Lucky Jim (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

OK but that's about all

[12-string · 6/10 · 18 March 2002]

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.

A cracking drama.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 19 January 2016]

This always seemed like such a random production, at the time it was crime drama after crime drama. The re-imagining of Kingsley Amis's famous novel felt like a breath of fresh air. I can remember reading the original Radio Times write up and thinking it was a recipe for disaster, what a pleasant surprise it was though. It's still arguably my favourite ever performance from Stephen Tompkinson, he's one of those actors I feel is either really right or really wrong in parts, he was spot on here. The crackpot 'Robert Hardy' was also perfectly cast, but the show was stolen by Helen McCrory, she was just a joy throughout, her maniacal behaviour and random laughing was magical, a truly talented actress.

A great drama that deserves a proper release, really glad I recorded this when it went out.

Lots of fun 8/10

Lightweight, but beautifully done

[Valerio · 6/10 · 2 December 2007]

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.

However many stars you allow, I give it one more!

[barry-106 · 9/10 · 13 April 2003]

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.

Don't be so picky. It was a nice film.

[keystone_cop17 · 7 December 2003]

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.

Not so much an "Angry Young Man" - more a bewildered one.

[ianlouisiana · 10/10 · 16 March 2015]

There is a lovely Kingsley Amis interview by Simon Raven available on Youtube that dates from 1957.In it he discusses his masterpiece "Lucky Jim" and puts Jim not so much pro - Socialist but Anti - Tory,a nice distinction that this 2003,TV adaptation conveys very well. Of course,the Socialism on display is anyway very much of the "Champagne" variety beloved of New Labour by then into their second term. Jim Dixon is not,Amis insists,based on himself. Mr S.Tomlinson conveys an unworldliness typical of Academia,that somehow can come over as the absolute certainty that he is right about everything until he finds out for himself that he's wrong. The film is set at the dawn of the New Elizabethan Age when Brits were probably entitled to think that a new era of optimism and affluence was about to begin. Near full employment,the end of rationing,the relaxing of export regulations all pointed to a sunny tomorrow. But chaps like Jim Dixon,bright,Northern,working class,could see through all that to the rottenness at the core of British Society as exemplified by the University System and it blithe acceptance of its own superiority. He appears as intent on upsetting the status quo as Mr R.Hardy and his fellows are on perpetuating it. Beset by contradictions and temptations on all sides,Dixon navigates his way to personal redemption. Mr Tomlinson is excellent,as different from Mr I.Carmichael in the original movie as can be.He does not have Mr Carmichael's "silly ass" persona which gives his Dixon a lot more credibility if not quite so much likability. This is a well - made and considered adaptation of a seminal mid - century English novel by a man who just at present has had a posthumous career setback brought on by politically correct hindsight. In due time he will regain his temporarily mislaid eminence and this 2003 TV film will then be ready for re - assessment as one of the best productions of the first decade of the present century.

They don't get much worse than this. Crass, dull, superficial adaptation of a novel that could have made a good TV comedy.

[AlanJ2 · 1/10 · 17 April 2003]

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.

Could do with a different leading man

[daodao · 5/10 · 19 October 2002]

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.