keith-moyes-656-481491 This is a clearly an accomplished and comprehensive version of Fielding's famous book. I cannot really fault the production nor can I greatly disagree with any of the other highly appreciative IMDb reviews. So why didn't I enjoy it more?It is not the cast: Max Beesley's Tom is fine; Samantha Morton is an excellent Sophia; James D'Arcy is a surprisingly restrained but still effective Blifil; while Benjamin Whitrow, Brian Blessed, Frances De La Tour, Tessa Peake Jones etc. are all at least as good as past experience of their work lead me to expect.I think the problem lies in the novel itself. I had to read it as a school text and remember being daunted by its extreme length (it was easily the longest book I had ever tried to tackle up to that time) but I have not read it since then. Given my fading recollections of the book, this dramatisation came as something of a surprise.I expected a long, rambling, picaresque story, in which we follow dozens of characters over many years, but it actually consists of a childhood prologue setting up the main action, which then centres on a relative handful of characters and takes place over just a few weeks.The opening episode is feature film length, but it felt longer. It sets up Tom's birth and childhood, his love for Sophia, his rivalry with the treacherous Blifil and culminates in his banishment.From time to time, Henry Fielding (John Sessions) strolls across the screen, commenting on his own tale. This device helps establish the playful, self-mocking tone of the story, disarms any criticism of its improbable, coincidence-driven plot and is an efficient way to introduce the characters and set up narrative developments.Unfortunately, Fielding's presence is so conspicuous in this opening episode, and his flippancy is so relentless, that it tended to distance me from the actual drama. I found it took quite a long time for me to start empathising with the characters or care about what was happening to them.The other episodes are between 50 and 60 minutes and are better paced, so I found them generally more enjoyable. Having set up the story in the first episode, John Sessions becomes less obtrusive and less of a distraction. Even so, I still found the whole series a bit of a let-down.The problem is that the story which eventually unfolds seems to be 'much ado about nothing'. It consists of little more than the main protagonists, in various groupings, chasing each other from inn to inn, or lodging house to lodging house, and getting into brawls. Eventually, everybody fetches up in London, the frantic pace eases up and the intrigues start to proliferate. In fact, in the last couple of episodes there are so many people lurking behind curtains and hiding in cupboards that the story threatens to turn into a Georgian Whitehall farce.In the Eighteenth Century, the novel was a revelation. Its earthiness, emotional generosity and amused tolerance of human frailty were seen as welcome antidotes to the self-righteous, po-faced moralising of Richardson and his imitators.But who reads Richardson today?I think this may be the problem I have with this series. Once Tom Jones is taken out of its literary and historical context it loses most of its satiric point and purpose.What is left is a story that is too slight, too broadly farcical, too repetitive and too drawn-out to consistently hold my interest, even in a production as good as this.

JCR_In_Jersey Other posters have stated that the Finney version of this story is the best.I wholeheartedly disagree. This story, as with most of Henry Fielding's stories, is intended as a parody of English 'morality' in his day. The Finney version is a lot of fun, but it's just a film about silly people wandering the countryside. In the A&E version, Brian Blessed performed his character (Mr. Western) in exactly the over-the-top correct way to ridicule the English wealthy. Mr. Allworthy was absolutely perfect as someone who believes that since he is a good honest man, the rest of the world must be good and honest as well. Tom's aunt has the line that in my opinion sums up the meaning of this book/movie (paraphrased), "It is not enough that your actions are good, you must make sure that they appear to be so."

theprovinces We had the video box set since it first came out -- it was sealed and in our video drawer until this month (December, 2002), when I sold the videos and bought the DVD box set.I can't believe we waited this long to watch it! Max Beasley is wonderful (and yes, a real Ewan MacGregor look-a-like) as is Samantha Morton and the rest of the cast.The Oscar-winning 1963 version seems dated and over-the-top compared to the A&E production. Bawdy, racy, all the things Fielding's novel was criticized for, that all remains. It's surprisingly funny and sweet and very, very enjoyable!

Scooter-8 I beg to differ with Julie who hated this adaptation of TOM JONES. I think the problem with it is that watching this is a lot more like reading an older book such as TOM JONES, more like it than most adaptations. You have to settle into the slower pace and appreciate the details that come with the pace. I find all of the seven featured leads outstanding, each having wonderful moments of their own. Max Beesley and Samantha Morton do SO much with their characters. I haven't seen him in anything else but if you want to really appreciate her, watch this TOM JONES and then right after it, watch the excellent film JESUS' SON. She's amazing. In conclusion - I say if you're inclined at all to watch this TOM JONES, do a little deep breathing or meditating first and you will, like me, LOVE it.