Support Frock Flicks with a small donation! During Snark Week and beyond, we’re grateful for your monthly pledges for exclusive content via Patreon or your one-time contributions via Ko-fi or PayPal to offset the costs of running this site. You can even buy our T-shirts and merch. Think of this like supporting public media, but with swearing and no tax deductions!
Longtime readers will know that I’m a big Brontë fan, having worked on a Masters in English lit focused around the sisters’ writing. Here on the blog, I’ve ranked most every previous filmed version of Wuthering Heights, taken a deep-dive into my favorite, and finally said, stop, enough, we don’t need to make any more screen versions!
And yet, here we are, with director/screenwriter Emerald Fennell making her version, “Wuthering Heights” — set to premiere on February 13, 2026, for Valentine’s Day, because she sees it as a love story. Fennell told BFI:
“Since its publication 200 years ago, critics have challenged Wuthering Heights’s validity as a love story. It is too shocking, too cruel, too narratively strange to slip neatly into the world of romance, but it is a love story nonetheless.”
OK, fine, but this isn’t a 1970s Harlequin Romance novel like the promo posters styles it:
Or reaching farther (and more ickily) back to copy:
Back when Pride & Prejudice (2005) came out, we had a Snark Week guest post titled Beware the Ampersand because that ampersand warned us of “a new, more relevant, more hip and urgent version” that we didn’t need of the classic Austen story. Similarly, Fennell has surrounded her title with quotation marks to warn us that her version is going to be a batshit crazy “update” of Emily Brontë’s oft-misunderstood poetry.
She explained those quotation marks in a Fandango interview, saying:
“You can’t adapt a book as dense and complicated and difficult as this book. I can’t say I’m making Wuthering Heights. It’s not possible. What I can say is, I’m making a version of it. And also a version that — there’s a version that I remembered reading that isn’t quite real. And there’s a version where I wanted stuff to happen that never happened. And so it is Wuthering Heights, and it isn’t. But really, I’d say that any adaptation of a novel, especially a novel like this, should have quotation marks around it.”
What Fennell was trying to say, the BBC made more clear in an early interview:
“I wanted to make something that was the book that I experienced when I was 14.”
She suggested that some of her risqué additions are things she thought she had remembered from reading the book as a teenager — but weren’t actually in there when she returned to it.
“It’s where I filled in the gaps aged 14,” she said with a smile, adding that making the film had allowed her to “see what it would feel like to fulfill my 14-year-old wish, which is both good and bad.”
Yup, we’re getting teenage fanfic on the big screen. And for as much that she’s adding, Fennell isn’t even using the whole book — she’s stopping halfway through after Cathy’s death, as confirmed by the Guardian and other sources. So really, WTFrock is going on in this movie???
Let’s take a look at the official teaser and the official trailer and try to find out!
I’ve posted both of these to our Facebook page and the comments were golden, including:
Greatest love story of all time? Did we read the same source material?
I actually truly dislike Wuthering Heights … but this travesty of a trailer makes me feel almost solicitous and defensive on WH‘s behalf, something I would have thought impossible.
A Wuthering Heights inspired product.
“Heathcliff, it’s me I’m Barbie, I’ve come home…”
No heights were wuthered in the making of this film.
Jacob and Margot are ridiculously pretty people and good actors, but this film makes 90210 look like age-appropriate casting.
contains 5% real Wuthering Heights.
Whatever is left of Emily is spinning at 300 rpm in her narrow little coffin.
Not sure I could top that world-class snark, so I’m just going to lean in hard on the costumes themselves because what we can tell of the supposed story is so ridiculously off the mark that it’s not worth further discussion. And no, I won’t be rushing out to watch it in the theater! I’ll wait till it comes out on streaming so I can be dutifully horrified at home with a big bottle of wine and soft things to throw at the screen, as is right and proper.
The costume designer is Jacqueline Durran, who is extremely skilled but not always our favorite around here. She sometimes works with directors fond of stripping down historical stories and fashions so they’re more “relatable” and modernized — the 2005 Pride & Prejudice & Pigs being a foremost example. But that looks positively period accurate in comparison to this weird wuthering wreck! Durran told Vogue:
“Our dates are all confused in the sense that we’re not representing a moment in time at all — we’re just picking images or styles that we like for each character.”
There ya go. Hot mess central. We’ve said before we could get onboard with a movie messing with historical accuracy if there’s a real vision and purpose for it. Not just modernizing or making it “sexy” or doing haute couture. And definitely not just picking random shit for everyone! This movie’s costume designer is admitting her work is a hodgepodge, and neither she nor the director seem to have any cohesive design for this film. Just do big, flashy stuff! Whoo-hoo!
That same Vogue interview has lots of pix that I’m going to crib from, so enjoy until someone complains and I have to take them down…
The costume designer says this dirndl costume starts the shitshow:
“This is the first time we see adult Cathy. As the film opens, we’re trying to lay out our intentions — this is a stylized version of Wuthering Heights, and it’s difficult to nail this look because it has a nod to the period, a nod to contemporary fashion, and also a nod to Old Hollywood. It has all the themes that we want to bring in visually to the movie, so it was about meshing it all together. It’s a costume and you know it’s a costume — and it’s not necessarily realistic or unrealistic.”
Way to lower expectations! Yes, this is a costumey costume.
Is she more Swiss Miss or St. Pauli Girl? Discuss.
Next up, Cathy’s wedding dress, presumably for her wedding to Edgar, if things faintly resemble the book, unless maybe it’s a fever-dream wedding to Heathcliff, IDK MAN. The costume designer told Vogue:
“The wedding dress was an amalgam of Victorian and 1950s fashion — from [Franz Xaver] Winterhalter to Charles James.”
Btw, if you’ve read my previous Brontë articles (or the actual novel!), you’d know that main action of Wuthering Heights takes place from 1780 to 1784. So nothing to do with painter Winterhalter (1805-1873) or fashion designer Charles James (1906-1978).
There’s several big white dresses Margot Robbie wears as Cathy, and they all have various levels of WTFrockery. These seem to center around a white waist-cincher with a very pointy center front. She’s wearing it over some kind of fantasy puffy sleeved dress in a few scenes.
She wears the same outfit outside with a giant straw hat trimmed with silly gold shooting-star pins (tiny saving grace, the hat’s ribbons are not tied over the hat, whew). Nelly has a very nice, period-looking parasol. BUT WHY ARE THEY EATING COMICALLY LARGE STRAWBERRIES??
The same dress turns up in another scene, now accessorized with a big ol’ honkin’ jeweled cross (is she religious all of a sudden?) and tiny red sunglasses (is she a vampire?). The smarmy dude in ill-fitting clothes next to her is Edgar, and that looks like a pair of lobsters wearing top hats are sitting in her lap (is it a Friends reference, which, omg why?).
The pointy waist-cincher shows up again with a different outfit, in the high-shine red-floored room, which must be a real pain in the butt to keep clean. Not surprisingly, the production design in this movies is OTT banana-pants too.
That waist-cincher gets worn yet again for a fairy princess look with a dress made from sparkly cross-hatched tulle. Jacqueline Durran said they made 45 to 50 costumes for Cathy, and I wonder how many are this gathered peasant-y style, which is pretty easy to bang out (I’ve been making them for myself since I was an angsty 14 year old; take that, Emerald Fennell!).
Finally, Cathy ditches that waist-cincher and gets to the wedding night. Oh wait … the costume designer told Vogue:
“One image Emerald showed me was this amazing 1950s picture of a woman wrapped up in cellophane, like a gift with a bow around the middle. That was the starting point for this look, and we thought, how can we recreate this? It’s about Cathy being a gift on her wedding night, making herself a gift.”
Nooo, not wrapped in plastic!
Or maybe this is your reference of choice? (Also, what was going on in the early ’90s?)
Compare to our Cathy…
Maybe Jacqueline Durran still had her success with Barbie (2024) on her mind:
Because none of that is even vaguely related to Emily Brontë. We’ve very much lost the plot.
Wait, we still haven’t gotten to the red latex dress! Which Jacqueline Durran thought it was important to point out: “It’s actually not latex — it’s just an ultra shiny, synthetic, plasticized contemporary fabric.” BECAUSE THAT’S SO VERY DIFFERENT. eyeroll “Latex” is technically a rubberized fabric that’s often stretchy and may have either a shiny or dull surface. The term is often used interchangeably with “PVC” and “vinyl” for shiny plasticized fabrics, so c’mon, lady, give me a break. We’re all talking about the same thing.
Anyway, the costume designer continued in her description of this stupid costume:
“We used this look in this scene because it was about combining the dress and the set in a really artificial and highly stylized way, because it has this rubberized, high-shine red floor. They seem to blend into each other, and then the walls of the library are white like her blouse.”
I guess she’s saying the carpet matches the drapes, got it.
Cathy also gets a shiny (but not latex!) black dress, which Durran says is:
“It’s something that takes you out of the period, but it was exciting to mix the shape of a Victorian dress with a fabric that was completely modern.”
Yup, takes me out of period alright. Completely modern. Would be cool on the red carpet or at the Met Gala, sure. Doesn’t make any sense in Wuthering Heights. Also, Edgar still looks like he’s wearing clothes too big for him or that just don’t fit. Yet the costume designer insisted that for him:
“Everything was really incorrect for the period — shiny, sparkly, overdone — but the actual shapes and silhouettes of [Edgar’s] clothes are quite accurate. We just chose fabrics that would never normally be used for a Victorian gentleman’s clothes.”
Definitely shiny. Kind of greasy too.
Since we’re looking at the Lintons, how about Isabella? In Vogue, the costume designer makes some bold claims:
“Our references for her were much more based in the historical period than Margot’s — specifically the 1860s. I particularly love the skirt shape from the 1860s, and we looked in fashion manuals of the period for all the ways in which people would trim things and add bows and lace, and how complicated their dresses would be and how fussy. Isabella, as a character, is someone who’d spend all day making ribbons and bows and trimmings, so we just really went to town with that idea.”
Are you ready? Here’s Cathy, on the left, and Isabella, on the right:
1860s! HAHAHHAHA! This is to 1860s as Durran’s costumes for Anna Karenina (2012) are to 1870s. A wink and a nod, sure, but hardly based in the historical period. (And again, let me remind folks that 1860s has zero to do with Wuthering Heights; Emily Brontë died in 1848, after all.) Maybe she’s just confused which Margot Robbie flick she’s working on again…
The last few costumes worth discussing from the trailer and articles floating around on the internet are this black dress, which looks like a copy of Cathy’s wedding dress, but in sparkly black material and worn with another big honkin’ gold cross (it’s all appropriate for a funeral, right?):
And this red and white floral outfit:
The rest of those whackadoodle costumes make this last one look tame in comparison. The bodice has a slightly 18th-century shape and her hair is up in a not-goofy fashion.
Speaking of hair … usually, when Margot Robbie has her hair up in this movie, it looks like she has 1940s victory rolls.
Cute, but, oh yeah, ‘our dates are all confused.’
Not much better when sparkles are added (to the hair or cheeks).
Then there’s the fishtail braid, all the better to angst in (wait, is that a padded wall?).
In the Fandango interview Margot Robbie asked Emerald Fennell: “‘What’s your dream for the project?’ She said, ‘I want people to cry so hard they vomit.'” Anyone feeling a little queasy just looking at these costumes?
Let me leave you with one more image from the trailer — you know they had to go there, yes, obligatory corset chafing! Somehow Fennell thinks it’s sexy, but then, maybe she really is a masochist?
Fennell told the Guardian, “I can’t make something for everyone,” and hoo-boy, she was right.
Will you watch this “Wuthering Heights”?
Oh god, it’s even worse than I anticipated.
In case it helps, I got nothin’ either!
Hope they’ll sell buckets/umbrellas! That would be the best! I’ll be too busy hysterically laughing/internally screaming!
Dear. God. Nope nope nope. Emily Bronte spins in her grave. I can’t wait to see the Razzy nomination!
In the meantime: https://theonion.com/bookseller-scrambles-to-hide-all-the-classics-after-seeing-emerald-fennell-approaching-door/
I don’t mind the whackadoo (at least it’s snarkable), but how did they manage to make MARGOT ROBBIE look DUMPY?
I was thinking the same thing! She looks like a muscular figure out of art history. A Michelangelo sybil or one of any PreRaphaelite subjects – those women were hale and healthy, and not the fragile, swooning stereotypes. Those costumes don’t suit her at all.
Ooooh yes I totally see that for her
💯! Nothing fits, there’s bunched fabric everywhere, and the proportions are all wrong. You have to admit though, that’s quite an achievement!
I was thinking the same thing ever since I saw the wedding dress photo: the costumes are shockingly bad, and the make Margot Robbie look “wide”, which she really isn’t. Like, how??
She’s one of those big Australian girls. Not fat, just large, and strong enough to pull a big cow out of a billabong, the way Sybilla did in My Brilliant Career.
I saw some of her Barbie costumes at the Academy Museum. They fit her slender ribcage quite well in that film. She’s not a big boned farm girl. I don’t know if it’s the short waisted bodices contrasted with the bell skirts that just don’t flatter her body.
I don’t think that I will even bother with streaming, once it’s online. I don’t care for the book, don’t find anything redeeming in any of the characters. This “adaptation” just looks bonkers from the stills. If it were an unknown property, it might be intriguing, but who hasn’t read the book at some point in their academic career. I honestly hope it bombs and we never have to hear about another Emerald Fennell film again. I like her as an actress, but that’s it.
I like Fennell as an actress, too, I’m just not interested in exploring her adolescent personal visions, sexual fantasies, or whatever. This sounds like a classic vanity piece, but stupid.
OMG. This looks so very awful. I loved Wuthering Heights, still do, and I have watched every other version of it, but this looks so terrible, I don’t think I will even bother to rent it or even stream it. Awful.
That dirndly outfit is, obviously, Barbie the Alpine Milkmaid. Comes as a set with lovely tiny bucket, but not the cow figurine.
My first thought was, “didn’t I see that on the cover of a cheap hardback copy of ‘Heidi’?”
Oktoberfest barmaid outfit.
Methinks the padded skin coloured wall with blue veins is made to look like she’s dispairing into/scratching some kinda sorta … penis? Would be quite Fennell and, amidst all the other tryhard nonsense, I’m actually not mad at it.
Gotta say, I rather like the black dress with that shiny Armani privé fabric as a movie costume, so I guess the mad brainrot is already successfully worming its way in.
But booooh to chickening out after the 1st half of the book. Again. No further claims at ‘bold’ and ‘new’ and ‘vision’ need now be made in earnest.
The worst thing about this IMO is the fact that Shazad Latif, the actor playing Edgar Linton, would actually make a great Heathcliff. This video gives you an idea:
https://youtu.be/Pqts-8-J83g?si=4X0r6OiRj2q72mYR
Yes!! He would be a PERFECT Heathcliff, such a wasted opportunity. Another reason not to watch this trainwreck. Also, why the hell did they made Edgar so smarmy, he was a decent and beautiful man in the book! Ffs
Agreed! Edgar is a v likeable character, one of the few in the book. For most of it, he’s a devoted single parent who loves his library, too. What more could anyone want?
Yeah, but you only know that by reading the book, and no one making this movie bothered doing that
I really thought they were trying for the 1780s and getting it wrong. It’s absolutely terrible and the Bridgerton fans will love it.
Thank goodness I decided long ago I wasn’t going to see this. It’s a favorite book of mine and I have liked past versions of it, but once I saw the poster (which, thank god someone else noticed it looked like a 1970s romance novel!) I knew it was a no-go for me—that and I don’t like Jacob Elordi.
Poster looks like “Elvis Luvs Barbie.”
Ay yay yay!
What a bunch of pretentious crap… beautifully made if ill fitting crap. And it obviously ain’t just the costumes. (I loved the mascarons vomiting ropes of pearls.) It’s one of those “let’s just do whatever we want” concepts.
You know you’re in trouble if, in the credits, the director’s name is larger than the film’s title
Perhaps the Swiss belts (the pointy waist clinchers) are a following thru of the opening Swiss Miss costume…🤔
I think I’ll be washing my hair.
What show does the PBS looks-like-a-disaster gif come from? THAT looks worth watching.
Hotel Portofino.
I normally love Really Bad Movies (I’m a big fan of the hilariously awful ‘Excalibur’), but even though I could use a good laugh right now I’m not spending a cent of my money on this. Emerald Fennell needs to be stopped before she goes any further.
Yeah, this seems like it’s taking itself seriously, which may be hard to stomach as just camp. Hard to tell!
“Excalibur” at least had Mirren and Williamson.
…and Gabriel Byrne onscreen bonking the director’s actress wife while fully covered in armor. That must have been uncomfortable.
I was going to say it looks like a big budget version of a French and Saunders skit, but then I remembered that Morecambe and Wise did their own version of the book back in the early 70s…and it made this fiasco look 100% accurate.
I’d rather watch a full length version of Monty Python’s “Semaphore Wuthering Heights” sketch than this train wreck.
A classic!
I wasn’t sure after the first teaser, but now I’m 100% convinced that if I ever watch this version I’ll gauge my eyes out after 5 minutes of this crap. It’s so goddamned awful, lazy, ugly, incoherent, cheap looking, having nothing to do with original story, infuriating. Cheapening complex gothic or regency stories in recent years makes me furious. Unfortunately in my opinion even Del Toro’s Frankenstein was guilty of it in terms of a story, although in much, much smaller scale than this plastic nightmare.
I haven’t read the book but I know this is a hot mess. I just don’t get it at all, it looks like a really bad music video. Just lost for words.
I have been waiting for this post since these pictures were out lol. This adaptation makes me so irrationally angry, I hate it with every ounce of my soul
I’m pretty sure I made that same exact plaid/zigzag skirt in 7th grade Home Ec.
Charlie Brown’s sister’s skirt. Their mother had to pinch pennies.
I have to admit, I kind of love the idea of making a memory of a book you once read/experienced. The juxtaposition of what you remember versus what actually happened, etc. is intriguing and I think many of us have had that experience of looking back on a book, movie, etc. we adored as children or teenagers, but finding it different as adults.
But personally, I would approach that idea in a more explicit way by having a story within a story (for example, a teenage girl reads “Wuthering Heights,” grows up, then has a dream about it, etc.). You could use the themes of the book as metaphors for her own life and say something about her and her life through her dream. It would also make more sense to end half-way in that case (she wakes up and we end the story with her emotional journey – something has changed for her, she conquers some problem, etc.). And it would explain the surreal quality of the costumes, etc. A good writer could have a lot of fun with that.
Alas, they did not go that route here!
Also, looking at the red sunglasses and red floor, I rather wish this WAS a vampire movie! XD
I don’t really care if they want to go nuts with the costumes (I dislike the book so I wouldn’t watch it anyway). But I do think that when movie-makers do this “throw everything at the wall” approach they lose an opportunity to immerse the viewer in a whole, comprehensive, logical world. And that’s one of the joys of a good book or movie, isn’t it?
“whole, comprehensive, logical world” – yep, that looks to be missing here! It’s such a hodgepodge.
What a great way to re-imagine a story that hints at a particular storyline but also gives it complete permission to run amok.
That’s a great idea! You should have been in those early meetings…
As a young friend said, it’s not just the love story that makes it great, it’s the weird mental health stuff. Kids these days…certainly better informed than I was, and smarter for it.
Thank you for the warning, not that I really needed it. I disliked the book intensely when I read it as a teenager and have only ever watched one adaptation, which only further convinced me that it was a dumb story. This, however, adds a new level of awfulness. What were they thinking?!!! And Margot Robbie looks so old!
You looked at all this material so we wouldn’t have to. THANK YOU.
I doubt I would ever have bothered with this, but OMG it’s way more awful than I thought possible. There is literally no way in which this “vision” is tolerable.
I do indeed feel nauseated, so we are halfway there.
It needs to be half of a double bill with the more restrained but equally absurd “Emily”. The whole thing looks like one of Branwell’s opium dreams.
Also, thanks for pointing out the pair of lobsters wearing tiny top hats. By the time I reached that photo my brain had shut down.
‘Alice in Wonderland’ + Schiaparelli vibe… And Edgar’s dressed like the Mad Hatter…
I was going to see this in theaters with my cousin, who also hates it just to snark. But seeing this I think not. We’ll maybe watch it on streaming with copious amounts of alcohol, but even that I’m not so sure about. I want this movie to fail so badly. I want it to fail like that awful persuasion movie so that moviemakers realize that modernizing classics is a bad idea. The wors thing would be if it’s a success and people who don’t know any better have their first introduction to WH with this. Kind of like those who had their first glimpse of Jane Austen with the horrendous P+P movie. I’m a little bit afraid.
I’M SO CONFUSED!
I’ve been irritated with decisions about this movie since I caught wind of Elordi’s casting, both because a: why is Heathcliff white, and b: I do not like Elordi in anything. But seeing more about it I’ve just gotten more and more annoyed with it and I don’t even like Wuthering Heights that much {Tenant of Wildfell Hall is my preferred novel out of the sisters’ works}.
I think AT BEST I will watch youtubers talk about this movie, nothing more.
Exactly! I think the main problem with “wuthering heights” is that it’s not relatable for a lot of people, whereas the plot of “the tenant of wild fell hall” -woman marries a narcissist thinking she can fix him, he turns abusive, she runs away with her son” still happens all the time.
Interestingly, that’s v similar to Isabella’s plotline in ‘Wuthering Heights’, only for her and her son it doesn’t work out so well in the end.
Everything that everyone before me says. Never liked the story and I never found it “romantic” in the least. And I agree that Margot looks tired and older than she actually is but no surprise because unlike Kathy, who is in her late teens when she dies, Margot is 16 or 17 years older at 35. Never should have been considered for the role. The costumes are so confusing I can really get my head around what they were doing. Not going to see it, never will.
Read and hated most of the Brontes’ novels, and even I find myself feeling sorry for Emily and what’s been done to her work.
No Barbie Bronte for me! A shame too since it could have been so much better! I can’t see Cathy as a blonde.
I know “over my dead body” isn’t the best choice of phrase given the source material, but no, I will not be watching this.
I know how my brain works, and for the rest of my life every time I think of actual Wuthering Heights, my brain will instead offer me vivid mental images of Emerald Fennell’s Blathering Blights.
The sad thing is that Emerald Fennell is able to command vast budgets from one of the Big Five major film studios to produce a movie leveraging shock value to generate revenue on a massive scale, which is obviously what’s happening here, but people are buying her ‘artistic vision’ shtick. None of this is about art, or adapting a version or a story you thought you remembered reading that isn’t quite real, or reframing Wuthering Heights as a love story. It’s about profit, just as Emerald Fennell’s next movie will be, and the one after that, and probably the one after that.
She sets out to shock audiences because it’s lucrative, and one of the best ways to do that is to take a title people already know and love, twist it out of all recognition, and then persuade audiences that you’re actually doing something courageous and clever and avant-garde.
Funny thing about the dirndls, though: Emerald Fennell’s sister Coco has a clothing brand that makes dirndl-inspired frocks and they’re pretty, albeit maximally whimsical. There’s obviously a genetic dirndl-worshipping predisposition in the Fennell clan, which is fine, if only Emerald hadn’t dragged them by their corset-strings into the Yorkshire moors of the late 18th century.
Oh goody, we’re dealing with nepotism too?!
Seconded and thirded–so let’s hope it’s a flop, although even a non-lucrative flop still gets you talked–and posted–about.
Oh dear, no, no, no…. what a hot mess this looks. I agree – these costumes do not seem to work well for Robbie – which kinda makes it worse.
Not going to watch it because there are so many things wrong about this. Unfortunately I landed on a Youtube video, which I thought would be snarking the costumes, but it was allll about critizing Robbie because of the alleged sx scenes in this film. Seriously? I had to turn it off. We can discuss if those scenes are needed or right in the context of the story, but are we seriously in 2026 still badmouthing an actress for doing sx scenes? Sometimes I don’t understand this world anymore…!
Wait – what’s that thing in a glass case in the red-floored ballroom pic? Is it…a taxidermied lamb?!
Makes the Netflix version of Persuasion look like the finest costume drama known to humanity.
I might watch this movie on a plane or when it’s free on streaming but I refuse to pay money for this. To me the book is about possession, revenge, toxic people, and generational trauma. It’s not romantic in the least, nor is it a love story. Also, the costume designer could have saved some money by buying the GunneSax dresses that Modcloth is selling right now.
“I might watch this movie on a plane…”
Suddenly envisioning an entire plane full of passengers going into full “William-Shatner-in-‘Nightmare at 20,000 Feet’-TWILIGHT-ZONE-episode” mode…
Is Fennell going for a Ken Russell effect? If so she’s using the kind of ideas which briefly crossed his mind but were rejected for being too over the top.
OMG YOU NAILED IT. She’s trying to be this generation’s Ken Russell, which nobody asked for!
At least Ken Russell’s films (and music videos) were entertaining. At least the ones I’ve seen.
Yes!!
They should have just set the movie in the 1980s, that way all the crazy design choices would kind of make sense.
I have to admit, I have not read Wuthering Heights.
I LOVED, and I mean LOVED, A Promising Young Woman and I see some artistic similarities between that movie and this — especially the “latex dresses” and the going for the virginal look. (Sadly not a FF by any stretch of the imagination but a phenomenal movie)
I hate virtually every outfit here. Not the peasant WTFrock dresses, not the “modern” not-latex latex dresses. I also hate the modern faux edgy dresses that have bodices barely covering the girls because the proportions are always off. ALWAYS.
So is this 50 Shades of Grey meets some no named historic book? Since I like my hair, I’ll probably pass on this. My hair (thank you menopause) is falling out enough already.
Will I watch this movie? Probably. Out of curiosity. I did the same with the other adaptations, even though I’m not a “Wuthering Heights” fan.
Imagine, all this time I thought pearls came out of oysters. Apparently they come out of walls.
This is so bad, especially the Hemorrhage Skirt, but I’m very much wondering about the fish, the one she’s slipping her fingers into. I was totally grossed out by that, but now I’m thinking she’s just going to wear it as a glove. Are there two, or is a singleton, like Michael Jackson’s?
I forgot! I just saw a different trailer, and in this one we see little Cathy, and they’ve bleached (badly) the poor girl’s hair. It looks terrible.
When I saw the trailer and title for this I assumed it was going to be a subversive parody mocking people who see Wuthering Heights as an Epic Tragic Sexy Romance. Apparently not…
oh hell yeah i’ve been waiting for this one. everything about this movie is just increasingly ridiculous. like, I KNOW I’m being ragebaited but what am I supposed to do, not get mad??? I didn’t write a paper in undergrad on uses of the supernatural in wuthering heights for this. I’m almost positive they’ll cut or severely truncate the second generation (aka the part that is most important to the theme of cyclical familial abuse) thanks for writing this.
This looks like a total nightmare, and not in the Gothic sense. Even Luis Buñuel didn’t go full-on Surrealist with his Mexican ranch version, Abismos de Pasión, in 1950s… It omits the second generation and Hindley (whose reprehensible behaviour is transposed on to the father, Mr Earnshaw). The 1992 version is also my favourite; I also like the 1978 BBC full serialisation, and the 1988 Japanese film. All of these retain the 2-generation structure.
Oy, it gets worse: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/feb/09/wuthering-heights-merchandise-cathy-emerald-fennell-emily-bronte
(Good for a giggle, though.)
I’m now convinced Fennell was a big “Sarah’s fantasy sress in the bubble ball” Labyrinth fan
My hubs read a review about “Wuthering” today and asked me what you all thought! I said you covered it during Snark Week, and he agreed that was where your coverage belonged.
I think I’d skip the crying and go directly to the vomiting part.
And of course there is the requisite “lacing too tight corset over bare sweaty skin” scene. Hello…chemise anyone? But no, that would detract from the kinky bondage vibe they want to achieve. There’s not enough money in this world to pay me to go and see it.