Tom Jones

Who cares if Sophia's black? Do you think even in the mid-1700s everyone was a racist? Of course not. So why isn't it possible that a grandfather might want the remaining tie to his late son, even if she's black? Yes, I know the grandfather should be Sophia's father, but also, so what?

If you get bogged down by this minutae, you'll miss out on a completely entertaining miniseries. Hubby and I laughed and laughed. Sohhie Wilde as Sophia is feisty and smart, naive and gorgeous. Solly McLeod, playing Tom, is totally charming. Charm is a necessity greater than being a great actor -- although he's very good BTW -- as Tom's the dude no lady can resist.

And one lady who can't resist him is Lady Bellaston, played in all her towering magnificence by Hannah Waddingham.

It's a terrific rom-com. The entertainment is in the journey, because you always know how it will end. It's playful, it looks gorgeous. What's not to like? Just enjoy it.

Not having seen the 1963 film, I didn't tune in to this version with any comparisons in mind. So it's just what this production offered-or rather, didn't offer-that led me to bail after the first episode. On the whole, the performances were reasonable, but hardly great. One exception would be that of Tom Jones himself, Solly McLeod, who was clearly cast on the basis of looks, acting ability be damned. It's hardly a formula for success when the supporting cast has to carry the show.

One thing that this production shares with many other recent period pieces is the almost certain appearance of characters of color, which other reviewers have noted and criticized. Given that there actually were Africans and Afro-Caribbean people living in Britain at that time, it wouldn't have been impossible to find them. But since the majority were former slaves, the chance of so many making their way into the gentry (and even the aristocracy) really stretches believability. But there is no central casting authority that makes these choices for every historical production being made these days. Rather, I believe it's more of a marketing strategy, not aimed so much at the underserved potential Black viewership of these "bonnet dramas", but as a tacit sign to younger audiences that what they are about to see is a production with fully modern values; values that their parents and grandparents would find shocking. It's not clear to me that this is an effective strategy, since older demographics are the more likely consumer of these period pieces than younger ones.

If you are a fan of Masterpiece Classic series just be warned that this one pushes the envelope of what we're familiar with and feels comparable to other historical dramas (?) romances (?) on other platforms. I wanted something warm and fuzzy and I feel that's how this show was marketed, but isn't making me feel this way.

Episode 3 made me write this review (and you can find a similar one in that episode review). It's my least favorite episode of the series so far. Going into watching this show I did not know the source material and have been learning about it while watching this series. I feel the tone of the book and the tone of the show are two different things, which I understand happens when adapting a novel. However, the show has two different tones going on. A comedic, rompy one with Tom's storyline and a tragic, and dramatic love story with Sophia (So-phi-a). I really felt that in the third episode it made it difficult for me to understand Tom's lackadaisical actions and I felt like I fast forwarded in time from the last episode and yet there was no indication that was the case.

I do like what they're exploring with Sophia's story and race. I just wish that tone was carried through to Tom's plot so it didn't feel so unbalanced.

I know. It's supposed to be based on the Henry Fielding bawdy and humorous classic. I have not read the book and I don't remember the 60's film but I doubt it resembles this. This is like the Jane Austen books and films that I never finished, perhaps made bawdy by the bust-enhancing corsets but certainly not humorous.

I watched this only for Hannah Waddingham and, as Cruella de Ville of the 1800's, she does not disappoint. Unfortunately she is featured in but two of the four episodes.

The scenery in the first episode and the costumes throughout are magnificent. Visually this series is amazing. How this version of the story unfolds, however, is a solid 'meh'.

The 1963 Tom Jones was a deserved classic, perfectly cast and well nigh perfectly adapted. But most of all it was fantastically high spirited, with wit and energy from the first frame. It caused me to read Fielding's novel, one of the great comic romps in English literature.

The inevitable concessions to the spirit of these times don't bother me in this version. But the utter lifelessness, the joylessness, the absence of humor and wit - that does. And making Sophie the narrator and center of wisdom is just absurd. Fielding's Sophie, wonderfully portrayed by Susannah York on the movie, is a smart, but youthful ingenue, beginning her own life's journey (to be sure, with many fewer options than a young man of that v era). Giving her preternatural insight doesn't work.

In short, another BBC disaster. You'd think one of these days the writers and directors who do these things will figure out that you can't slip a little sermon into these classics and have them survive. Not yet, evidently.