Best Picture "Tom Jones" (1963) DVD worth buying?

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Greg_M, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone have the 1963 Best picture "Tom Jones" with Albert Finney on DVD. I've heard the picture quality is pretty bad? Is this a Disc to avoid?
     
  2. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's pretty bad.

    If memory serves, I think the film itself need restoration work. This is combined with MGM's dismissive attitute towards their catalogue titles on DVD.

    Good film, lousy DVD.
     
  3. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It does indeed need some restoration work, particulary, the film's many day-for-night shots. I recall Robert Harris saying that it wouldn't be that difficult to restore, though.

    Rain, what brings you to the conclusion that MGM has a "dismissive" attitude to their catalogue title?! Pretty much all they have is catalogue titles! And for the most part, they do a damn-good job with them! [​IMG] [​IMG]


    Gordy
     
  4. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. Thomas T

    Thomas T Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,049
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Maybe it's just me but I'm old enough to have seen Tom Jones in its original theatrical run and it seemed a pretty ugly looking picture even back then. MGM could clean up the transfer a bit but I suspect the results still wouldn't impress anyone. I suppose one could do one of those North By Northwest digital clean ups but then it wouldn't look like Tom Jones, would it?
     
  6. Richard Carnahan

    Richard Carnahan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2001
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe it's just me but I'm old enough to have seen Tom Jones in its original theatrical run and it seemed a pretty ugly looking picture even back then. MGM could clean up the transfer a bit but I suspect the results still wouldn't impress anyone. I suppose one could do one of those North By Northwest digital clean ups but then it wouldn't look like Tom Jones, would it?

    ********

    I'm old enough to have seen TOM JONES on initial release, too (about four times, as I remember) and the color was GORGEOUS. No home video release does it justice. (I still have the old Magnetic Video laserdisc.)
     
  7. rob kilbride

    rob kilbride Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2001
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Rob Kilbride
    I read at IMDB that in 1989 the director removed quite a few scenes. Is this the version on the DVD or is it of the original length?
     
  8. Joe Caps

    Joe Caps Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,994
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    The DVD is the UNCUT vedrsion. Its not perfect but itlooks and sounds far better than any previous release.
     
  9. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I picked up a copy at Virgin $10.00. I was surprised that to find the film look a lot better than some of the reviews stated. It is colorful, the color is pretty accurate and the picture is mostly sharp. The day for night scenes look horrible but they are few and far between (Was it something in the mastering that wasn't corrected?)

    I saw the restored print in New York (Shortly after I saw the restored "Lawrence of Arabia") While I enjoyed the film, could in no way compare to the 70MM restoration of "Lawrence". I'm guessing the film has always had a soft, grainy look to it. But the scenes look pretty good, with the exception of the transitions which may have always looked less sharp (Due to the way the film was edited)

    This film is actually pretty innovative for 1963, as many of the film techniques used have become mainstream. The dialog and comedy was more sophisticated and adult than I would guess the public was used to seeing, and the "eating" scene is still very funny.[​IMG]
     

Share This Page