ianlouisiana 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.

keystone_cop17 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.

AlanJ2 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.

12-string 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.