Tom Jones(in Hollywood Movies) Tom Jones (1963) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Tom Jones on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: In eighteenth-century England, "first cousins" Tom Jones and Master Blifil grew up together in privilege in the western countryside, but could not be more different in nature. Tom, the bastard son of one of Squire Allworthy's servants Jenny Jones and the local barber Partridge, was raised by… Runtime: 129 min Release Date: 27 Jun 1963
it gives the sense of the joy of living through the movie media at the highest level (by bernie-42)
"Tom Jones" is a movie adaptation of the classic Eighteenth century novel masterpiece of Henry Fielding made up by the greatest contemporary British playwriter John Osborne and directed by one of the main film directors of English Free Cinema, Tony Richardson. This film came at end of this golden period of the English Cinema in the sixties and it is the highest moment of this cinema. "Tom Jones" shows in the person of Tom Jones the masterly Albert Finney the point of view of the angry young man looking to the stupidity and the hypocrisies of the Eighteenth century <more>
society, which resembles our times. It is not at all just a funny film, even if some scenes are extremely funny and are some classics in the history of cinema, famous like the one in which Tom eating a rich supper with his woman is really looking like eating her with the eyes. "Tom Jones" is the adventurous hystory of a modern hero, who finally conquers his true love, after any kind of trouble. This is an highly cinematographic film, e.g. the movement of the camera gives itself the idea of happiness in the scenes of love in the country of Tom and Sophie the beautiful and greatest Susannah York , the drama of the situation in which Tom risk to be hanged or the funniness in the bawdy scenes in the inn. In the beginning the film even outlines the beginning of the complex story using even the style of the silent cinema...Tom Jones/Albert Finney even also speaks directly to the public of the film reaching with his greatest originality an extreme level of funniness and pleasantness. The photography of the film resembles with its colours and views the landscapes of English painting of the Eighteenth century, like in Hogarth's pictures. The fox hunting scene is pictorially beautiful. The actors are all the best of the English theatre of that period and playing at their best, where theatre is so important and lively in England. Concluding, a film that gives the sense of the joy of living through the movie media at the highest level, it's a must to see even only this film, a masterpiece of the forgotten but greatest English film director, Tony Richardson. As Giancarlo Grazzini, the greatest Italian cinematographic critic of that time, wrote, it was the best film presented at the Film Festival of Venice, worthy of winning also the Golden Lion there and not just the Oscars!
If you cannot enjoy this movie, you have no relish for life and comedy and the human spirit. Albert Finney and Suzannah York are a delightful couple as Tom and his one love Sophie. One of the great things about the movie is the comments to the audience by Tom. The technique is not new see The Road Movies , but it is used to great comic effect. And the voice-over narrator enhances all the action. If you don't know the story, Tom Jones is about a 'bastard' boy trying to make his way in the 1700's world of England. The story is delightful through, with the requisite villains, <more>
'fallen' and lusty women, sword fights and some amazing coincidences. Everything about the movie is delightful, with great production values and an excellent cast. If you haven't seen this movie, please do so. I don't see how you can not enjoy it from beginning to end.
I am another viewer who saw the movie in a theater in 1963 and just today saw the video, 42 years later. It was just as hilarious to a viewer in his late eighties as to one in his forties. It was pleasant to see it on a big screen, via video projector with a group of friends, rather than on the small screen at home. I came right home and looked in IMDb to see if anyone had noticed what I thought was an anachronistic goof. Did you?As the hunters in the fox hunt rode down a dirt road in about 1775 , I thought that the road ahead of the horses looked very much to contain automobile tire tracks! <more>
Does anyone agree, or think that my eyes deceived me? jrd0022
This was a great film in its time, and is still a great one today. Well-directed, well-acted, well-shot, great soundtrack, and based on a splendid literary vehicle. It's frustrating to see so much uninformed voting and so many uninformed remarks on this otherwise wonderful site; I guess its inevitable since anyone can post anything. But I would like to point out that Tom Jones did not sleep with his mother as erroneously alleged, and that Albert Finney, 26 or 27 years old at the time of shooting this film, clearly did not look too old for his part.I haven't read the book s , but from <more>
the film it's obvious that Dickens was much indebted to Fielding, using his amazing invention as a convoluted plot model and perhaps a character-naming model for many of his works.Go rent this film after seeing Finney in the currently playing Big Fish -- it's great to see him do so well in such very different films made in different millenia, nearly a full professional lifetime apart.
This is an adaptation of a large book, a Henry Fielding novel. In the early 1700's the growing middle class in Europe, especially in the British Empire, became literate. As an entertainment to get through the long hours of new leisure, novels flew from the printing presses. Tom Jones was a hit from the first. It was a bawdy tale with amusing detail. It is lucky that an experienced playwright like John Osborne was assigned the screenplay and double lucky that a fine director, Tony Richardson brought the tale to life.Indeed, Richardson is a poet with the lush English countryside. Since much <more>
of the film depicts Tom Jones' amorous adventures in the grass with Molly Seagram, the peasant wench, on a skiff with the Squire's daughter, Sophie, in the tavern with Mrs.Wilkens, and in the suites of a countess, the bawdy adventures spin by as food shoots from the mouths of lovers. There are also duels, a misunderstanding about the linage of the Jones baby, and an unwanted suitor for the lovely Sophie, Susan York.I saw this film as a teen in 1963 and it telegraphed a new sense of modernism and sexual freedom without pretense that is ironic since Fielding's story was hundreds of years old on the eve of the Beatles and the swinging London of the 60's.
This was the period when French New Wave was supposedly reinventing cinema. Unfortunately, the French could only do so by citing Hollywood forms mostly gangsters and placing them in new contexts. That left lots of room for an intelligent Hollywood project to best them by exploiting itself. So much more could be done.The rough form would be a contrast between the refined and the uncouth, between disciplined manner and unbridled lust, between old Hollywood presentation and the new. Thus, the uncouth merges with sex and the presentation used here.That presentation form is at once <more>
hyperrealistic hand-held verity, engagement with running horses, A specific film joke where Tom and Sophie follow each other riding animals, widely varying lighting schemes using found light, frequent direct dialog with the audience and highly stylized "old" stuff: swordfights, wellworn plot closures, a typical love story but where the girl is halfway in the old and new worlds.Make no mistake: the star of this is Suzanna York as our surrogate. Will we embrace this new manner of film-making, directly sensual and "real?" Of course we do, as much as no woman can refuse TomNo serious watcher of film can omit this from their schedule. And it needs to be followed by "Barry Lyndon," and "Sex and Lucia."Kubrick's project took this same story from the other side, the refined one. Its cinematography is lush and precise. But the project is one that contrasts nature rather than raw sex acts with foppish aristocracy rather than general city society . But the intent is the same, to charm through images, just in Kubrick's case the images are aristocratic.Medem's project is much more sophisticated, switching the dial so that the sex/repress, country/city, realistic/stylized image contrast is between experienced truth and written truth. But the same noir-like capricious fate is at work through copulation in Lucia as in Tom. The same idea as targeted woman, lovely desirable woman as the viewer's surrogate and judge .Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Thirty Seven years later.......it remains a splendid piece of art (by khatcher-2)
Just two hundred years after Henry Fielding's novel appeared, the theatre-actor-turned-cinema-director Sir Tony Richardson rounded up a few Shakespearean-trained prodigees, got John Addison to compose hectic clavichord accompaniment a little in the style of Handel operas and set all this against lush photography to produce one of the most hilarious films of the last five hundred years. Fielding's novel which is a most definite recommendation rather cynically but good-humouredly exposed mid-eighteenth century British hypocrisy at its best and the landed gentry's obsession for <more>
fox-hunting at its worst. Richardson directed all this a bit like an elderly Sir Thomas Beecham 'the important thing is we all start and stop together; nobody notices what happens in between' raising his baton in front of the London Symphony Orchestra: the result in both cases is astounding. Richardson conducts his piece at a tremendous pace, Addison's clavichord tripping along gaily so as to keep up the illusion, and visual sequences such as a young trouserless Albert Finney escaping out of a window, shinning down a tree and running off into the nocturnal depths of a beech forest, all combine to keep you breathlessly awaiting the next scene. Susannah York is just delicious, with that innocent facial beauty that raises heartbeats, especially in the latter parts; and Angela Baddely as Mrs. Wilkins and Diane Cilento as Molly play some great scenes. And some of the great scenes are worth telling...... Tom and Mrs. Wilkins enjoy a good roast with fruit, eating lusciously and lascivously, eating each other up with their sparkling eyes: this scene is hugely delightful. The other great scene is the fox-hunt: this alone puts the whole film into a special category: brilliant film-making, almost comparable to the famous chariot race in Ben Hur........ I loved this film 37 years ago, and recently had the luck to see it again: having doubled my years, I was just as enthralled and enraptured as the first time. A splendid piece of art.
While my mother claims this is a "guy movie," I'm not a guy and find it one of the funniest, most charming movies ever made. The narration, music and just plain spunky tone of this movie makes it a unique piece -- you really DO have to see it to understand what it's all about! I highly recommend this movie -- as well as the book, which was published in 1749 but is just as funny today and highly readable, not "quaint" at all!
Very good,...though it seems like an odd choice for the Oscar (by MartinHafer)
Now please understand at the outset that I am NOT bashing this movie. However, this is indeed one of these cases of a film that has won a Best Picture Oscar and years later when you see it you feel absolutely stunned that it was given this honor. A very good film, of course,...but Oscar-worthy,...I sincerely doubt it. Now it is very possible that 1963 was a slow year and that is why it won the award. And, it is also very possible it won because the film was, for its day, quite bawdy and the Academy wanted to recognize a picture that "pushed the envelope". Regardless of why, today <more>
the film seems pretty inconsequential--not bad, but certainly not a film that deserves all the accolades it received decades ago.The film itself is a combination of comedy and drama set in the 1740s. The comedic portions, for the most part, are kind of funny and the romantic portions are just okay--though it was really hard to understand exactly why Susanna York's character was in love with Tom--particularly after his many escapades and dalliances. To me, I actually would have enjoyed the film a bit more if it had chosen to emphasize the humor a bit more--sort of like the extremely funny START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME--a very madcap film made just a few years later and starring many of the same supporting actors in TOM JONES.As far as acting goes, everyone was fine in the film. In particular, Albert Finney was great as Tom, though it is sad to see his career never exactly took off after his success in this film--after all, he really could act. The direction, sets, etc. were also just fine and I must say that at least the film was a lot of fun and enjoyable to watch--unlike the later and much heralded by film snobs BARRY LYNDON---one of the duller costume dramas in Hollywood history.