mark.waltz So asks the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and the gang return with the witches' broomstick. Well, I'm asking that here for this farce of a period comedy of sexual deviance in the era of "Tom Jones". I actually thought more of something that Voltaire might have written, or maybe even a Benny Hill TV show sketch, and a touch of "Sweeney Todd" and the Thenardiers of "Les Miserables" thrown in while watching this non-sensical costume piece where everybody looks like clowns who had spent hours having flour fights.Blonde and beautiful Peter Firth, the horse-loving boy of "Equus", is the title character who spends more time romping around either in the nude or in the hay with various women than even Albert Finney's Tom Jones did. Poor Ann-Margret looks ridiculous in a tomato colored wig while a group of singing nuns chant as Firth is sexually attacked by a hideous looking peasant woman. I couldn't make heads or tails out of what was supposed to be going on. "Tom Jones" was too far in the distant past to warrant an imitator, especially one put together in an era past the mod films of the late 60's and early '70's.Veteran British character actors Michael Hordern and the always dependable Beryl Reid suffer only slight indignities, while smaller roles are essayed by future Oscar winners John Gielgud (only briefly) and Peggy Ashcroft. Veteran actor Jim Dale provides a musical number regarding his tryst with a hot- blooded gypsy. The costumes seem like something worn by the hideous guests at the Baron's birthday party in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" in which you were supposed to realize how awful they were. Ann-Margret, whose make-up makes her cheekbones look like giant pimples, can't really be taking this all seriously.The man behind the camera was none other than Tony Richardson, who directed the 1963 Oscar Winning Best Picture "Tom Jones", one I feel hasn't stood up to the test of time. Try not to laugh at the sped-up sexual sequence that looks like something out of the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner hour. In retrospect, this is the type of film that appears to get even worse as every minute of it goes by.

trimmerb1234 This sumptuous 18th Century romp is both bawdy and beautiful (sometimes simultaneously). From powdered wigs and fluttered fans to farmyard frolics there is fast paced farce. But it is Ann Margaret who commands attention - the white-faced period make-up accentuates her expression whether of predatory interest in a fresh faced youth or flashes of anger and frustration when her designs and desires are thwarted. I'm not sure any of her actress contemporaries could summon up that amount of power in a single look.Richardson once again brings humour to history (the traffic jam of horse-drawn carriages is neat and funny). Even the demise of Ann-Margaret's elderly gouty husband ("taking the waters" at Bath in England) combines beauty with dark humour.One curious inexplicable failing are the opening titles - firstly in the dreadfully monotonous and repetitive song sung in thoroughly undistinguished fashion by Jim Dale and the flat, lifeless and pointless visuals appearing behind the titles. Those who have seen the dazzling title sequence to his "Charge of the Light Brigade" will be especially struck by difference. In this latter case the titles had been farmed out to an animator who regarded it as his best - and hardest - work. What a shame Richardson did not do the same here.Overall a classic even if flawed.

floydianer History has forgotten this film, it's never talked about, almost never shown. Why? It's certainly not a quality problem. Richardson was of course trying desperately to get back to the level of success Tom Jones had a decade before. The fact that he's trying to copy himself gets the film some minus points.The story is simple, a little too dependent on coincidences and unrealistic twists. The costumes are great, as are the wonderful settings. You certainly feel like you really are there in the 17th Century.Firth and Ogle as the young loving couple are attractive but bland. They fail to live up to the comedic demands of Fielding's story. The rest of the cast does a very good job on the other hand. Special mention should go to Michael Hordern and Beryl Reid, two of Britain's finest actors. Nevertheless the best acting in the film comes not from one of the British theater and character actors but instead from the only American in the cast: Ann-Margret. She was rightfully nominated for a Golden Globe but would have deserved an Oscar non too. It's a brilliant satiric performance full of subtlety and vulgarity at the same time, comic timing that's never off, she dominates the film. Considering the talent that is working alongside her, that's quite a feat. Her accent is perfect too, something that rarely happens and could so easily destroy such a film. In the worst possible scenario she could have been an anachronistic sex kitten from the 60s stuck in a costume drama: Those fears never come true, she's great. The thick make-up (that fits the role perfectly) prevents us from seeing hernatural beauty but she's still quite a sight. Why American producersdidn't see the film and immediately give her a comic lead role in anHollywood A film, seems like a brutal shame.Overall, a fun little history story of love, romance and adventure.

coolbluegreen This is a delightful, absolutely hilarious, visually stunning adaptation of Henry Fielding's Joseph Andrews. It is not 100% true to the book, but it really doesn't matter. I have seen this movie so many times, and I am thrilled it is finally available on DVD! I encourage everyone to see it.