Tom Jones
|
Our Price: $23.80 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $15.89 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Tom Jones
Movie Review: Tom Jones
Summary: 5 Stars
Funny movie, even if dated (1963). I was a senior in high school and vividly remember the times. Good acting and clear video. I'm very pleased.Movie Review: Tom Jones
Summary: 5 Stars
This film is still a delightful romp through English countryside and the eighteenth century. Entertaining and enchanting.Movie Review: It's Not Unusual to be Loved by Anyone...
Summary: 4 Stars
Likewise, it's hardly surprising that a populist hit movie-and earner of five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director for Tony Richardson, and Best Adapted Screenplay for John Osborne-should be so darn entertaining. Again, look at the accolades "Tom Jones" earned! While Oscar rarely goes to the finalist that best stands the test of time, it's equally rare for a prior "best picture" to make us scratch our heads and ask, "How did that even get nominated...?"
Now, of course, there have been exceptions. But in early 1964, when the much-venerated Academy voting body decided to honor this adaptation of Henry Fielding's classic novel, they did their legacy no shame. "Tom Jones" is a thoroughly enjoyable romp, featuring beautiful scenery, witty dialogue, light-hearted direction that serves the material well, and a star-making turn by then-unknown actor Albert Finney.
While already enjoying leading man status on the British stage, the movie made Finney an overnight star and sex symbol. Tom Jones appears to be the role he was born to play. With his strapping, bucolic build, boyish good looks, and guileless green eyes, he perfectly embodies the character. We believe that kindness and decency lie in his heart, as his adopted uncle, Squire Allworthy (George Devine), repeatedly claims. At the same time, the way Finney's eyes seem to fog over whenever a lovely specimen of the female gender happens by, reminds us of Jones' central vice, which nearly brings about his undoing.
Albert has been doing the Finney-ous fog thing for decades, most recently in Tim Burton's "Big Fish," where their misty quality fit the dreamy nature of Edward Bloom. In "Tom Jones," Richardson uses Finney's eyes to reflect a man at the mercy of his own compulsion. Thanks to those orbs, we cannot hold Tom in complete contempt. We really believe this poor guy cannot help himself. Witness the scene between Tom and a woman with most seductive eyes and a coquettish smile. As the camera cuts back-and-forth between them, and the lady becomes increasingly interested in the hunky lad sitting across the table from her, he also goes through changes, which can be read off Finney's face.
At first, Tom seems possessed by a nervous tremble, which isn't fear so much as inner conflict. He fights against the lust which has begun working its way up from his loins. Each time the camera cuts back to Tom's face, however, another layer of his defenses has been peeled away. Eventually, he goes too far to turn around, the redness of his face becoming too deep, the goofy grin curled too much at the ends. As for thoughts of his true love, Sophie, we can practically detect the moment when she temporarily vanishes from his mind, overwhelmed as it is by the urging of his gonads.
It's Tom's inability to control himself, exploited by Blifil (David Warner), his jealous half-brother, and a pair of scheming tutors named Thwackum (Peter Bull) and Square (John Moffatt), that lead to his getting tossed from his guardian's estate. They catch him fornicating with Molly (Diane Cilento), a woman of ill reputation (Ironically, Mr. Square is one of the reasons for her compromised reputation). While Squire Allworthy has raised Tom like his own son, the boy has always behaved like a rascal. The news regarding Molly, sprinkled with a few lies from Thwackum and Square, leaves Allworthy at his wit's end. Finding no alternative, he decides he must cast Tom out into the wide world.
Adding insult to injury, Tom learns before departing that Sophie (the fetching Susannah York), his childhood sweetheart and daughter of Squire Allworthy's wealthy neighbor, Squire Western, has been betrothed to his unworthy half-brother. Sophie is hardly pleased by the news herself, despite the merits argued by her dull aunt (Dame Edith Evans), and the roaring approval of her bellicose father (Hugh Griffith, who steals many a scene pinballing back-and-forth between tranquil inebriation and utter bedlam). Being the rowdy, sporting type, Squire Western actually prefers Tom to Mr. Blifil. But the lad is no heir, and Sophie is his only daughter. While he yet draws breath, Squire Western refuses to allow her to marry some penniless bastard, and so Tom becomes his enemy (To the squire's credit, he also thumbs his nose at foppish city dandies).
Tom's journey to London-where a reference from his uncle may yet bring him good fortune-gets sidetracked by some Christian soldiers, who relieve him of his moneypurse. Later, he stumbles across one of the more villainous soldiers attempting a rape beside the forest road. Tom rises to the occasion, and rescues the damsel in distress. The woman, who claims to be called Mrs. Waters, rewards our hero by dining with him at a quaint country inn. She moons over him most invitingly. Following the hearty repast, they retreat to an upstairs room for more spirited fun, which is interrupted by a cuckolded husband who bursts into their room.
The various characters Tom encounters reappear throughout the movie, some of them playing pivotal roles. Also included is the man long believed to be Tom's father. He accompanies our hero to London, where Sophie has also escaped to. Unfortunately, at the previous town, she stumbled across Tom's indiscretion with Mrs. Waters. Since she no longer wishes to see her former sweetheart, it is up to the lad to work himself back into Sophie's good graces. His desperation brings him into contact with the manipulative society maven Lady Bellaston (Joan Greenwood). She takes a fancy to Tom, and under the pretense of helping him reunite with the girl he loves, makes him her boytoy, and further sullies his reputation.
Will Sophie reconcile with Tom, or will she be dragged back to the country by her apoplectic father? Can she and Tom really live happily ever after, given his prior betrayal of her? About two-thirds of the way through the film, a strange twist of fate combined with youthful hotheadedness leads to blood being spilled. Then the main question becomes: Will Tom live at all?
Since the last thing I want to do is give away the ending, I will simply refer back to the beginning of this review, wherein I wrote that "Tom Jones" was an "enjoyable romp," with "beautiful scenery," "witty dialogue," and "light-hearted direction." What kind of ending do you think a movie of this sort would have? But since Tony Richardson helmed it, and John Osborne, who wrote Richardson's first film "Look Back in Anger" for the stage, served as screenwriter, I did expect more social commentary. That earlier film focused on lower-class people, and found significance in their lives, nobility in their grittiness. I assumed this was the appeal of "Tom Jones" for Richardson, that the title character, despite being born a bastard, is far nobler than many of the movie's more legitimate gentlemen. He saves Sophie from a runaway horse. He offers to pay the inn bill for the soldiers' company, even though one of their number attacked him. When Mrs. Waters is being waylayed by a sexual predator, Tom runs to her aid.
Also telling is how Tom decides to take on, and provide for, the destitute man he thought was his father. The familial link isn't his reason for doing this. Rather, the reputation of fathering a bastard child followed the man wherever he applied subsequent to being dismissed by Squire Allworthy. Tom cannot help feeling partially responsible, since he himself was the bastard. But his decision shows he has a sense of honor that belies his humble blood.
Meanwhile, Tom's moral and social superiors engage in backstabbing and manipulation. Mr. Blifil and his tutors exploit facts at Tom's expense. Lady Bellaston convinces a nobleman enamored with Sophie to force himself on her. Mr. Square is a moral hypocrite. True, several characters of equal social rank to Tom do questionable things, too. But the scale of regrettable behaviors seems to be proportional to the size of one's coffers. Squire Western, though good for a laugh, is a total wreck. When he isn't drop-dead drunk or fornicating amid livestock, he leads a deer chase that destroys some poor family's farm. Watching "Tom Jones," I began to have some inkling why Jimmy Porter, the main protagonist of "Look Back in Anger," detested the upper class so much.
How strange then, that Richardson presents these contrasts, but withholds passing any final judgement. The dishonest half-brother and tutors never get foisted by their own petard. Not even after the truth about a certain document pilfered by Mr. Blifil gets revealed. There appears to be a total lack of punishment for immoral behavior in the film. The soldier who wronged Tom doesn't get his comeuppance (Although, to the movie's credit, he never wins out, either). Even Tom, though not a bad person, has a vice that never gets so much as a rebuke.
(WARNING! THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS DETAILS OF A SPOILOUS NATURE!-Sure, Sophie's mad at him for a while for diddling Mrs. Waters. But could she really dump the lout and marry Blifil instead?. So the ending, while very upbeat, doesn't seem convincing. Sophie's honey never actually undergoes a transformation from ladies man to loyal lover. String music alone does not guarantee he can be faithful, even after a joyous reunion and inevitable marriage. )
Of course, the movie was made in the sixties. Being a cad might have been okay back then, since AIDS had yet to be a problem. Or it might just be Richardson's aesthetic speaking. After all, he helped pioneer British "kitchen sink style," which was partially-based on documentary. But even if Richardson decided not to make a statement film, preferring to observe from a distance, there's no denying he brought a strong visual sense to Osborne's screenplay. "Tom Jones" is supposed to be a "fun" movie, and the director underscores that every chance he gets. As a result, the audience gets treated to wipes of all shapes and sizes, a narrator who says pithy things such as, "It is said that too much wine will dull a man's senses. That much is true, in a dull man." Richardson even speeds up a chase sequence, which guarantees it will tickle the funny bone.
Now if only he had chosen to make us think, and not only amuse us on a superficial level.
Movie Review: Disjointed and episodic but, it comes together
Summary: 4 Stars
I had to watch this movie carefully. At times it seems disjointed as the adventures of the illegitimate adopted son of a Squire Allworthy, a country squire in 18th century England, goes from one episode to another. There certainly is a plot but because of the rapid movement from one adventure to another, this plot can be difficult to follow without paying full attention to the film. Additionally, we are quickly introduced to a lot of characters so, it is difficult, at times to keep track of who's who and what their roles are, in Tom's adventures. However, if you pay attention, or, alteranatively, if you scroll back in your DVD to review scenes that were unclear, the movie does, indeed, come togther.
Tom, played by Albert Finney, is great as a womanizer who who falls in love with Sophie (played by Susannah York), the daughter of a drunken, neighboring squire. Thinking that Tom is the illegitimate adopted son with no blood ties to his adopted father, he heartily disapproves of Tom as a potential son in law. Rather, he prefers that Sophie marry the priggish, snotty nephew of Squire Allworthy because, after all, the nephew would be the heir to his fortune. Despite his love for Sophie, almost without trying, Tom seems to find himself in bed with various women in his bawdy adventures. These ribald adventures are as much a part of the movie as the plot is.
The cinematography is great. The sets, both of the country manors and mid 18th century London, are spectacular. The satire while cutting, is basically good natured as proper, pompous British gentry are skewered. This is a clever comedy which takes a little work, by the viewer to appreciate. Although it won the Oscar for best picture in 1963, because the disointed episodic nature of the movie makes it a little hard to follow, I give it four stars rather than five. The year 1963 was also the year that Sidney Poitier won the Oscar for best actor in Lilies of the Field. Having seen both of these movies, I would rate Lilies of the Field more deservng of best picture. But then again, perhaps I just didn't do the mental work necessary to fully appreciate Tom Jones.
Movie Review: Of its Time
Summary: 4 Stars
Heavily influenced by Godard's 1959 mould-breaker "Breathless" (jump-cuts, hand-held camera, addresses to the viewer) this film is full of brilliant episodes, especially the stag-hunt. Contrary to the opinions of some reviewers, imho it does an outstanding job of presenting the uninhibited flavour of 18th century England; especially by bringing out the contrast between town and country, which incorporated one of the greatest and most far-reaching social changes which took place in that century. The luxury and squalor of London compared with the almost idyllic feeling that many had for the vanishing bucolic life is commented on by almost every notable writer of the age. However, the film doesn't seem to be well-paced, overall. The first part is too slow, and the second is too disjointed, and there is a sense of dissatisfaction in the end at the lack of balance and rhythm. It is not quite as good as I remembered from having seen it when it first came out, 1963. The leading performances are nevertheless superb, although Squire Western's boorishness is, let's face it, just a bit over-played. The dialogue is nonetheless excellent: not artificial in the slightest. The narrator's accent is not assumed, as somebody supposed: it was delivered by a very well-known Irish actor in his natural speaking voice. The use of a narrator in this instance makes for an intelligent transfer of Fielding's long, picaresque novel to the screen. The film expects a literate audience: which is not supplied by the negative reviews posted here.