haineshisway
Senior HTF Member
Very surprised to see no chatter about this release at all here, and very few reviews of it elsewhere. I ordered from the Criterion sale but their page was so confusing I accidentally got the DVD by mistake - so back that went and they sent me the Blu-ray. I had the MGM/UA DVD release and some Japanese DVD release, both absolutely wretched. It's no wonder that folks watching that travesty of a transfer didn't care for the film, that and the fact that people today doing the reviewing can't ever seem to understand the context of when a film was released. It's like the kiddies today who see Psycho for the first time and proclaim not scary and boring. Uh huh.
I saw Tom Jones repeatedly during its initial exclusive long run at the Beverly Theatre in Beverly Hills. About fifteen times in all. Every showing was packed to the rafters, and I am here to tell you that the laughs were huge, boisterous, and often, screaming laughter, every time. Because the common complaint among the reviews of both the DVD and the two I've seen for the Blu-ray is that it's not very funny. Well, it's a different world today. When Mr. Richardson did his recut people were baffled by the film then for the same reason - it's been ripped off so many times by so many inferior talents and the world is simply different now - but at the time, this film was so invigorating and fresh and wild, and audiences ate it up like a C.C. Brown's hot fudge sundae. There is a reason it won all those Oscars - it was loved and it was a huge success.
The DVDs were transferred from who knows what, but they were completely brown and faded and disgusting and, needless to say, unwatchable. So, what do we have here? We have a transfer that's mostly off the camera negative but with more than a few shots and sequences taken from interpositives and internegatives. I found it completely obvious when it went from the camera negative to the other negs and it's a shame that the entire transfer couldn't be done from the camera negative, because the majority that IS from that looks fantastic. Sharp, detailed, and COLOR, actual color - greens, reds, blues, browns (rather than all brown mud) - what a treat to see it at least resembling what it was back in 1963.
I do not like the director's cut at all so here's a big old warning and perhaps someone can explain to me why Criterion would do this: The first disc you pull out has no identifier as to which version it is. Why? So, assuming Criterion would of course put the Oscar-winning theatrical cut on the first disc you pull out, that's what I watched. I didn't notice at all that it said "director's cut" under the title on the menu screen because as soon as that screen came up I hit play. So, it's the disc that's underneath the plastic that you want - that is the theatrical release, and why that wouldn't be on top is anyone's guess. How irritating. The theatrical cut is much better - Richardson thought he was tightening, but all those bits, many of which are from the first third of the film, are helpful in terms of pace and story. I recommend watching the film that was actually released back in 1963.
For me, it's still fun to watch Tom Jones. It's wild and wooly and charming. Albert Finney is great, and the large supporting cast is just brilliant. Edith Evans made me laugh out loud, just as she did back in 1963. And a large part of what makes the whole thing work is John Addison's wonderful score (I put out the very first CD release of it a decade ago) - the love theme is delightful, and the action and comedy scoring is exemplary.
So, I highly recommend this, even with the caveats that the non-camera negative footage is not as crisp or detailed or colorful. Haven't looked at the extras but they seem like they might be interesting.
I saw Tom Jones repeatedly during its initial exclusive long run at the Beverly Theatre in Beverly Hills. About fifteen times in all. Every showing was packed to the rafters, and I am here to tell you that the laughs were huge, boisterous, and often, screaming laughter, every time. Because the common complaint among the reviews of both the DVD and the two I've seen for the Blu-ray is that it's not very funny. Well, it's a different world today. When Mr. Richardson did his recut people were baffled by the film then for the same reason - it's been ripped off so many times by so many inferior talents and the world is simply different now - but at the time, this film was so invigorating and fresh and wild, and audiences ate it up like a C.C. Brown's hot fudge sundae. There is a reason it won all those Oscars - it was loved and it was a huge success.
The DVDs were transferred from who knows what, but they were completely brown and faded and disgusting and, needless to say, unwatchable. So, what do we have here? We have a transfer that's mostly off the camera negative but with more than a few shots and sequences taken from interpositives and internegatives. I found it completely obvious when it went from the camera negative to the other negs and it's a shame that the entire transfer couldn't be done from the camera negative, because the majority that IS from that looks fantastic. Sharp, detailed, and COLOR, actual color - greens, reds, blues, browns (rather than all brown mud) - what a treat to see it at least resembling what it was back in 1963.
I do not like the director's cut at all so here's a big old warning and perhaps someone can explain to me why Criterion would do this: The first disc you pull out has no identifier as to which version it is. Why? So, assuming Criterion would of course put the Oscar-winning theatrical cut on the first disc you pull out, that's what I watched. I didn't notice at all that it said "director's cut" under the title on the menu screen because as soon as that screen came up I hit play. So, it's the disc that's underneath the plastic that you want - that is the theatrical release, and why that wouldn't be on top is anyone's guess. How irritating. The theatrical cut is much better - Richardson thought he was tightening, but all those bits, many of which are from the first third of the film, are helpful in terms of pace and story. I recommend watching the film that was actually released back in 1963.
For me, it's still fun to watch Tom Jones. It's wild and wooly and charming. Albert Finney is great, and the large supporting cast is just brilliant. Edith Evans made me laugh out loud, just as she did back in 1963. And a large part of what makes the whole thing work is John Addison's wonderful score (I put out the very first CD release of it a decade ago) - the love theme is delightful, and the action and comedy scoring is exemplary.
So, I highly recommend this, even with the caveats that the non-camera negative footage is not as crisp or detailed or colorful. Haven't looked at the extras but they seem like they might be interesting.
