Lucky Jim (2003)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Redundant and unnecessary.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

I forget the details of the novel, so can't comment on the quality of the adaptation. The characterisation was not deep, so I expect something was lost there: every character was easily identifiable with s single foible or virtue, and I found this rather annoying. But the dramatic weakness made for good comedy. Similarly double-edged was the handling of the plot: every development was so clearly signalled that there wasn't the slightest possibility of anyone in the audience getting lost - not even me, and I too frequently get lost in the plots of films! But again it made it all seem rather superficial. Apart from these criticisms, though, I thought it was well-nigh perfect: not a classic, but a delightfully amusing and vivid period piece, which I would watch again with pleasure. Brilliant performances by all the cast, and handled with a sure touch by the entire production team.

I happened to enjoy this film adaptation of the novel "Lucky Jim". I thought that the performances were of a fine nature and, unlike another one of these fine reviewers, I was rooting for Jim to get the girl. He's the underdog, and indeed looks the part. I think it was an appropriate casting choice. Now, I have not read the book, and I probably never will, however I know when I see an entertaining film. It is not breathtakingly brilliant or life changing, sure, but everything can't be. I was very much taken with the story, and felt that I could empathize with Jim immensely. I also enjoyed the use of the song "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" in it's various forms. Overall a good production, I would recommend it those seeking my recommendation. I give it three out of four stars.

I approached this TV film with distrust: TV is not usually very good at re-creating 1950s Britain, and I have to admit a prejudice when I say I think only the BBC can do it well. But this one was spot on. Of course, it comes from a first-class comic novel, and Jack Rosenthal's adaptation was as good as anything he has done. Stephen Tompkinson was outstanding as the very first of the 'angry young men' of the 50s. One other reviewer said he/she didn't empathise with the character and that he was wooden: what I believe he re-created to perfection was the 'square peg' syndrome of a young socialist, working-class Northerner at university in England in the 1950s. Tompkinson is an actor in a classic British tradition. Helen McCrory also gave the most delightful performance I have seen on the screen in ages. Much credit, too, to the designers, who re-created the period perfectly, even down to the poster for the dance, an affectionate echo of the Festival of Britain in that same year. A superb production that I wish I could get on DVD.

Bland TVM version of the classic Kingsley Amis novel is no substitute for reading the book. Cast are appealing though mostly n/k in the USA, and 50s atmosphere fair enough if you weren't there, but it's just not funny enough. Dixon's "Merrie England" speech plays particularly flat here and was of course the high point of the novel. The backstory is also handled much more fluidly in the novel than in Jack Rosenthal's teleplay. Where are all of Dixon's imitations? And what about his article? The romance story gets virtually all the screen time here, making this just another Masterpiece Theater specimen of BMG in period duds. Helen McCrory does quite well, considering the script, as psycho gf Margaret but the Welches are missing that mix of asininity and menace that Amis captured on paper.Do yourself a favor. Skip the movie and read the book. It hasn't aged a bit in 50 years and you'll thank me when you finally put it down.