Tom Jones 1963 123movies

Watch: Tom Jones 1963 123movies, Full Movie Online – 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 virtuous Allworthy as his own after he sent Jenny away. Tom is randy, chasing anything in a skirt, he’s having a sexual relationship on the sly with Molly Seagrim, the peasant daughter of Allworthy’s gamekeeper. Tom is nonetheless kind-hearted and good-natured, he who is willing to defend that and those in which he believes. Blifil, on the other hand, is dour, and although outwardly pious, is cold-hearted and vengeful. Despite his randiness, Tom eventually falls in love with Sophie Western, who has just returned to the area after a few years abroad. Despite Sophie’s love for Tom, Squire Western and his spinster sister would rather see Sophie marry Blifil rather than a bastard, who Western nonetheless liked before he knew that Tom liked Sophie. Based on half truths, Tom, out of circumstance, is forced to leave his home and strike out on his own in London. While Sophie sneaks away in search of Tom, and Squire Western and Miss Western go off in search of Sophie, Tom gets into one misadventure after another on his way to London, some involving his randiness, and some which will reveal certain aspects of his life previously unknown to him. Through it all, Sophie, deep down, is never far from his mind, even when his life is in danger..
Plot: Tom loves Sophie and Sophie loves Tom. But Tom and Sophie are of differering classes. Can they find a way through the mayhem to be true to love?
Smart Tags: #arranged_marriage #womanizer #rags_to_riches #illegitimate_son #based_on_novel #farce #highwayman #premarital_sex #falling_from_a_tree #orphan #freeze_frame #voice_over_narration #prologue #eavesdropping #sword_fight #hanging #dog #farm #love #seduction #slapped_in_the_face

Find Alternative – Tom Jones 1963, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	6.4/10 Votes: 13,179
	80% | RottenTomatoes
	77/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 156 Popularity: 7.423 | TMDB

Reviews:

it gives the sense of the joy of living through the movie media at the highest level
“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 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!

In a word: “Illegitimate”
TOM JONES may not be the worst movie to take home the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture, but it certainly is in the running for being the most ineptly directed. Tiresomely clumsy and terminally long-winded, this so-called rollicking comedy barely merits a legitimate smile, let alone any laugh-out-loud moments of glee. Under Tony Richardson’s amateurish direction, the film suffers from having little sense of comic timing, a lack of the astute use of editing or camera placement or even the slightest hint that the famed director had ever been behind a camera before.

It is easy to see what Richardson was going for; he wanted to cut the historical epic as a genre down to size. The austere, pretentious, pompous Hollywood-style history lessons that were once a staple — and a symbol of what in Hollywood passed for class — were often humorless and self-aware of just how “important” they were. With actors giving solemn, coldly pious performances, the characters they played were placed on pedestals as being morally and intellectually superior to the commoners who served them — and who sat in the audience watching. TOM JONES’ purpose — if indeed it has a purpose — is to show that the nobility was no better than the peasant class — other than maybe having lived in a slightly better quality of squalor.

So be it — but by the same token, big deal! The tendency of the movies to alternately worship and mock the rich and powerful has always been a given. There isn’t much here that hadn’t already been made fun of before (and better) in the period parodies made by Danny Kaye or Bob Hope. Or for that matter, the Three Stooges. The best you can give TOM JONES credit for is being a forerunner of the snob-and-slob comedies of later generations; move the story to contemporary Beverly Hills and cast some refugee from “Saturday Night Live” in the Jones part and you’ll have a modern day CADDYSHACK. I mean is Hugh Griffith’s over-the-top vulgar nobleman really much different from the below-the-belt nouveau riche vulgarians that made up Rodney Dangerfield’s film career?

The simple-minded attack on the upper class is nothing new or different, but that wouldn’t matter if the film itself were, well, funny. It’s story is the standard picaresque adventures of a young rogue’s life among his social betters — jazzed up with all the cheap sexual innuendoes, mistaken identities and misunderstandings that farce requires. For the most part, the film seems to be a desperate attempt to blend the gritty realism of the various European “new waves” with the orchestrated anarchy of the Marx Bros. — while not succeeding at doing justice to either. It is like a rough cut made up of poorly chosen outtakes; instead of a work of slick, carefully crafted chaos, it is comprised of one poorly staged scene after another, a soundtrack of disconnected voices and a droning narration that always seems to be describing missing material. Impressed with Richardson’s use of silent movie gimmicks (title cards, speeded up action, iris fade outs, etc.), the film critics of the time lavished the film with praise for being new and fresh — by using tricks that even then were old and cliché!

The cast of distinguished British stage notables tend to mug for the camera as if they were in a Jerry Lewis movie. Even Albert Finney in the title role fails to give any real performance, his character is jerked from scene to scene by circumstance rather than by dramatic motivation. Indeed, lovingly photographed as though he were in a spread for a fashion magazine, Finney has never looked so unrelentingly handsome and dashing — and, yet, been so vacuously lacking in personality. Amoral and callow, there is little reason to care for Jones’ fate other than the fact that he is so gosh-darn pretty.

Even granting that 1963 was a remarkably weak year for movies, TOM JONES’ winning of the Oscar (among several other prestigious awards) is a puzzlement. These things rarely go to comedies, unless it is perceived that they somehow represent something groundbreaking (like ANNIE HALL or AMERlCAN BEAUTY). Yet, even if TOM JONES was seen as some sort of bold departure from the norm, it didn’t stop the Academy from soon going back to form and giving their top prize to such stiff, shallow and self-important historical epics as A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, CHARIOTS OF FIRE, GANDHI, THE LAST EMPEROR, THE ENGLlSH PATIENT, BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR — all of which carry at least some glimmer of high-tone British superiority. So I suppose that even the thinnest patina of British class somehow, in their eyes, raised this low-brow mess to the level of high-brow social commentary. Or worse, art.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 9 min (129 min), 2 hr 1 min (121 min) (director’s cut) (USA)
Budget 1000000
Revenue 37600000
Status Released
Rated Not Rated
Genre Adventure, Comedy, History
Director Tony Richardson
Writer John Osborne, Henry Fielding
Actors Albert Finney, Susannah York, George Devine
Country United Kingdom
Awards Won 4 Oscars. 20 wins & 20 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Mono (Westrex Recording System), Dolby Stereo (restored version) (as Dolby Stereo® in selected theatres)
Aspect Ratio 1.37 : 1 (negative ratio), 1.66 : 1 (intended ratio)
Camera N/A
Laboratory Crest Film Laboratories, Hollywood (CA), USA (color), Humphries Laboratories, London, UK (color)
Film Length N/A
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman 50T 5251)
Cinematographic Process Spherical
Printed Film Format 35 mm