Joseph Andrews

1977 "A lady's secrets. A servant's lust. A lover's betrayal."
5.6| 1h39m| R| en| More Info
Released: 09 March 1977 Released
Producted By: Paramount
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Lady Booby alias 'Belle', the lively wife of the fat landed squire Sir Thomas Booby, has a lusty eye on the attractive, intelligent villager Joseph Andrews, a Latin pupil and protégé of parson Adams, and makes him their footman. Joseph's heart belongs to a country girl, foundling Fanny Goodwill, but his masters take him on a fashionable trip to Bath, where the spoiled society comes mainly to see and be seen, but drowns in the famous Roman baths. When the all but grieving lady finds Joseph's Christian virtue and true love resist her lusting passes just as well as the many ladies who fancy her footman, she fires the boy. He's found and nursed by an innkeeper's maid, which stirs lusts there, again besides his honorable conduct, but is found by the good parson.

Genre

Comedy, Romance

Watch Online

Joseph Andrews (1977) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Tony Richardson

Production Companies

Paramount

Joseph Andrews Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Joseph Andrews Audience Reviews

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks
SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped
Bereamic Awesome Movie
Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
pp312 Funny, I never could get into Tom Jones. That it won Best Picture is a wonder to me. I just found it messy, badly filmed and edited and mostly incomprehensible. Joseph Andrews, however, is a different matter; I laughed heartily and found the whole thing to be what Tom Jones failed to be: a genuinely entertaining bawdy riot. How this film is so lowly rated mystifies me. Everything seems right, especially Ann Margaret who acts her skirt off (literally), and Peter Firth at least looks young and desirable, unlike Albert Finny who always looked too old to be romping around in the woods making a goose of himself. Such a shame this film isn't better known and more often shown.
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.
bkoganbing Another reviewer described Peter Firth in this film as "ludicrously pretty." It's not only true, but for a future film I'm going to reference that comment in describing Leif Garrett. But as for Joseph Andrews, Peter Firth's looks and innocence keep drawing women to him like flies to flypaper.Peter Firth's been brought up by pious pastor Michael Hordern who is a throwback to the Puritans of the last century. He's definitely out of place in mid 18th century Great Britain, the age of Walpole and the first two Hanoverian Georges were ones in which they believed in let the good times roll. Peter's spotted by Ann-Margret wife of fat nobleman Peter Bull who thinks he'd make an excellent footman and of course she has other things in mind. Especially after Bull expires in an old Roman bath that the gentry of Hanoverian Great Britain have revived the custom of.Firth's got every woman in the cast chasing him, but he wants to stay virtuous and save himself for his true love Natalie Ogle. That proves close to impossible, in the meantime everyone is envying his good luck with the ladies.Tony Richardson who directed Tom Jones fourteen years earlier to an Academy Award for Best Picture brings the same eye for detail to the sets and costuming and atmosphere of the same era that Henry Fielding was writing about. The two in the cast I love are Beryl Reid with that wonderful Dickensian name of Mrs. Slipslop and Ann-Margret as Lady Booby who does more than hold her own with the British cast. Bridging the two Fielding/Richardson collaborations is Hugh Griffith who returns briefly in this film in his role as Squire Western from Tom Jones.Joseph Andrews for reasons I can't explain is unjustly overlooked and critics seem to say Richardson was just trying to recreate Tom Jones again. Considering it's the same source that gave us Tom Jones that charge is ridiculous. Joseph Andrews has enough merit to stand on its own and should be seen and recognized for the fine film it is.
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.