Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

merelyaninnuendo Tom Jones2 And A Half Out Of 5Tom Jones is a plot driven feature of a tale that may walk on familiar structure but is still intriguing enough to invest in it. The characters in here maybe edgy, but the edge is blunt and safe, for the offered environment is sweet despite of possessing plenty of spicy ingredients, it just never kicks in.It is short on technical aspects like cinematography and editing but is rich on cinematography, background score, production and costume design. The camera work is beautiful and utterly pleasing with aesthetic places that draws the attention of the viewers and rest of it is left upon its excellent execution. The adaptation by John Osborne is smart and explicit if not gripping and the primary reason to that is the amount of time it takes to set the plots and characters. Tony Richardson; the director, has done an amazing work on executing the script as mentioned earlier, with the help of beautiful cinematography. The performance by Albert Finney as the protagonist is brilliant along with a supporting cast like Hugh Girffith, Diane Cilento, Jayce Redman and Edith Evans. Tom Jones is free from love and morale conflicts despite of revolving around it and its the maturity that keeps the audience tangled into it.

oOoBarracuda The movie that finished them all. Tom Jones is significant to me, personally, as it was the last film I needed to see to have seen all the Academy Award Best Picture winners. In 2009 I became incredibly interested in movies for their artistic merit and vowed to see all of the Best Picture winners as awarded by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. Tom Jones did not disappoint as a finale. Tony Richardson's 1963 feature, based on a book by Henry Fielding starring Albert Finney was a fun journey into the life of an 18th-century man born to unwed parents and taken in by a man of privilege. An exploration into the disposition one is born with, vs. the environment surrounding them as they mature, Tom Jones was nothing if not entertaining.Tom Jones (Albert Finney) is a young, attractive man in 18th-century England of wealth and privilege. Tom is wild and carefree, chasing all the women he can and having illicit relationships with many. Despite his many faults, Tom is kind-hearted, and a fierce defender of what is right and what he believes in. Blifil (David Warner), Tom's "cousin" exudes regality, is cold and lacking personality, and incredibly vengeful. The two often trade barbs, as their personalities clash. Despite his wild ways with women, Tom eventually falls in love with Sophie Western (Susannah York), daughter of Squire Western (Hugh Griffith) a nobleman. Despite their mutual love for each other, no one wishes to see Tom, the bastard child abandoned as a baby and taken in by Squire Allworthy (George Devine) marry nobility. Sophie is promised to Blifil, and the two attempt to go on and forget their love of each other. This task proves impossible, as they continue their secret trysts, vowing to be with each other, one way or another.The first half of Tom Jones was a spectacular romp through many classic cinema nods and the fantastic character development of the main players involved. Tom Jones is incredibly well-written thanks to John Osborne's screenplay and the source material Henry Fielding's novel. I love that the film started out as a silent film with title cards. It is such fun when films pay tribute to classic cinema. The narration throughout the film was another one of these fun nods to classic cinema, as well, and a nice touch. The coloration and film stock was a great tribute to classic films as well, grainy and yellow-tinged reminding viewers of the early days of film. The costuming and the sets were both extraordinary, and I was shocked that Tom Jones, a film that won 4 Oscar's, was not awarded for its sets nor period clothing. The film, along with John Addison was rightly awarded for its wonderful score. Each piece of music selected was perfect towards plot development and really put the audience in the 18th century. Of all the aspects that worked in Tom Jones, there were some that did not. The most glaring question after watching this feature is, how did Albert Finney ever become an actor? Judging by this performance alone (Which I am not doing, that's unfair) he seems completely listless and wholeheartedly disinterested in his character. I've read that Finney was displeased with some creative aspects of his character, and that definitely shows. I am glad I've seen many other works of Finney's because if I hadn't, this film definitely would have soured me. The pacing also struggles greatly in the second and third acts. The first hour was great fun and enjoyable, keeping audiences entertained. Once that first hour is done, however, the film becomes lifeless and dull. Only in the last 8 minutes does it pick up again before abruptly ending. After starting off so strong, it was disappointing to see it fall so flat. One of the most fun parts of Tom Jones was that I saw so much of another favorite film, Start the Revolution Without Me, starring Gene Wilder in it. Tom Jones came first, so I can only assume that the director of the latter, Bud Yorkin was immensely influenced by the film that came 6 years before his. It was also great fun to see a well- done period piece, as those types of films seem so easy to make poorly. It is easy to see why Tom Jones, halfway a very good film, won Best Picture in an otherwise underwhelming year. I see why it doesn't stand out too much among those crowned, but I am pleased to have completed my journey through all the Best Picture winners, and Tom Jones will always hold a special place in my heart for helping me complete such a movie lover's goal.

gavin6942 In eighteenth century England, "first cousins" Tom Jones (Albert Finney) and Master Blifil grew up together in privilege in the western countryside, but could not be more different in nature.This is a truly odd film. It could be a straight drama, but instead has a humor that is reminiscent of the works of Beaumarchais. Was the original novel this humorous? I have my doubts, but perhaps so. Even from the very beginning, we have a silent film gag that is more appropriate in a Mel Brooks movie.Strangely, today the words "Tom Jones" are never used to refer to the novel or the movie, but to the singer. His name is Thomas Jones Woodward, so whether or not he took his name from the book or just thought it sounded better than "Tom Woodward", I have no idea.

Tashtago I've attempted to watch this "Oscar winner" a number of times and have not gotten through the entire movie. This is a mess! Dialogue undecipherable, no plot, little in the way of characterization. It is a series of pointless scenes leading to nothing. I will say that it foreshadows a great deal of pointless,mindless, noisy, messy drug addled swinging 60's films that followed it. I refer to "Casino Royale", the last part of "What's New Pussycat" and "Rowan and Martins Laugh-in." I suppose at the time it seemed revolutionary and rebellious. But like many a sixties extravagance, it now appears to be nothing but self-indulgent senseless garbage. Oh, and why was Molly hanging out in the woods?