Lucky Jim

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.

Very dull, laborious adaptation of Amis's amusing satire. The hero is portrayed not as a likeable loser but a merely oafish cretin. Most of the rest are pure caricatures with only Helen McCrory putting in real quality and providing something of the novel's wit. The period setting is camped up as if it were the 1920s, not the post-war period of horror comics and rock'n' roll. A real dud even by the standards of bad UK TV.

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.

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read the Kingsley Amis book that provides the basis for this movie. Therefore, I can't comment on whether Tompkinson fits the character drawn in the book. However, I would say that what I felt was a major weakness of this movie is that I couldn't find myself empathising with Tompkinson's character - I didn't want him to get the girl or keep his job, because he didn't come across as someone you wished well. His character was not particularly likeable - especially in the scene where he was drunk at the professor's house, where he came accross as obnoxious. His speech was more painful that funny to watch, though that may have been the point. I think a lead actor slightly less wooden may have created more empathy. Helen McCrory is very good, and Robert Hardy is always good to watch.

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.