Wuthering Heights 2026 Movie Review: Bold Adaptation by Emerald Fennell starring Margot Robbie & Jacob Elordi

Wuthering Heights 2026 Movie Review: Bold Adaptation by Emerald Fennell starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi

Happy belated Valentine’s Day — I hope yours was as fabulous as mine.

So guys… I finally watched Wuthering Heights last night. And let’s just say — I completely understand why it’s been getting such mixed reactions.

Here’s the thing about book “adaptations”: not everyone will ever be happy. And that’s because when we read a book, we build our own world. We create our own Heathcliff, our own Cathy, our own moors, our own atmosphere. That’s the magic of literature. So no film will ever perfectly match what lives in someone’s imagination. The key thing to understand here is this isn’t a direct adaptation — it’s “inspired by.” As Emerald Fennell said: “I can’t say I’m making Wuthering Heights — that’s not possible. What I can say is I’m making a version of it.” - True to her word, I noticed straight away — and yes, I’m a proper book fan so this stood out — is the quotation marks around the title of Emerald Fennell’s 2026 film “Wuthering Heights.” And before you groan, it’s totally intentional. Fennell herself says the quotes are a little disclaimer: this isn’t a faithful page-by-page adaptation of Wuthering Heights, it’s her own “turned-up” version. Basically, it’s her take on the story, inspired by what she remembered as a teen, rather than a literal translation. Am I annoyed as a die-hard book fan? Honestly… not really. She gave us the heads-up.

(Ps: Yes, I know I made a racket about the My Oxford Year adaptation but there was no disclaimer there so I just can't make peace with it. That and there are no other remakes of it! - At least with Wuthering Heights, I can watch Ralph Fiennes or Tom Hardy's version if I'm feeling like I need to be faithful to the book)

And once you remove your expectations? You’ll find this is one of the most cinematically striking, visually poetic films I’ve seen in a long time. It’s less a traditional movie and more a moving piece of 2D art — almost like watching a theatre performance painted across the screen.

Fact: It does not follow the book exactly. And once you accept that, you can embrace it for what it is: a tragic love story. And tragic really is the key word here (yes, spoiler alert — Cathy dies, as she always does). But this version leans into the theatrical, sensual, angsty, slightly racy elements of their obsession. It's a bold, theatrical, slightly wild reimagining rather than a straight-laced retelling.

So to reiterate: If you’re looking for a faithful, by-the-book adaptation — you will be disappointed. If you’re willing to see it as a gothic reinterpretation? You might just love it. Once you accept that, it’s actually kind of brilliant.

A Little Context: The Book & Its Legacy

Wuthering Heights was written by Emily Brontë and published in 1847 under the pseudonym Ellis Bell. At the time, it shocked readers with its darkness, emotional intensity, and morally complicated characters.

Unlike traditional romance novels of the era, this wasn’t a soft love story. It was obsession. Revenge. Class struggle. Social hierarchy. Heathcliff — a social outsider and “bastard” in the eyes of the upper class — becomes both victim and villain. Cathy famously declares:

“Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.”

It’s one of the most iconic lines in literary history — and yes, the delivery in this film? Chills.

My Initial Bias (I’ll Admit It)

When I first saw the promo months ago, I immediately questioned the casting. I didn’t feel Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi were giving Cathy and Heathcliff — and no, it wasn’t about ageism. I just always imagined them younger. In the novel, they’re essentially teenagers when their obsession begins, so I struggled to picture it.

And I’ll happily admit when I’m wrong.

Margot Robbie absolutely nailed Cathy.

I’ve loved her since her Neighbours days as Donna (an original fan, thank you very much), and watching her career blossom has been wild. If anything, this film redeemed her for me after last year’s beautifully shot but painfully boring film — which, I’m sorry, was a bold, beautiful bore. I genuinely considered asking for a refund. It wasn’t her performance — it was the plot. It made no sense and dragged endlessly.

But here? She was magnetic.

Jacob Elordi also surprised me. After seeing him in Frankenstein last year (which I genuinely loved), I still wasn’t convinced about their chemistry. But again — proven wrong. They had intensity. Obsession. That strange, destructive pull the story demands.

Maybe it’s better I’m a blogger and not a casting director.

The Controversies

One of the biggest controversies is that Heathcliff is portrayed differently than in the novel, particularly in terms of race and how that shifts the class dynamic. This version leans heavily into social hierarchy and class difference, while largely ignoring racial commentary.

Was that the right move? I honestly don’t know. But if you separate it from the novel, it works within the world the film creates.

Another bold creative choice: Nelly "almost" feels like the villain here. An interesting twist.

And notably, the next generation storyline is removed. No ghostly Cathy return in the way many readers expect. I was slightly disappointed — I was looking forward to that haunting element — but it wasn’t a dealbreaker. Honestly the cinematic’s and costumes made up for it.

One thing I found interesting was the casting: Edgar and Nelly were portrayed by actors from ethnic minorities, while Heathcliff wasn’t — even though his background was a key obstacle in the original book. It makes you think about creative decisions in adaptations and how they reflect or challenge the story, especially when discussing representation in modern retellings.

All this controversy feels very on brand for director Emerald Fennell, who is no stranger to dividing audiences. The British writer and director first made serious waves with Promising Young Woman — which won her the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay — and later with Saltburn, a film that completely split opinion. Critics often describe her work as provocative, bold, and intentionally uncomfortable — she doesn’t make “safe” films, and she’s never trying to please everyone. But honestly? With this version of Wuthering Heights, I think she did a fabulous job. Yes, she takes risks. Yes, she reimagines rather than recreates. But that’s kind of the point. She leans into intensity, obsession, and theatricality in a way that feels deliberate and artistic rather than chaotic. Love her or question her, you can’t deny she has a strong creative vision — and in this case, I think it worked beautifully. And let’s not forget, she’s also a former actress, known to many for her role in The Crown — so storytelling, both in front of and behind the camera, is clearly in her DNA.

The Cinematic Experience

Let’s talk visuals.

The music was theatrical and haunting — almost operatic at times. It elevated the emotion beautifully. The fashion, set design, and cinematography were phenomenal. Truly phenomenal.

Visually, I’d rank it alongside films like Avatar, Wicked, or Crazy Rich Asians in terms of aesthetic commitment — just through a gothic, windswept, moody lens instead of vibrant fantasy.

The moors almost felt like an extension of Heathcliff himself — dark, untamed, isolating. The colour palette mirrored his emotional state. The production design gave the whole film the feeling of a stage performance brought to life — dramatic, deliberate, stylised.

Margot’s wardrobe? Not period-accurate — but I don’t care. As a fashion girl, I was living for it. She wore custom Schiaparelli couture and Dilara Fındıkoğlu in the promo, and there’s a clear Red Queen meets gothic Red Riding Hood energy throughout.

The dolls? Terrifying. Completely unhinged energy. Psycho-core.

The “That Was a Bit Much” Moment

There was one scene that didn’t quite land for me — the Isabella dog collar scene. It wasn’t intense enough to be shocking, and it wasn’t sensual enough to feel purposeful. It sat awkwardly in the middle and felt slightly uncomfortable rather than impactful. It could have been executed better.

The BDSM undertones throughout gave slight 50 Shades energy, but thankfully it wasn’t overly graphic. It’s rated 15, and the opening alone is a bit of a shock — not how I expected it to begin at all.

My Favourite Scene

Adult Heathcliff under the bed, imagining grabbing Cathy’s leg the way they did as children.

Heartbreaking.

That moment alone captured everything — obsession, memory, longing, grief. That’s when art came to life.

And honestly? That’s what this movie is. Art coming to life.

Side note: I also have to give credit to the young Heathcliff and young Cathy, because without them the emotional weight of the film wouldn’t have landed the same. Their performances made the childhood bond feel real, obsessive, and tender — so when we see that echoed in adulthood, it’s genuinely heartbreaking. They laid the foundation for everything that followed.

Final Thoughts

Regardless of the online debate, the film’s box office performance tells its own story. Wuthering Heights (2026) has drawn significant audiences, proving there is clearly an appetite for Emerald Fennell’s bold reinterpretation. For all the discourse surrounding casting and creative choices, the commercial response suggests that many viewers were curious — and willing — to see this new vision for themselves.

It also raises an interesting question: would audiences have responded differently if the film hadn’t carried the title Wuthering Heights at all? The name brings with it literary reverence and decades of adaptation history. By choosing to keep it, the film inevitably invites comparison to Emily Brontë’s original work and its more traditional interpretations. Perhaps some of the backlash stems less from what the film is, and more from what certain viewers expected it to be.

Here’s the thing — narratives evolve. Creative reinterpretation isn’t always a bad thing. If filmmakers never took risks, we wouldn’t have bold reimaginings, spin-offs, or modern classics. (Klaus Mikaelson, anyone?)

If you cling tightly to your original vision, you may leave disappointed. But if you allow space for change, you might discover something unexpectedly brilliant.

This isn’t traditional.It isn’t safe.It isn’t faithful. But it is theatrical. It is bold. And it is beautifully made. - After all, reinterpretation has always been part of storytelling — even when it makes us uncomfortable.

Final rating: 8/10

One point off for that awkward scene. One point because yes… Cathy dies and we cried.

"Whatever our souls are made of… his and mine are the same." - Round of applause for Margot Robbie’s delivery on that line.

It may not be the Wuthering Heights you expected — but it might just be the one this generation needs. Fennell wanted to give a new audience their own version of this tragic love story (more specifically she wanted a Titanic) and whether you loved it or questioned it, you can’t deny it sparked conversation. And sometimes, that’s exactly what film and art is supposed to do. - Bring tissues. Go in with no expectations. And let it be what it is.

Happy watching 🤍

PS - before I end — let’s talk Heathcliff.

Older generations saw him as a romantic literary hero. Millennials seem divided. Gen Z? Red flag. Villain. Narcissistic. Toxic.

So what’s your take?

Hero? Villain? Or something far more complicated?

check out my other reviews here & here.