Lucky Jim

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.

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.

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 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.

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.