symptom of a much more serious disease: It is art in the age of TikTok. TLDR: In the immortalized words of bk on Letterboxd, “Emerald Fennell to film is what Colleen Hoover is to literature.” (Uma Nathan)
Favoring excess over austerity, Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” has a different spirit than Brontë’s novel. The novel’s narrator, Lockwood, says, “They [Catherine and Heathcliff] are afraid of nothing.” But they might be afraid of this film. It is a ghost of their story. (Jason Mulvihill) 1.5 stars out of 5 from Cineralia (in Spanish): En definitiva, esta versión de Cumbres borrascosas parece realizada para los que disfrutaron de Barbie. Los que busquen verdadera emoción no la encontrarán aquí. (Julio Vallejo) (Translation) A reader has written to In Common to say they didn't like the film.
A contributor to Her Campus gives Wuthering Heights, the novel, a 10/10. Manchester Evening News and others recommend a trip to Swaledale, a filming location for Wuthering Heights 2026. Cinema Blend reports that on social media, 'Wuthering Heights Fans Have Messages For The Movie Newbies Who Are Finding Out Heathcliff And Cathy Are 'Bad People''. The Brontës' love of pets on AnneBrontë.org.
Sarah Gordon's Underdog: The Other Other Brontë opens in Chorley:
Written by Sarah Gordon Directed by Amber Walsh Main Stage Chorley Theatre, Dole Lane, Chorley, Lancashire, PR7 2RL. February 23rd-28th
Charlotte Brontë has a confession about how one sister became an idol, and the other became known as the third sister. You know the one. No, not that one. The other, other one… Anne. This is not a story about well-behaved women. This is a story about the power of words. It’s about sisters and sisterhood, love and jealousy, support and competition. Sarah Gordon’s play is an irreverent retelling of the life and legend of the Brontë sisters, and the story of the sibling power dynamics that shaped their uneven rise to fame.
Director Amber Walsh says “through sharp humour and a knowing look at how history picks its favourites, the play looks at sibling rivalry, creativity, and the erasure of women writers from history.” “This is not a story about well-behaved women, it’s about the power of words, love and jealousy” (Ian Robinson)
More Recent Articles
|
%20(1).v1.jpg)
