Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

akoaytao1234 Vulgar but Charming, Tom Jones struts his way to infamy in his hometown for his antics. When the charming Sophie arrives, She and Tom falls in love much to the dismay of her parents who have other plans for her.Particularly known for one of the more forgotten and questioned Best Picture winners, Tom Jones is a rare breed of silliness and playfulness tossed with a flair of lavish flamboyance that had not been present in a lot of Best Picture Nominees of today. Though these same characteristics does not really make it into a great film. Today, it feels a bit too tame that its antics comes off a bit too corny. Overall, just not my taste.[3/5]

grantss Country England, early 1700s. Squire Allworthy, a wealthy landowner, adopts a baby whose mother is a servant in his house and whose father is unknown. That baby is Tom Jones. Many years later and Tom is now a young, handsome man. He has a lust for life, and for Molly Seagrim, the gamekeeper's daughter. She, however, is now pregnant and the father could be anyone, including Tom. Tom's affections are now directed towards Sophie Western, the daughter of the neighbouring landowner. They fall in love, but her father won't have a bar of the relationship. Tom ends up banished from the estate. He sets off for London. Many adventures and much drama await him.Started well. There was a lightness and exuberance to the film that carried it along and it had the potential to be a great comedic look at the lives of the landed gentry. I kept waiting for it to click into top gear and let the humour flow.Yet it never really came. The set up was often there but the writer and director pulled their punches. From a point it just degenerated into silly farce, Carry On-like.It has its moments but these are few and far between. These moments do serve to remind you how good the movie could have been. They also make the movie quite uneven, as you have these highs, making you think that the film has at last kicked up a notch, only to go back to the mediocrity that came before.Somehow this movie won the Best Picture Oscar in 1964. Must have been a lean year for good movies and, looking at the other contenders, clearly it was.

Lee Eisenberg To people in the 21st century, the name Tom Jones brings to mind the singer of songs like "It's Not Unusual", and maybe also Tommy Lee Jones. Tony Richardson's "Tom Jones" has nothing to do with either of them. It was apparently intended as an indictment of the British aristocracy's hypocrisy. It comes across more as a romantic comedy. But most importantly, contrary to its Oscar wins it was far from the year's best movie. Nineteen sixty-three gave us movies like "The Birds" (the ultimate Hitchcock movie), "Hud" (a look at alienation), "Lilies of the Field" (a call for tolerance), "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" (a hilarious indictment of greed) and "Charade" (one of the cleverest thrillers of all time).A line that caught my attention was during the dinner. Tom says something to the effect of "A person can be uneducated and know a lot, and a person can be educated and know nothing." For proof that the second part is true, I submit as evidence George W. Bush and Prince Charles.And now the cast. Albert Finney we all know. Susannah York is a hottie here; her most significant role was in "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?". Diane Cilento was married to Sean Connery at this time. David Tomlinson is best know as George Banks in "Mary Poppins". Jack MacGowran played the alcoholic director in "The Exorcist". Peter Bull played the Soviet ambassador in "Dr. Strangelove" (so naturally, I told his character here not to fight in the war room). Julian Glover later played Donovan in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and later played Grand Master Pycelle on "Game of Thrones". And of course, Lynn Redgrave was director Tony Richardson's sister-in-law.As for Tony Richardson, his best movie that I've seen was the posthumously released "Blue Sky", which won Jessica Lange a Best Actress Oscar. Richardson hadn't publicly acknowledged his bisexuality until he contracted AIDS, which eventually killed him. Due to Orion Pictures's bankruptcy, "Blue Sky" sat on the shelf for three years.In conclusion, "Tom Jones" is a movie that will probably draw more than a few MST3K-style comments. Although I will say that Susannah York probably had to beat guys off with a stick after appearing in this movie.

Sergeant_Tibbs People were excited about Tom Jones in 1963. I read in an archived paper that it was considered the next Citizen Kane. Somehow someway that translated to 4 Oscars, including Best Picture, where it's now considered the weakest winner outside of Crash since the 50s. Probably even weaker than Driving Miss Daisy. It's a bizarre blend of period costume drama and screwball comedy, and neither parts work. It's really all over the place, and I'll admit to not being able to follow the story besides the broad strokes. There's little to find engaging. It's so unbelievably rough around the edges, so horribly shot and overlaboured in the editing. No, those scenes don't need speeding up. That doesn't make it funny. That makes it cheap. Maybe it was an innovator at the time, but it innovated the worst ideas. Albert Finney does have charm, but the film savours none of it. The acting from the ensemble spare a few is solid, but the filmmaking is too weak for them to steal the show. I'll give it credit that the score is Oscar- worthy and is the only thing that efficiently sets the tone. Poor show on Richardson and the Academy's behalf.5/10