“Wuthering Heights” (2026)

Willmore calls Fennell’s adaptation her best film yet, praising its embrace of sensual, uncomplicated melodrama. She singles out Hong Chau’s wry Nelly as a welcome counterbalance to the lovers’ consuming passion.

Rooney finds Fennell’s adaptation pulpy, provocative and highly entertaining, while noting that its approach may divide viewers attached to the novel. He praises the leads’ sizzling chemistry, especially Jacob Elordi’s portrayal of Heathcliff.

Erbland finds the adaptation visually dazzling and often absurdly entertaining, but says its romance never becomes intense enough to make the film fully cohere. She especially praises its lavish, darkly comic production and costume design.

The review presents the adaptation as a lively, entertaining reinvention. It singles out its outrageous, often irresistible sense of fun.

Ide enjoys Fennell’s provocative, highly unfaithful adaptation, despite finding its final act underpowered. She particularly praises the charged chemistry and sensual visual design, as well as Alison Oliver’s comic timing.

The critic finds Fennell’s adaptation works as a hazy, half-remembered dream, despite its departures from the novel. She praises its evocative dreamlike approach, while noting that it does not explore the novel’s themes deeply.

Steele finds the film a brash, funny spectacle that comes close to perfection but lacks depth. She praises the chemistry between Robbie and Elordi and Fennell’s striking visual style.

Debruge finds Fennell’s adaptation bold and engaging, though its eroticized consummation softens the lovers’ unrequited tension. He praises the operatic visual flourishes, especially Heathcliff’s striking departure against a crimson sky.

The review finds the adaptation sumptuously crafted but says its erotic energy and emotional weight fade as style takes over. It praises the gothic atmosphere and young leads, especially Jacob Elordi’s powerful performance.

Strong finds Fennell’s adaptation visually striking but emotionally hollow, with little of the novel’s depth or heart. She praises the costumes and production design, but says they feel disconnected from the story.

Grierson finds the adaptation flamboyant and entertaining, though overly melodramatic and somewhat shallow. He praises its Gothic visuals, atmospheric score and erotic scenes, while finding the central performances less than revelatory.

The review presents the film as a glossy gothic romp but calls its romance unsexy. It singles out the film’s unruly take on Brontë as part of that glossy, provocative style.

The review finds the film’s first half charged and visually arresting, but says the second half falters into repetition. It especially praises the elaborate production design and striking sets.

The review finds the film visually tantalizing but difficult to swallow, with its critique of wealth and patriarchy ultimately lacking depth. It singles out the tactile, eroticized imagery as a feast for the senses, while faulting the film for reducing Cathy’s decision to selfishness and vanity.

Keogan finds the adaptation dull and disappointing, saying it fails to deliver the transgressive edge audiences might expect. She singles out the inventive costumes and production design as a bright spot.

Nicholson finds the adaptation more teasing than genuinely erotic, with weak chemistry and a miscast lead undermining its ambitions. She praises Alison Oliver’s uninhibited performance as Isabella, along with the film’s bold production design and unsettling music.

Block finds the adaptation entertaining but ultimately too tame and sentimental to deliver on its Gothic and kinky promise. She particularly criticizes its removal of the novel’s supernatural elements, which leaves the romance feeling less Gothic.

Yue’s standfirst dismisses this version of Wuthering Heights as limp. It singles out the film’s window dressing as a likely failing.

Chang finds the adaptation visually striking but emotionally superficial and tonally uncertain. He praises its inventive production design and costumes, while faulting the leads’ lack of onscreen connection and the film’s failure to convey the story’s tragic depth.

Loughrey condemns the adaptation as hollow and astonishingly bad, arguing that it strips the novel of its emotional force. She singles out Charli xcx and Anthony Willis’s music as an exception, bringing dread missing elsewhere.

Bradshaw finds the adaptation emotionally hollow and unserious, criticizing its treatment of the central romance. He singles out Martin Clunes as the film’s most effective performer.

Perez gives the film a strongly positive review, praising its maximalist, sincere approach to obsession and desire. He singles out Margot Robbie’s performance and the anachronistic Charli XCX music, while noting some supporting characters feel underwritten or cartoonish.

The critic finds Fennell’s adaptation a deliciously horny yet genuinely romantic take on the classic. Robbie and Elordi’s chemistry, along with the film’s vivid production design and music, earns particular praise.

The critic finds Fennell’s adaptation a bold, invigorating reimagining, even if it is not definitive. They praise its maximalist style and the combustible performances of Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.

Crow finds the film a seductive, visually sumptuous melodrama despite its departures from Brontë and a conventional ending. He especially praises the lavish design and the charged chemistry between Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.

The critic finds Fennell’s adaptation memorable and compelling despite its excesses and departures from the novel. They especially praise the volatile chemistry between Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.

Geisinger finds the adaptation captivating but flawed, with its romantic focus sometimes self-indulgent and its treatment of darker themes too watered down. She praises the evocative costumes and production design, especially their uncanny, emotionally charged imagery.

The critic finds the film a breathtaking but frustrating departure from the novel, with thematic shortcomings that undermine it as an adaptation. They praise its striking aesthetic and production design, especially the costumes, sets, cinematography, and lighting.

Wise finds Fennell’s adaptation lackluster, saying it lacks emotional force and runs out of ideas. He singles out Martin Clunes’s Mr. Earnshaw as the film’s only complex character.

Lattila finds the adaptation limp and disappointing, arguing that it fails to deliver the erotic boldness it promises. She praises the final scene’s visual beauty and emotion, but says it arrives too late to redeem the film.

The critic finds the adaptation reductive and troubling, despite its sensual, flamboyant presentation. They praise the striking cinematography and production design, but say the film sacrifices the novel’s complexity.

The critic finds the adaptation shallow, disappointing, and unfaithful to the novel. She praises the vivid cinematography and sweeping score, while faulting the jarring design and characterization.

Nayman finds the film a neutered, visually and dramatically unimaginative provocation that fails to get its hands dirty. He praises neither its adaptation nor its execution, and faults its self-conscious artificiality and lack of dramatic force.