Once again I am here to defend a movie that's apparently hated now despite being in a bunch of lists and having won an Academy Award. I guess a mostly harmless womanizer is unbearable to watch-- ironic, since the movie itself is critiquing the hypocrisy of such hardline moral judgements. I didn't see Jones committing any rape so I don't understand what some of these other comments are going on about. He's the one being seduced -and sometimes objectified- by the women in most of the scenes. He is unfaithful and emotionally neglectful, yeah. I suppose that's unforgivable. But it is a movie made in the 1960s based on a 1700s picaresque novel. I don't know what people expect. The film itself is a satire about high society in the manner of later films by Chabrol or Ostlund. There are no great speeches or misery porn to make us weep. It just shows these characters and their grotesque attitudes-- their own behavior will help us see the flaws in a social system that both rewards their ridiculous beliefs and makes them blind to their own hypocrisy. A lot of playful editing choices and fourth wall-breaking gags. Finney and York are hilarious and so goddamn fucking beautiful. I thought this was a blast. The worst thing I can say about it is that it's a bit inconsequential overall and some sequences go on for way too long.
Kind of a waste. There was a story buried somewhere but it took way longer to evolve than it should have. The escapades should have started earlier than the hour mark and the ramp up should have started earlier than in the last 10 minutes.
Oftentimes felt like a Woody Allen romp without the spicy dialogue.
I must agree with Classical Lady. The 'hero' of this movie is the very embodiment of toxic masculinity: he likes women, he hunts (XVIII century England), he drinks, and he's a soldier. The excellent cinematography, the brilliant acting and directing, the great adaptation of an enduring masterpiece of the Western Canon - a comedy of manners that denounces the hypocrisy of conventional morality and the subjection of women in society - are by no means redeeming features. Also the innovative camera work, fast pace and general feeling of benign levity only contribute to its odiousness. And it's funny too... Ugh, ghastly.
There are only six films which have achieved the movie equivalent of a grand slam by taking the Best Picture award at the Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs and the National Board of Review. They are The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Tom Jones (1963), A Man for All Seasons (1966), Schindler's List (1993), American Beauty (1999) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Tom Jones is another of those Academy choices that touched a nerve at the time but hasn't stood up. It's an uneasy mix of New Wave style (at its best in the fast editing and handheld camerawork shown off in the fox-hunt scene), historical costume drama (with a pleasingly grounded recreation of 17th Century England) and bawdy British sex farce. At a time when the French, Japanese and British New Waves were all breaking new ground I suppose it must have been exciting for viewers to see some of those techniques applied to the sort of traditional costume drama they were used to. Unfortunately, the complex story seems to spin out of control and becomes unengaging, while nowadays the humour seems unfunny and the eroticism insipid. I don't think any of the categories it won for were deserving, with the score being annoying and intrusive too. The acting was good, but were all those nominations deserved for the broad comic performances?
I kept wondering, what the heck is going on? If I took my eyes off the screen for a moment, there was a different woman Finny was chasing, fondling or otherwise debasing. This isn't the worst film I've ever seen but it sure is up there.
I think you summed it up well, Thorkell. It won't be among my favourites, but it doesn't deserve all the hate it's getting (like: "worst Oscar winner ever!").
This has to be one of the strangest film ever to win an Oscar. A plot (and morals) worthy of a porn film, a visual splendor which reminds one of Barry Lyndon (though it does not rival it) and a host of brilliant actors. The 60s where so wonderful! Even a mess like this one is more interesting than most of the films nominate these days. Watching Tom Jones one sits in bewilderment and wonders, what where they smoking back then? One can easily trace the origin of films like Myra Breckinridge in this film (which is among the strangest things you will ever account in your life and a must see!)
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 17
ucuruju
Once again I am here to defend a movie that's apparently hated now despite being in a bunch of lists and having won an Academy Award. I guess a mostly harmless womanizer is unbearable to watch-- ironic, since the movie itself is critiquing the hypocrisy of such hardline moral judgements. I didn't see Jones committing any rape so I don't understand what some of these other comments are going on about. He's the one being seduced -and sometimes objectified- by the women in most of the scenes. He is unfaithful and emotionally neglectful, yeah. I suppose that's unforgivable. But it is a movie made in the 1960s based on a 1700s picaresque novel. I don't know what people expect. The film itself is a satire about high society in the manner of later films by Chabrol or Ostlund. There are no great speeches or misery porn to make us weep. It just shows these characters and their grotesque attitudes-- their own behavior will help us see the flaws in a social system that both rewards their ridiculous beliefs and makes them blind to their own hypocrisy. A lot of playful editing choices and fourth wall-breaking gags. Finney and York are hilarious and so goddamn fucking beautiful. I thought this was a blast. The worst thing I can say about it is that it's a bit inconsequential overall and some sequences go on for way too long.Forzelius
Kind of a waste. There was a story buried somewhere but it took way longer to evolve than it should have. The escapades should have started earlier than the hour mark and the ramp up should have started earlier than in the last 10 minutes.Oftentimes felt like a Woody Allen romp without the spicy dialogue.
Torgo
Oh my, no one deserves this.
D.Fernandes1685
I must agree with Classical Lady. The 'hero' of this movie is the very embodiment of toxic masculinity: he likes women, he hunts (XVIII century England), he drinks, and he's a soldier. The excellent cinematography, the brilliant acting and directing, the great adaptation of an enduring masterpiece of the Western Canon - a comedy of manners that denounces the hypocrisy of conventional morality and the subjection of women in society - are by no means redeeming features. Also the innovative camera work, fast pace and general feeling of benign levity only contribute to its odiousness. And it's funny too... Ugh, ghastly.Paravail
Oh yeah, this was totally the best movie to come out in 1963. Sooooo much better than The Great Escape.ChrisReynolds
There are only six films which have achieved the movie equivalent of a grand slam by taking the Best Picture award at the Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs and the National Board of Review. They are The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Tom Jones (1963), A Man for All Seasons (1966), Schindler's List (1993), American Beauty (1999) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Tom Jones is another of those Academy choices that touched a nerve at the time but hasn't stood up. It's an uneasy mix of New Wave style (at its best in the fast editing and handheld camerawork shown off in the fox-hunt scene), historical costume drama (with a pleasingly grounded recreation of 17th Century England) and bawdy British sex farce. At a time when the French, Japanese and British New Waves were all breaking new ground I suppose it must have been exciting for viewers to see some of those techniques applied to the sort of traditional costume drama they were used to. Unfortunately, the complex story seems to spin out of control and becomes unengaging, while nowadays the humour seems unfunny and the eroticism insipid. I don't think any of the categories it won for were deserving, with the score being annoying and intrusive too. The acting was good, but were all those nominations deserved for the broad comic performances?ClassicLady
I kept wondering, what the heck is going on? If I took my eyes off the screen for a moment, there was a different woman Finny was chasing, fondling or otherwise debasing. This isn't the worst film I've ever seen but it sure is up there.Gershwin
I think you summed it up well, Thorkell. It won't be among my favourites, but it doesn't deserve all the hate it's getting (like: "worst Oscar winner ever!").george4mon
i'm with greenhorg, The great escape has stood the test of time and should have won instead of this crap.Skyscore
http://www.afisha.ru/movie/174240/review/218489/Thorkell
This has to be one of the strangest film ever to win an Oscar. A plot (and morals) worthy of a porn film, a visual splendor which reminds one of Barry Lyndon (though it does not rival it) and a host of brilliant actors. The 60s where so wonderful! Even a mess like this one is more interesting than most of the films nominate these days. Watching Tom Jones one sits in bewilderment and wonders, what where they smoking back then? One can easily trace the origin of films like Myra Breckinridge in this film (which is among the strangest things you will ever account in your life and a must see!)greenhorg
7.0 on imdb. 8th worst 'Best Picture' winner. 'The Great Escape' (#110 on the top 250) wasn't even nominated.Dieguito
I never know if these movies represent the best or the worst of English comedy!! The opening music already starts irritating you!!domah
dreadful, absolutely dreadfulAleril
Don't listen to those two, this is a very funny film. Must see!Showing items 1 – 15 of 17