User reviews

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.

I've looked forward to this one for a while as I'm a big fan of the original novel by Henry Fielding. Unfortunately this new adaptation was a dull version of a rip-roaring and very funny book.

For me the two leads were both underwhelming and didn't really have any great chemistry between them. The supporting cast with such great character actors as Alan Armstrong and Felicity Montague frequently outshone them.

Direction and script were both a bit below par, the scenes felt curiously disjointed, it lacked dynamism and to be honest it was a bit dull.

I liked the cheery score by Mathew Slater but nothing else about it grabbed me. It falls far short of the late 90's TV Series and the wonderful Albert Finney film version. A miss.

It's really hard to believe that 60 years after original Tom Jones things couldn't have been done better. It is sterile, without any real emotions or life of its own.

I am old enough to remember the original Tom Jones with Albert Finney & Susannah York. Now that was funny & raucous! . This pales in comparison, but it's what one comes to expect from PBS....nothing to offend viewers. It's like it's made not to offend ANYONE!

Although we still watch PBS from Canada for some other fine shows with some more depth and substance and, dare I say, swearing. This must have been quite costly to produce....too bad there is no real life substance to it.

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.

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.

The cast list is like a who's who of the cream of British talent, topped by two lovely and good looking leads. The episodes fair gallops on its way, cutting through the boring exposition and getting quickly to the important stuff, the love story between Tom and Sophia. I love they made little changes in this, but my favourite part is Hannah Waddingham. Seriously, put this woman in EVERYTHING. She chews the scenery with relish and everyone else pales beside her on screen. She doesn't even need words to show her distaste, one scene just shows a quiver of feathers as indications of her anger!

If you get a chance, watch it in one go, it's perfect lazy weekend viewing.

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.

I'm sorry... I couldn't even finish the first episode. Why bother trying to re-create the wonderful movie version? If you're going to try to do that, at least cast it with fascinating actors. The biggest problem I had was the incredibly insipid portrayal of the lead character, Tom Jones. A new production should At least try to duplicate the fun loving, boisterous, joyful Tom Jones as portrayed by Albert Finley. Instead, I only saw a morose young man.

This was my biggest problem... But let's go onto others. Sophie Weston's father (in this version now her grandfather) was hilariously portrayed as a drunken, loud mouth in the movie by Hugh Griffith. Sadly, he has a stiff upper lip, albeit with a smile, in the TV miniseries.

If anyone continues to watch the series and thinks otherwise, please let us know if it got any better.

I don't get why all the bad reviews. This series is very nice.

Firstly, amazing costumes, acting and let's not forget about the amazing view of British countryside which is very well depicted in the series.

Maybe people expected the series to be true 100% to the book and hence the dissapointment. Even though the story is not like really really the one from the book is one pretty entertaining and very fun to watch. The choice of actors was really good and they did a great job.

I really recommend for you to watch it if you want some light series combined with romance, a bit of jealousy and of course some British scenery.

I can't say I'm familiar with the original or the book, but certainly heard of it. I have to say the characters were pretty unlikeable... Maybe that's what the book portrays. Males and females alike were snippy, immature, unrealistic ... Far too modern for the story. I would have to say it felt like watching a Disney adaptation, and not a good one.

I'm sad. Time of year to go hunting a good little series to fill network voids. Uh-uh, give this a miss. And 600 character mandatory responses here just make us inane and stupid at times. I didn't like it much. I didn't like it much. Not my cup of tea, so they say, definitely not worthy of my time. There ya go.

I've been watching PBS shows for fifty years, and I've been a financial supporter of PBS for about half that time. In all that time I don't know if Ive ever watched a Masterpiece series. Several weeks ago I had the pleasure of watching the movie "Belle" on another channel and soon after saw previews on PBS for "Tom Jones on Masterpiece" I Googled Tom Jones and got the quick details on the novel the show is based on. But to my great surprise, I somehow left Google thinking Sophia was the daughter of Black George etc. Etc.. I quickly paused the show after Black George appeared and did a more careful Googling of the novel. Then went back to enjoying the show and series.

The costumes were beautiful, the music inviting, the actors were wonderful, and I thoroughly enjoyed the series.

One day soon I hope to read the novel or see a version on screen that critics here loved in comparison to this they have panned. Thank you PBS. Thanks Masterpiece producers!

Surprisingly original screenplay, very good dialogues and fantastic camera, delightful colors.

This is what you want from English costume drama - and more. I really liked it.

The Tom Jones series is a delightful adaptation of Henry Fielding's classic novel, offering a perfect blend of romance, humor, and social commentary. The production captures the charm and wit of the original story while breathing fresh life into it with stunning visuals and nuanced performances.

The cast is exceptional, with the lead actor embodying the playful yet earnest nature of Tom Jones to perfection. The chemistry between the characters is compelling, drawing you into their relationships and conflicts. The period costumes and settings are beautifully crafted, immersing viewers in 18th-century England.

What truly stands out is how the series balances lighthearted moments with deeper themes about love, class, and morality. The writing is sharp, ensuring the humor and drama feel organic and engaging. Fans of historical dramas and literary adaptations will find Tom Jones a must-watch, as it stays true to the spirit of the novel while making it accessible and enjoyable for modern audiences.

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'.

Fiction is not history! If you want history read a freaking history book! Art is subjective and can change and differ and transform. Have you heard of speculative fiction? Alternative history?

I'm so sick and tired of boneheads voicing their boneheaded opinions. They are not trying to make a documentary on British history it's entertaining material designed to engage viewers in a fun time!

With that said I've appreciated the counters and the effort to bring this world to life but there are definite shortcomings that need to be addressed. First, the writing needed to be fighter and the acting sharper. This is mid.

If this had been made by the Andrew Davies and the BBC in the 90s, it would have been flawless, and worthy of the same title as the original story. I'm not sure at all why this was made and called Tom Jones. They may has well have called it any other name - it's not the story that was Tom Jones.

And because I have to get to the character count....

If this had been made by the Andrew Davies and the BBC in the 90s, it would have been flawless, and worthy of the same title as the original story. I'm not sure at all why this was made and called Tom Jones. They may has well have called it any other name - it's not the story that was Tom Jones.