Tom Jones

Doesn't wear well. The breaking of the fourth wall is no longer inventive, and the "sexy" parts have too many winks and nods. Fielding's approach to sex was much more matter-of-fact; this is just inverse Victorianism.

I dunno, man, this one is pretty weird. There doesn't seem to be much focus for at least the first act, which lends to a frustrating experience already tested by the handheld shakiness that Richardson must've felt was divine in the early 1960s. Sure, it looks different, but it's paced like trash. Only in the middle does this film get somewhat interesting before it crashes again. It's just difficult to care about.

Some funny moments, but overall an incredibly silly and pointless film and the last "bad" movie to win Best Picture.

Unendurably smug. I simply detested the 'look how flashy our film is, aren't we hip?' approach. 100% awful.

Boring, disjointed, and full of odd-but-not-interesting choices.

What if you mixed French New Wave film techniques with those long Dickensian-style novels from the 18th century? Well, if you enhance the bawdy parts, you'd probably get this. It's not my favorite movie (parts seemed unduly repetitive), but I found it more enjoyable than a lot of other reviewers.

que filme chaaato

It's erratic, weirdly edited, poorly paced, and at times very uncomfortable. I've not read the novel it's based on, but I've heard some of the artistic choices are made to reflect the spirit or actions in the book. I can appreciate that, but I don't think it translates well here. There are some humorous moments that you can tell inspire future British comedy (Monty Python) and Albert Finney gives a strong performance. Overall though, one of my least favorite Best Picture winners.

It does have its moments, but mostly it's a pretty daft old British romcom.

Pretty damn uneven.

Poor screenplay, itchy story, meaningless plot and end. I realy dont get it what this film all about at all ? Directing and visual are the only cool thing about the movie.

Wheezy, dated farce may have played better in 1963 when there was possibly some "shock value" in some of its sexual shenanigans, but from a 2013 standpoint there is more daring, originality and humour in one of the low-end CARRY ON films than in this frantic, overdone adaptation. Performances generally match the standard of the material, though Finney shows flashes of his intriguing charisma here and there.

Not much to say about the plot but the performances are charming and the direction is unconventional enough that I never got bored.

So, so incredibly desperate to be charming and funny that the whole thing just ends up a cloying, annoying, tedious bore. There's loads of goofy filmic techniques and wacky musical choices used that really grate as the film tries its hardest to disassociate itself from other period dramas.

Hasn't aged well. At all. Director Richardson famously disliked the film despite the critical acclaim, and here many years later it's easy to see why. Way to silly and oh-so-cocky both written and directed not to mention foolishly acted, only a few romantic montages works comically decent. Points for the post modern try to shakes things up can only get you so far.

TOM JONES won Best Picture, all right, but it isn't one of Oscar's best choices; my father may vouch for its innovation, but I must vouch for its entertainment value. It's often amusing, but the madcap approach taken hampers the story and characters such that we never really feel involved; it's all a bit shallow. An excellent cast does their best (though few truly stand out) and there are undoubted highlights in the cinematography (the hunt scene is fantastic) and the sets and costumes.

#914

I was hoping this film would surprise me and be pretty good, but nope, it was bad. It's a complete mess, especially the first hour which is horrid. The acting is alright, but time seems to move slower as this plays and goddamn was I glad when it finally ended.

A mix of good and bad. Bawdiness annoys me. And even the non-bawdy humor is obnoxious: sped-up scenes, knowing glances at the camera, awful wacky music and zany wipes. It grated on my nerves. But it's not all bad. The film is to be commended for dispensing with the usual stuffiness of a period picture. The story is very engaging and clever, with some Bunuel-esque jabs at the upper class. And Finney's rakish charm is perfect for the role. So I kind of enjoyed this movie despite kind of hating it.

854

Immensely enjoyable from start to finish. A energetic and flamboyant take on a period film. Never seen anything quite like it. Albert Finney is a treat, as are many of the supporting roles.

The way period dramas should be, with a healthy dose of comedy. Thanks in large part to Finney this is a wonderfully enjoyable film mixing the usual intrigue and bits of class commentary of period dramas with a charm and humour they usually lack.

779

Quite funny but not in the riotous manner many of today's audience expects.

# 714

As aventuras de Tom Jones estreava há 60 anos no Festival de Veneza. Não gostei quando vi a primeira vez, mas estava mais tolerante hoje, mesmo ainda achando seu estilo incrivelmente datado, se até o Tony Richardson não gosta dele, quem sou eu para desmentir? Acho que o que acaba sendo mais aviltante é o fato de ter ganhado o Oscar de melhor filme em cima da obra-prima América América do Kazan e o Tony Richardson ter tirado o Oscar de melhor diretor do Fellini de Otto e Mezzo. DVD Versátil.

Awfully dated.

Great editing and a charming performance by Albert Finney make Tom Jones a fun movie.