Compare Girls Like Girls vs Wuthering Heights

Age-appropriate casting helps the teenage emotions and awkwardness feel believable rather than overly polished.

The adult-oriented tone, sexual material, and darkness make this a poor fit for children or younger teens.

Its emotional warmth and representation inspired at least one strong desire to watch it again, especially among viewers connected to the original song and video.

Where rewatching is discussed directly, enthusiasm is low; one viewer said they were unlikely to revisit it despite admiring individual craft elements.

The film treats queer teenage love as ordinary, specific, and worthy of a wide theatrical canvas. Its unapologetically sapphic focus is a major strength for viewers who rarely saw themselves centered in coming-of-age stories.

Race and representation are a major concern, especially the handling of Heathcliff’s identity and the way the adaptation redistributes class and racial dynamics.

The film meaningfully connects queer self-acceptance, grief, parental wounds, and the need to choose healthier love. Its emotional themes are deeper than its simple plot suggests.

The most common thematic complaint is lost depth: many reviewers say class, race, revenge, abuse, and generational consequences are reduced in favor of surface-level desire.

The restrained approach to physical intimacy is viewed as appropriate and refreshingly non-exploitative.

The erotic approach divides viewers from both directions: some object to its fetishized or abusive framing, while others are surprised by how tame or chaste it feels compared with the marketing.

The film’s clearest message is that self-acceptance and healthy love begin with believing you are worthy of both. Its queer representation is framed through ordinary human longing rather than spectacle.

Many critics think the film muddies or weakens the novel’s ideas about class, race, revenge, and responsibility, though some still read a cautionary message about toxic obsession.

The wistful, intimate mood remains remarkably steady, avoiding both excessive melodrama and sugary sentimentality.

The mix of gothic tragedy, camp, eroticism, comedy, and contemporary style is intentionally volatile; some enjoy the blend, while others find it jarring or incoherent.

The decision to remove the original music video’s homophobic assault is seen as a thoughtful improvement that keeps the focus on emotional growth rather than physical trauma.

Violence and abuse are treated as grim, provocative material, and reactions depend heavily on whether viewers feel the film interrogates that cruelty or aestheticizes it.

The story is simple and easy to follow, centering Coley’s growth more than the fate of the romance.

Structural changes leave some reviewers confused or unconvinced by motivations, while others find the streamlined narrative serviceable enough on its own terms.

The awkward glances, mixed signals, and queer uncertainty often feel authentic and lived-in. A few stylized or scripted moments undercut that naturalism.

The heightened aesthetic can break immersion, with reviewers calling parts artificial or difficult to believe even when the visual concept is striking.

The adaptation preserves the music video’s visual DNA, emotional core, and fan callbacks while condensing or changing several book elements. The removal of the original assault is widely welcomed.

Most reviewers agree this is a very loose reinterpretation that removes major characters and themes; some welcome that freedom, but many see the departures as the film’s defining flaw.

The leads’ chemistry is usually the film’s strongest pull, especially in quiet looks, touches, and private moments. A minority found the spark too muted to justify the relationship’s pain.

Robbie and Elordi’s chemistry is one of the sharpest divides—some call it electric, palpable, or undeniable, while others see awkwardness or almost none at all.

The central romance is tender, volatile, and emotionally recognizable, with strong moments of yearning and intimacy. Some viewers wanted more dialogue, development, or chemistry before the heartbreak intensified.

The central romance is deeply divisive: some viewers are swept up by the yearning and toxicity, while others find it thin, hollow, awkward, or less sensual than advertised.

The supporting cast has warm individual moments, but thinly written roles limit their impact and leave the film heavily dependent on the leads.

Supporting players are a strong point, with Alison Oliver, Hong Chau, the younger actors, and several secondary performers repeatedly singled out for lively or nuanced work.

As a queer coming-of-age romance, it delivers tenderness, yearning, heartbreak, and self-discovery even when it follows familiar genre beats.

As a gothic romance it splits the difference between swoony melodrama and darker material, satisfying viewers who accept the reinvention more than literary purists.

AIM exchanges and romantic uncertainty create localized tension, but the larger conflict is often too abstract or underdeveloped to sustain strong suspense.

Where suspense is highlighted, the film’s tense, provocative staging succeeds at keeping the viewer engaged.

Maya da Costa gives the film its emotional center with restrained body language, wounded intensity, and a believable progression from guarded grief to self-possession.

The leads are polarizing: Elordi often earns praise for brooding physicality, while Robbie has both strong supporters and repeated complaints about fit, age, or characterization.

The two leads carry the film with expressive, emotionally grounded work, and even harsher reactions usually separate their performances from the script’s weaknesses. Supporting performances draw more mixed responses.

The ensemble draws uneven reactions: plenty of reviewers admire the commitment and younger cast, while others find key performances underpowered or miscast.

Coley receives a clear grief-and-self-acceptance arc, while Sonya and several side characters often feel less fully explored. The imbalance leaves parts of the relationship emotionally convincing but narratively underwritten.

Character depth is a recurring weakness, with critics saying major figures are flattened, simplified, or denied the growth and complexity the story needs.

Hayley Kiyoko shows a strong eye for intimacy, mood, and emotional detail in her feature debut. Reactions split over whether the music-video sensibility fully sustains a feature-length narrative.

Fennell’s direction inspires both admiration for bold visual control and frustration with choices that some reviewers see as over-styled or emotionally misjudged.

The story is emotionally sincere and easy to connect with, especially through Coley’s grief and self-worth arc. Its main limitation is a familiar, sometimes underdeveloped narrative framework.

The story earns much less consensus than the craft, with repeated criticism that the streamlined romance feels hollow or reductive despite isolated praise for its emotional or pulpy appeal.

The film’s strongest moments make first love, grief, rejection, and self-acceptance feel immediate and raw. Even mixed reactions often acknowledge that the central emotions land.

The film can provoke tears, tension, and strong feeling, but a substantial group of reviewers reports emotional distance or numbness despite the lavish presentation.

At roughly 95 minutes, the film can paradoxically feel both stretched in its quieter passages and too compressed in its dramatic transitions.

Length is a recurring complaint, with multiple reviewers describing the film as overlong or feeling the 132–136 minute running time.

The deliberate, slow-burn rhythm works for viewers who enjoy lingering mood and emotional detail. Others find the montages, dead air, and rushed late developments an uneven combination.

Pacing is a consistent drawback, especially in the later sections, with repeated complaints about dragging, repetition, and scenes running longer than their emotional payoff.

Period needle drops and queer artists give the soundtrack strong nostalgic and emotional appeal. The music feels carefully chosen rather than used as a greatest-hits showcase.

The music is mostly a strength, especially the score and Charli XCX material, though several reviewers find the contemporary songs distracting or out of place.

The editing can effectively capture glances, memory, and emotional shifts, but rapid cuts and montage-heavy passages sometimes rush key developments or blur the passage of time.

Editing earns mostly positive notice where discussed, including tight pacing within individual passages and bold montage or cutting choices.

The screenplay has genuine sensitivity and several strong emotional ideas, but it often relies on familiar structure, thin side characters, and abbreviated development.

Writing is a major pressure point, with critics faulting shallow characterization, awkward adaptation choices, and dialogue that cannot always support the film’s visual ambition.

AIM windows, Sidekicks, iPods, CDs, bedrooms, and small-town hangouts make 2006 feel lived-in and emotionally specific. The period detail is one of the most consistently praised elements.

Sets and interiors are among the most praised elements, with lavish color, texture, and scale offset by occasional criticism that spaces look artificial, over-designed, or tonally mismatched.

The small-town spaces, early internet culture, and mid-2000s objects create a convincing social world shaped by isolation, nostalgia, and closeted desire.

Yorkshire moors, contrasting estates, rain, fog, and richly styled interiors create a strong atmosphere, though some reviewers find the world more artificial than immersive.

The warm, colorful, close-up-heavy style creates a strong dreamlike identity. Some viewers find the nostalgic orange haze heavy-handed or insufficiently varied.

The film’s look is its broadest area of agreement: bold color, texture, gowns, weather, and heightened gothic imagery make it visually memorable even for many detractors.

Its warm atmosphere, emotional leads, and Pride-season appeal make it an enjoyable watch despite familiar plotting.

Enjoyment is highly audience-dependent: admirers call it a blast or irresistibly watchable, while detractors describe stretches as dull, boring, or an ordeal.

The final resolution is divisive because the main cut to black can feel abrupt, while the post-credits scene supplies the romantic closure many viewers wanted. Staying through the credits materially improves the payoff.

The finale lands for some as genuinely emotional, while others find the payoff abrupt, hollow, or insufficiently earned.

Critical reactions lean positive but not unanimous, with praise for the performances and emotional sincerity balanced by complaints about thin plotting and uneven pacing.

Critical reaction is openly divided rather than settled, with praise for audacity and craft sitting beside strong rejection of the adaptation choices.

Mid-2000s fashion details such as platform flip-flops and period styling reinforce the setting without feeling like costume-party shorthand.

The costumes are widely admired for sumptuous color and spectacle, even by reviewers who object to their deliberate period inaccuracy or occasional excess.

The moody score and era-aware musical cues deepen the film’s wistful tone and emotional beats without overwhelming the story.

Anthony Willis’s score is one of the most consistently praised elements, described as haunting, sumptuous, and emotionally forceful even when the drama itself falls short.

The film connects most strongly with queer viewers, nostalgic millennials, and anyone who remembers the intensity of first love. Some viewers outside its core fan base may find the story too thin or inward-looking.

The maximalist romance clearly has a crowd: several reviewers report enthusiastic screenings and see strong appeal for viewers who embrace its sensual, heightened style.

Sunlit exteriors, intimate close-ups, and a hazy summer palette create a dreamy sense of longing. The look is widely admired, though some found the soft-focus style too uniform for heavier scenes.

The photography is one of the clearest strengths, repeatedly praised for sweeping Yorkshire landscapes, bold contrast, moody textures, and strikingly cinematic compositions.

The dialogue ranges from natural, awkward teenage speech to lines described as stiff, cringey, or overly YA-styled. The quiet visual storytelling often works better than the spoken exchanges.

Dialogue reactions lean negative: several reviewers find lines theatrical, flat, cringey, or less convincing than the surrounding visual craft.

The core plot is familiar and rarely surprising, but the specific queer perspective, personal history, and mid-2000s setting give it a distinct emotional identity.

The film’s bold reinvention is hard to mistake for a conventional adaptation; reviewers differ on whether that audacity feels fresh and purposeful or merely eccentric.

Playful moments and awkward teenage behavior provide welcome relief from the grief and romantic turmoil.

Dark and sometimes absurd humor is a notable bright spot, with Isabella and the film’s campier flourishes drawing repeated laughs.

The film follows a recognizable summer-romance and coming-of-age structure, with few major surprises or unconventional turns.

The reworked plot earns mixed reactions: its fan-fiction-like departures can feel playful to some and reductive to others.

The heightened melodrama works for some viewers, but others find the central drama unconvincing despite the film’s scale.

This is firmly adult material rather than family viewing, though one critic noted that the marketed eroticism was tame enough to feel unexpectedly parent-watchable.

Period accuracy is intentionally loose, especially in costumes, music, and design; some enjoy the creative anachronism, while others find it distracting.

The makeup and hairstyling receive direct praise as lovely, even within a deliberately anachronistic overall design.

The gothic material occasionally chills or unsettles, but some critics think the film rarely becomes genuinely dangerous or frightening.

Ambient outdoor sound and intimate sonic detail can be immersive, though one reaction criticized the music mix for becoming too loud.

Ticket-worthiness is weak overall among reviewers who address it directly, with several saying the spectacle does not justify the time or recommending other options instead.