Planned as a follow-up to PRIVATE'S PROGRESS (1956), the Boulting Brothers' version of the Kingsley Amis classic substitutes physical comedy for much of the novel's satire. Ian Carmichael plays Jim Dixon as an amiable dolt, well-meaning but hopelessly lost in a faculty world of would-be Oxbridge dons. Professor Welch (Hugh Griffith) comes across as forgetful yet obsessive; his wife (Jean Anderson) as an incorrigible snob; and their son Bertram (Terry-Thomas) as a pretentious layabout. They inhabit a world of the past, dominated by images of 'Merrie England' - an idealized version of history that in Dixon's view never existed. By contrast Dixon tries to inspire his learners by encouraging them to speculate on alternative versions of the past. The film's enduring theme ("Oh, Lucky Jim!") by John Addison offers an ironic counterpoint to many of the protagonists' misadventures; he is clearly NOT lucky in many of the things he does - for example, bringing a bulldog into the Welches' front room to disrupt their evening concert, or creating total anarchy in the middle of a procession dedicated to the new Chancellor's (Clive Morton's) inauguration. Carmichael possesses a certain degree of comic talent as the innocent lost in a world of pseudo-sophisticates, but the Boultings' attempt to turn him into a Keatonesque figure, complete with a repertoire of India-rubber facial expressions, falls rather flat. The film ends happily with Dixon getting the girl (Sharon Acker), but only after a chase-sequence involving a series of unconvincing studio shots that seems out of place in terms of the film as a whole. It's nice to see him get the better of the Welch family, but we don't get the sense that he is in any proud of his grammar school education which (in terms of the novel at least) is particularly important at the time of the film's original release, when redbrick universities were offering greater opportunities to people from all social backgrounds to advance themselves. The Welch family might not like these social upstarts invading their intellectual space but, in terms of British history as a whole, they were the future while the Welches represented the past.
26 Reviews
Lucky education
Prismark101 July 2014
Kingsley Amis might not had liked the adaptation of his novel set in a redbrick university in 1950s Britain when university education started to expand and took on some working class students. The Boulting brothers film comes across a little too much of an Ealing comedy for my liking with slapstick and loses the novel's edge.
Ian Carmichael is the northern grammar school boy made good but looking for a permanent teaching job at the university. To do this he has to toady to Professor Welch and his family and every task he is entrusted to do ends in disaster sometimes due to Jim's shortcomings.
As a lecturer Jim is passionate with a leftist slant on history in contrast with Professor Welch dull and old fashioned musings which we see when Jim has to deliver Welch's lecture.
In between we have Jim getting into escapades with Terry Thomas and his Canadian girlfriend and a slapstick scene involving a parade with flowers on the quadrant of the university.
However whilst Carmichael is spirited as Jim he looks too old, even worse Terry Thomas looks too old as the son of the Professor Welch.
The film is episodic and although starts promisingly enough it tries too hard to be an Ealing style comedy rather than a satirical adaptation. The redbrick university never convinces maybe I have seen too many of these places that were built in the 1960s.
Ian Carmichael is the northern grammar school boy made good but looking for a permanent teaching job at the university. To do this he has to toady to Professor Welch and his family and every task he is entrusted to do ends in disaster sometimes due to Jim's shortcomings.
As a lecturer Jim is passionate with a leftist slant on history in contrast with Professor Welch dull and old fashioned musings which we see when Jim has to deliver Welch's lecture.
In between we have Jim getting into escapades with Terry Thomas and his Canadian girlfriend and a slapstick scene involving a parade with flowers on the quadrant of the university.
However whilst Carmichael is spirited as Jim he looks too old, even worse Terry Thomas looks too old as the son of the Professor Welch.
The film is episodic and although starts promisingly enough it tries too hard to be an Ealing style comedy rather than a satirical adaptation. The redbrick university never convinces maybe I have seen too many of these places that were built in the 1960s.
A good Boulting Brothers comedy,but not a filmed novel.....
ianlouisiana27 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Kingsley Amis was not an "Angry Young Man",Jim Dixon was no Jimmy Porter full of contempt and loathing. He was,no doubt,and rightly so,contemptuous of his boss Professor Welch but desperate to keep on the right side of him as he struggled to retain a permanent position in Welch's History Dept in a less than inspiring provincial university in the early 1950s. "No other Professor in Great Britain",thought Jim,"set such store by being called Professor". Welch is played in the Grand Manner by Mr H.Griffith whose plummy Welsh tones roll around Common Rooms and Dining Rooms alike. He feeds off the sycophancy of his inferiors - anybody who is not a Professor - and accepts Dixon's unquestioning advocacy as his due. His son Bertrand(Mr T - Thomas;quite brilliant) is an objectionable would - be writer,also assiduous in seeking acolytes and admirers. His girlfriend Christine(Miss S. Acker fitting a fifties stereotype) becomes the object of Dixon's fantasies as he struggles to rescue himself from a somewhat bizarre relationship with a work colleague. Mr I.Carmichael is a slightly more assertive Stanley Windrush - the character he played in other Boulting comedies. The novel relates Dixon's thoughts and no one else's so with the film we are seeing Jim from the outside for the first time and the Boultings actually make a good job of fleshing him out,perhaps making him "nicer" than Amis intended,but giving Mr Carmichael a chance to move away from his nervous city gent,junior - officer persona. James Ellroy said of the filmed adaptation of "L.A.Confidential".. "The book was mine - the movie is theirs". Mr Amis may not have been so pragmatic,but the sentiment remains true. His novel was a bit more subtle,his Dixon perhaps more complex,and there are some jarring differences that will surprise and perhaps offend the more sensitive of the book's admirers,but the fact remains that the film "Lucky Jim" is very funny with some fine British actors at the top of their game and a worthy addition to the Boulting Brothers' oeuvre.
Flawed but fun.
david-69730 August 2004
Fans of Kingsley Amis's brilliant novel might with justification hate this adaptation, but taken on its own terms, it is an enjoyable slice of 'fifties British comedy. While the novel's bite may have been lost, the movie's troubled production history (a few weeks into the filming, the original director, Ealing's Charles Crichton, was replaced) fails to show on the finished film.
Ian Charmichael is at his best in this movie. The combination of a (realistic) Northern accent, plus a slightly harder edged characterisation, helps distance him from his usual 'silly ass' image. Perhaps he isn't the Dixon of the book, but it is a fair attempt. A first rate cast adds to the fun, in particular a small but perfectly formed cameo by Terry-Thomas steals the movie.
The final chase is, as been noted, the movie's weakest link (it seems to come out of nowhere and does not fit in with the rest of the film) and is it fair from being the best Amiss adaptation (that honour belongs to the wonderful 'Only Two Can Play'). But despite these flaws, it remains a watch able enough movie.
Ian Charmichael is at his best in this movie. The combination of a (realistic) Northern accent, plus a slightly harder edged characterisation, helps distance him from his usual 'silly ass' image. Perhaps he isn't the Dixon of the book, but it is a fair attempt. A first rate cast adds to the fun, in particular a small but perfectly formed cameo by Terry-Thomas steals the movie.
The final chase is, as been noted, the movie's weakest link (it seems to come out of nowhere and does not fit in with the rest of the film) and is it fair from being the best Amiss adaptation (that honour belongs to the wonderful 'Only Two Can Play'). But despite these flaws, it remains a watch able enough movie.
Not quite what I expected but worth seeing
miana_hmmp19 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The main ideas of the book are portrayed in the film. However, I think that some relevant aspects of the book were not mentioned. The way that Dixon sees his job, for example. The book shows clearly that he doesn't like teaching and doesn't take his job seriously. The instability of Margaret Peel is another example. In the book, she acts in a more hysterical way. We also noticed that Profesor Welch was not as snobbish and dreamy as in the book. In addition, we think that the movie's humour is far more straightforward and obvious than the one in the book. We can see that in the final scenes, with the silly chase. And why is Bertrand a novelist rather than a painter? Nevertheless, there are some good aspects of the film worth mentioning. The actors were very good. For example, Ian Carmichael, who plays Dixon, and Sharon Acken, who plays Christine, were very successful in their roles. On the whole, despite having some silly, over-the-top moments, it was worth watching.
Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's D. O.A.
JamesHitchcock30 September 2022
Jim Dixon is a junior lecturer at an unnamed provincial university. Kingsley Amis, who wrote the novel on which this film is based, took his title from a song- "Oh, lucky Jim, How I envy him..." (We hear this song a couple of times during the film). As the story opens, however, Jim does not seem to be particularly lucky or enviable. Indeed, his life can be summed up in the words of the theme-song from "Friends":-
"Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's D. O. A."
He hates his job and his boss, Professor Welch. He is perpetually short of cash and forced to live in a seedy lodging-house. His relationship with his possessive, needy girlfriend Margaret appears to be going nowhere and, while he has set his cap at an attractive blonde named Christine, that relationship also appears to be doomed as she is the girlfriend of Welch's novelist son Bertrand.
The novel has long been a favourite of mine, but I have never had the same affection for the film version, largely because the film-makers never manage to find an equivalent for Amis's bitingly satirical authorial voice. Scenes which are brilliantly funny in the book, such as Professor Welch's disastrous musical weekend, in the course of which Jim manages to set fire to his bed, or the one in which Jim delivers a lecture while drunk, never come to life in the same way on the screen. The scriptwriters also include some episodes of slapstick humour not found in the book, such as Jim's attempt to organise the floral decorations at an academic ceremony or the chase scene at the end, but these are no substitute for Amis's savage wit.
Ian Carmichael was later to gain a reputation for playing upper-class characters such as Bertie Wooster or the aristocratic detective Lord Peter Wimsey, but in 1957 these productions still lay in the future. Even so he still seems a bit too posh for Jim, who is supposed to be a working-class Northerner, as well as a bit too old at 37. This means that the question of social class, an important theme in the novel, is rather avoided in the film. Contrary to what one reviewer writes, Amis, who in 1954 still considered himself to be on the Left, was not using "Lucky Jim" to satirise well-heeled bourgeois Leftists. (Later, when he had moved sharply to the Right, he was to lay into radical-chic champagne socialists with gusto in novels like "Girl, 20" from 1971). Professor Welch, with his romantic fantasies of some pre-modern pre-industrial "Merrie England", is a nostalgia-obsessed cultural conservative, and Bertrand probably a political one.
The Jim of the novel is in many ways a flawed character. For one who hopes to make a living by teaching history, he displays a surprising lack of enthusiasm for his subject. He drinks too much, often treats Margaret badly and can be rude and tactless. He devotes a lot of energy to pursuing feuds against those who annoy him and can be oddly childish. The character in the film is very much watered down in an attempt to make him more likeable; this attempt succeeds to some extent, but at the cost of also making him less interesting.
Maureen Connell's Margaret is less neurotic, hysterical and manipulative here than she is in the book, and as a result becomes completely forgettable. Sharon Acker's Christine is almost equally so. (Christine was English in the book but here becomes Canadian, possibly in order to make the film more marketable in North America). Those characters in the film who do stand out tend to be those who are played in the same way as they are in the novel, notably Hugh Griffith's absent-minded, evasive, pedantic and pretentious Professor Welch and Terry-Thomas's pompous, self-important, snobbish and bullying Bertrand. (Like Carmichael, however, Terry-Thomas at 46 was really too old. He was actually a year older than Griffith who plays his father).
The film is not altogether a bad one and can provide a few amusing moments. When one considers how good its source novel is, however, it really should have been a lot better. 6/10.
"Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's D. O. A."
He hates his job and his boss, Professor Welch. He is perpetually short of cash and forced to live in a seedy lodging-house. His relationship with his possessive, needy girlfriend Margaret appears to be going nowhere and, while he has set his cap at an attractive blonde named Christine, that relationship also appears to be doomed as she is the girlfriend of Welch's novelist son Bertrand.
The novel has long been a favourite of mine, but I have never had the same affection for the film version, largely because the film-makers never manage to find an equivalent for Amis's bitingly satirical authorial voice. Scenes which are brilliantly funny in the book, such as Professor Welch's disastrous musical weekend, in the course of which Jim manages to set fire to his bed, or the one in which Jim delivers a lecture while drunk, never come to life in the same way on the screen. The scriptwriters also include some episodes of slapstick humour not found in the book, such as Jim's attempt to organise the floral decorations at an academic ceremony or the chase scene at the end, but these are no substitute for Amis's savage wit.
Ian Carmichael was later to gain a reputation for playing upper-class characters such as Bertie Wooster or the aristocratic detective Lord Peter Wimsey, but in 1957 these productions still lay in the future. Even so he still seems a bit too posh for Jim, who is supposed to be a working-class Northerner, as well as a bit too old at 37. This means that the question of social class, an important theme in the novel, is rather avoided in the film. Contrary to what one reviewer writes, Amis, who in 1954 still considered himself to be on the Left, was not using "Lucky Jim" to satirise well-heeled bourgeois Leftists. (Later, when he had moved sharply to the Right, he was to lay into radical-chic champagne socialists with gusto in novels like "Girl, 20" from 1971). Professor Welch, with his romantic fantasies of some pre-modern pre-industrial "Merrie England", is a nostalgia-obsessed cultural conservative, and Bertrand probably a political one.
The Jim of the novel is in many ways a flawed character. For one who hopes to make a living by teaching history, he displays a surprising lack of enthusiasm for his subject. He drinks too much, often treats Margaret badly and can be rude and tactless. He devotes a lot of energy to pursuing feuds against those who annoy him and can be oddly childish. The character in the film is very much watered down in an attempt to make him more likeable; this attempt succeeds to some extent, but at the cost of also making him less interesting.
Maureen Connell's Margaret is less neurotic, hysterical and manipulative here than she is in the book, and as a result becomes completely forgettable. Sharon Acker's Christine is almost equally so. (Christine was English in the book but here becomes Canadian, possibly in order to make the film more marketable in North America). Those characters in the film who do stand out tend to be those who are played in the same way as they are in the novel, notably Hugh Griffith's absent-minded, evasive, pedantic and pretentious Professor Welch and Terry-Thomas's pompous, self-important, snobbish and bullying Bertrand. (Like Carmichael, however, Terry-Thomas at 46 was really too old. He was actually a year older than Griffith who plays his father).
The film is not altogether a bad one and can provide a few amusing moments. When one considers how good its source novel is, however, it really should have been a lot better. 6/10.
Movie appreciation
jamesdixon197616 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
We have recently read the book and watched the movie in our English class and we feel that the movie is not a faithful adaptation of Kingsley Amis' novel. The most critical aspect is that the movie is a series of scenes that don't really connect, creating a confusing idea of what the story is about. For instance, in the novel the romance between Jim and Christine isn't the main focus of the author but in the movie it is even more incomprehensible and surprising. We also believe that the movie has considerably lost meaning by cutting out all the drama of Margaret Peel and the affair between Bertrand and Carol Goldsmith, which changes the feeling towards Bertrand from the movie to the book. All that said we think that the cast was good and the film portrays very well that post-war period.
Likable adaptation of the Kingsley Amis novel
Leofwine_draca20 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
LUCKY JIM is a likable and lively British comedy from 1957 and an adaptation of the Kingsley Amis novel of the same name. It stars Ian Carmichael - then at the height of his new-found fame - as a man driven out of his mind by the dryness of academic life and driven to exasperation by the characteristics of his colleagues.
The academic setting is a great one for the farcical comedy portrayed here. If you've ever seen the Mr. Bean episode in which he creates havoc in the quiet library then you know the type of humour to expect; it essentially sees the well-cast Carmichael upsetting everyone in sight. The direction, by John Boulting, is classy and good enough to keep even the romantic scenes light and airy and above all interesting. Supporting Carmichael is a great cast including a typically caddish Terry-Thomas, Hugh Griffith as the stuffy professor, and Kenneth Griffith as the sneering colleague, but it's the lovely bulldog who proves the real scene-stealer.
The academic setting is a great one for the farcical comedy portrayed here. If you've ever seen the Mr. Bean episode in which he creates havoc in the quiet library then you know the type of humour to expect; it essentially sees the well-cast Carmichael upsetting everyone in sight. The direction, by John Boulting, is classy and good enough to keep even the romantic scenes light and airy and above all interesting. Supporting Carmichael is a great cast including a typically caddish Terry-Thomas, Hugh Griffith as the stuffy professor, and Kenneth Griffith as the sneering colleague, but it's the lovely bulldog who proves the real scene-stealer.
What have they done to my favorite novel?
arkent3 June 2001
It's hard for me to be objective about this film, as it is adapted from my favorite novel--which I've read eight or nine times. Also, I waited so long to see it that it may have been inevitable that I would ultimately be disappointed. Ironically, I first heard about the film some years before I read the book, and it was only after I read the book that I made the connection between it and the description my brother had once given me. It would be about 20 years (no kidding!) before I finally saw the film myself. I've now seen it twice and mostly hated it both times.
Kingsley Amis's LUCKY JIM was obligatory reading among history students when I was in grad school 30 years ago. The story about an unhappy history instructor in a crummy British provincial university expressed a lot of the angst that we felt as grad students, and it was funnier than heck as well. I loved the book then, and still love all these years later. Why, then, was the film such a disappointment? Mainly because the script muted much of the savageness of Amis's humor, and because it tacked on an idiotic chase scene at the end that has nothing whatever to do with the original story--or even with what goes before it in the film. (Even Ian Carmichael--who played Jim--hated that ending. He told me that the people making the film didn't seem to have any idea of what they were doing--and it shows.)
The producers also added a very unsatisfactory and irrelevant academic procession in them middle of the film--evidently for the sole purpose of making Carmichael look like a klutz by having him tripping over flowerpots and dropping things in the middle of the solemn affair.
Nevertheless, the film does have its virtues, chief among them is excellent casting. Ian Carmichael was born to play Jim. Terry-Thomas was properly unctuous as Bertrand; Hugh Griffith certainly looked the part as Professor Neddy; Maureen Connell looked like I imagined the neurotic Margaret Peel; and Sharon Acker made a fine-looking Christine Callaghan.
Kingsley Amis's LUCKY JIM was obligatory reading among history students when I was in grad school 30 years ago. The story about an unhappy history instructor in a crummy British provincial university expressed a lot of the angst that we felt as grad students, and it was funnier than heck as well. I loved the book then, and still love all these years later. Why, then, was the film such a disappointment? Mainly because the script muted much of the savageness of Amis's humor, and because it tacked on an idiotic chase scene at the end that has nothing whatever to do with the original story--or even with what goes before it in the film. (Even Ian Carmichael--who played Jim--hated that ending. He told me that the people making the film didn't seem to have any idea of what they were doing--and it shows.)
The producers also added a very unsatisfactory and irrelevant academic procession in them middle of the film--evidently for the sole purpose of making Carmichael look like a klutz by having him tripping over flowerpots and dropping things in the middle of the solemn affair.
Nevertheless, the film does have its virtues, chief among them is excellent casting. Ian Carmichael was born to play Jim. Terry-Thomas was properly unctuous as Bertrand; Hugh Griffith certainly looked the part as Professor Neddy; Maureen Connell looked like I imagined the neurotic Margaret Peel; and Sharon Acker made a fine-looking Christine Callaghan.
Lucky Jim
CinemaSerf15 February 2023
I think this is what they call a "loose" adaptation - this time of Kingsley Amis' eponymous novel - that follows the largely mis-adventures of young schoolmaster Ian Carmichael ("Jim Dixon") as he tries to teach his pupils, keep his job, arrange a vice-chancellor's ceremony and get the girl! The comedy is quickly paced, if a bit too obvious for my liking, and a great ensemble of British stalwarts including Hugh Griffith as his boss ("Prof. Welch) who bears a startling resemblance to the school gargoyle; Sharon Acker as the object of his clumsy affections ("Christine"), Margaret Connell, Reginald Beckwith and a scene-stealing performance from Terry-Thomas as the gently obnoxious "Bertrand" keep this heading, albeit somewhat bumpily, in the right direction until a bit of an excruciating ending. It's unlikely fans of the book with appreciate Patrick Campbell's adaptation here, but it's still a watchable semi-farce with some good efforts to enjoy.
Unlucky dim
Lejink19 August 2017
I don't think this 1950's Boulting Brothers comedy dramatisation of Kingsley Amis's novel has aged well. It purports to mock upper-class academia of the time through the vessel of Ian Carmichael's title character (cue madrigal singers) as he gently rocks up against his so-called superiors and betters and supposedly knocks them down a peg or two with his freshness, unconventionality and honesty. It's funny how in so doing he comes off himself as a rather eccentric upper-class toff, one who you believe could still end up as one of the stuffy establishment figures he's presumably meant to contrast with.
It doesn't help that Carmichael is much too old in the part. The Angry Young Men were starting to make waves in British theatre and cinema at the time but here all we get a mildly querulous, getting-on-somewhat man blundering and blustering from one unlikely situation to another. The three main comedic set-pieces of Jim (cue madrigal singers) playing in an impromptu musical gathering at his college superior's house, disastrously arranging the floral display of the university procession to be attended by the new college chancellor and lastly his drunkenly irreverent speech on the designated theme of "Merrie England" in front of the assembled pupils and masters all fall flat with the only time I was remotely amused being when in his drunken state he predictably finds himself in the bedroom of his torch-carrying old-maid admirer and proceeds to shoot over the proverbial open goal. Somehow, in all this, he still gets the pretty young girl although the fact that his competition is Terry Thomas in an unsympathetically written-part makes that a foregone conclusion almost from their first meeting.
I see that contemporary critics compared Carmichael's performance as Jim (cue madrigal singers) with that of Jerry Lewis which somehow manages to insult them both. No one else in the cast stood out for me either although they were none of them helped by the dull screenplay and stodgy direction. If this is what passed for rebelliousness in late 50's British cinema, I can only say I'm glad that the so-called kitchen sink dramas with genuinely vibrant young talent like Finney, Harvey, Bates and Courteney were just around the corner.
Oh and those madrigal singers will infuriate you with every chorus!
It doesn't help that Carmichael is much too old in the part. The Angry Young Men were starting to make waves in British theatre and cinema at the time but here all we get a mildly querulous, getting-on-somewhat man blundering and blustering from one unlikely situation to another. The three main comedic set-pieces of Jim (cue madrigal singers) playing in an impromptu musical gathering at his college superior's house, disastrously arranging the floral display of the university procession to be attended by the new college chancellor and lastly his drunkenly irreverent speech on the designated theme of "Merrie England" in front of the assembled pupils and masters all fall flat with the only time I was remotely amused being when in his drunken state he predictably finds himself in the bedroom of his torch-carrying old-maid admirer and proceeds to shoot over the proverbial open goal. Somehow, in all this, he still gets the pretty young girl although the fact that his competition is Terry Thomas in an unsympathetically written-part makes that a foregone conclusion almost from their first meeting.
I see that contemporary critics compared Carmichael's performance as Jim (cue madrigal singers) with that of Jerry Lewis which somehow manages to insult them both. No one else in the cast stood out for me either although they were none of them helped by the dull screenplay and stodgy direction. If this is what passed for rebelliousness in late 50's British cinema, I can only say I'm glad that the so-called kitchen sink dramas with genuinely vibrant young talent like Finney, Harvey, Bates and Courteney were just around the corner.
Oh and those madrigal singers will infuriate you with every chorus!
Hilarious satire, notably sharp-edged for its time
davidvickery069820 November 2005
This is an outstanding movie whose meticulously-crafted set pieces frequently had me in stitches. Superbly cast, Ian Carmichael, Hugh Griffiths and Terry-Thomas were in exceptional form, and the luminous beauty of Sharon Acker lights up the film. If you don't find this funny, charming and uplifting, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you!
The pompous, stiff and class-deferential era of the 1950s is marvellously evoked in this movie. Always the sign of a classic, even the minor characters - Mrs Welch, the taxi driver, the waiter and the university porter, for instance - all hold their own and come across as real people. The appalling persona of Bertrand Welch (Terry-Thomas) with his self-obsessed sense of his own importance is excellently drawn. One to see and quite possibly one to keep.
The pompous, stiff and class-deferential era of the 1950s is marvellously evoked in this movie. Always the sign of a classic, even the minor characters - Mrs Welch, the taxi driver, the waiter and the university porter, for instance - all hold their own and come across as real people. The appalling persona of Bertrand Welch (Terry-Thomas) with his self-obsessed sense of his own importance is excellently drawn. One to see and quite possibly one to keep.
Not perfectly what I was expecting
joaoantunes77720 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
About Lucky Jim I could say, after watching the movie, that the book is much better than it's adaption to the cinema.
In the book Jim is much better described, we can clearly see that in the movie that does not happen.
In my opinion, Ian Carmichael never fully interprets the role of Jim Dixon and therefore, he never manages to portray the proper Dixon. I didn't like the way some situations was changed, in order to make it funnier like the procession scene, or even the fighting scene. About the dog, it's presence was funny, but not absolutely necessary. They could have made the film funnier without resorting to the dog.
In the book Jim is much better described, we can clearly see that in the movie that does not happen.
In my opinion, Ian Carmichael never fully interprets the role of Jim Dixon and therefore, he never manages to portray the proper Dixon. I didn't like the way some situations was changed, in order to make it funnier like the procession scene, or even the fighting scene. About the dog, it's presence was funny, but not absolutely necessary. They could have made the film funnier without resorting to the dog.
Is it just me, or is this just not a good film?
Hardylane9 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Where does this film's reputation come from? I adore British film, and usually, films of the 50's and 60's have an air of assured storytelling, combined with some superb images from a bygone age.
Lucky Jim is none of that. Almost entirely shot in studio, this film meanders through a series of set pieces which try to tell us, wordlessly, that Jim is a victim of his circumstances; a university history lecturer controlled and bullied by a group of hideous middle class snobs. Jim, however, is a misplaced character who gets drunk at the drop of a hat, and brings most of his ills upon himself.
Is it just the displacement of 50 years that makes all this so repellent?
The post-war mood of the nation brought a Labour government for only the second time in the 20th century, and brought with it a welfare state, and a socialist ethic that we should all look after each other because we'd been bombed to blazes by a common enemy.
Six years later, the middle class of the country had had enough of all this, had money in its pocket, put the individual first and voted in the Conservatives for twelve years.
So Lucky Jim comes along. He's clearly either a communist or a socialist because he likes pink or red flowers(!), just as the snobs like blue ones(!!).
SPOILER WARNING... Jim achieves NOTHING in this film. His ills are largely self-wrought as a result of his nervous and unhappy situation. So we watch a whole film hoping that we'll see the seeds of rebellion grow, but they fall on stony ground, and he capitulates again and again to the vile people who control his life. Only in one of the final scenes does he rebel and say what he ACTUALLY thinks, but even then, only under the influence of alcohol.
A real disappointment, this film.
Lucky Jim is none of that. Almost entirely shot in studio, this film meanders through a series of set pieces which try to tell us, wordlessly, that Jim is a victim of his circumstances; a university history lecturer controlled and bullied by a group of hideous middle class snobs. Jim, however, is a misplaced character who gets drunk at the drop of a hat, and brings most of his ills upon himself.
Is it just the displacement of 50 years that makes all this so repellent?
The post-war mood of the nation brought a Labour government for only the second time in the 20th century, and brought with it a welfare state, and a socialist ethic that we should all look after each other because we'd been bombed to blazes by a common enemy.
Six years later, the middle class of the country had had enough of all this, had money in its pocket, put the individual first and voted in the Conservatives for twelve years.
So Lucky Jim comes along. He's clearly either a communist or a socialist because he likes pink or red flowers(!), just as the snobs like blue ones(!!).
SPOILER WARNING... Jim achieves NOTHING in this film. His ills are largely self-wrought as a result of his nervous and unhappy situation. So we watch a whole film hoping that we'll see the seeds of rebellion grow, but they fall on stony ground, and he capitulates again and again to the vile people who control his life. Only in one of the final scenes does he rebel and say what he ACTUALLY thinks, but even then, only under the influence of alcohol.
A real disappointment, this film.
The dull thud of pulled punches
Oct2 September 2004
Kingsley Amis's first and best novel drew much satirical thrust from its evocation of the late 1940s, when British idealism about the socialist government elected in the first flush of World War Two victory was petering out. The ex-communist university lecturer Amis's ambiguity about putting The People in charge- later expressed in a vehement rejection of educational egalitarianism- is already implicit in this campus chronicle.
The Boulting Brothers, themselves on the left, worked "Lucky Jim" into the mildly satirical cycle of movies which made them the main successors to Ealing in the 1950s and early 1960s. But by updating it to the present and filling it with their rep company of character actors, they lost the plot.
Written by the newspaper humorist Patrick Campbell, this picturisation skates over the hypocrisy of Professor Welch and his clan as moneyed leftists-- an early depiction of limousine liberalism-- and concentrates on slapstick. Ian Carmichael, whose northern accent comes and goes, is too posh to play a grammar school lad who has blundered into the wrong profession. Terry-Thomas is too old and too T-T ("extra-ordinary fellah!") for Bertrand Welch, the spoilt son-- and why make him a novelist rather than a painter, when visual fun could have been had with his awful daubs to make up for the absence of Amis's authorial voice?
Most of the novel's heft comes from the gap between Jim Dixon's forced toadying and his secret derision, expressed in making faces and fantasising elaborate practical jokes. Little of this can get through in a script which majors on pratfalls and all-too-Britishly endorses Jim as the good guy by having the Welch's dog adopt him. And the provincial campus is too grand for the era of austerity and demobbed students Amis imagined, as though the Boultings secretly hankered to relocate the tale to Oxbridge.
All that said, there are incidental pleasures. Hugh Griffiths is spot-on as "Neddy" Welch, as is his namesake Kenneth as the creepy Evan Johns. Unexpectedly, given the initial compromises, the denouement (which was slapstick in the book too) gets closer to Amis's acrid eloquence, although drunks on screen become tiresome faster than directors realise. Interestingly in view of Amis's later problems with American publishers, the Boultings tone down the novel's misogyny. Margaret Peel is less neurotic, predatory and manipulative in the film. Jim's love object Christine, alas, is a tittering cipher on both page and screen. The British cinema wasn't doing sex in the Fifties unless it was "exposing" tarts in Soho.
The Boulting Brothers, themselves on the left, worked "Lucky Jim" into the mildly satirical cycle of movies which made them the main successors to Ealing in the 1950s and early 1960s. But by updating it to the present and filling it with their rep company of character actors, they lost the plot.
Written by the newspaper humorist Patrick Campbell, this picturisation skates over the hypocrisy of Professor Welch and his clan as moneyed leftists-- an early depiction of limousine liberalism-- and concentrates on slapstick. Ian Carmichael, whose northern accent comes and goes, is too posh to play a grammar school lad who has blundered into the wrong profession. Terry-Thomas is too old and too T-T ("extra-ordinary fellah!") for Bertrand Welch, the spoilt son-- and why make him a novelist rather than a painter, when visual fun could have been had with his awful daubs to make up for the absence of Amis's authorial voice?
Most of the novel's heft comes from the gap between Jim Dixon's forced toadying and his secret derision, expressed in making faces and fantasising elaborate practical jokes. Little of this can get through in a script which majors on pratfalls and all-too-Britishly endorses Jim as the good guy by having the Welch's dog adopt him. And the provincial campus is too grand for the era of austerity and demobbed students Amis imagined, as though the Boultings secretly hankered to relocate the tale to Oxbridge.
All that said, there are incidental pleasures. Hugh Griffiths is spot-on as "Neddy" Welch, as is his namesake Kenneth as the creepy Evan Johns. Unexpectedly, given the initial compromises, the denouement (which was slapstick in the book too) gets closer to Amis's acrid eloquence, although drunks on screen become tiresome faster than directors realise. Interestingly in view of Amis's later problems with American publishers, the Boultings tone down the novel's misogyny. Margaret Peel is less neurotic, predatory and manipulative in the film. Jim's love object Christine, alas, is a tittering cipher on both page and screen. The British cinema wasn't doing sex in the Fifties unless it was "exposing" tarts in Soho.
Lacking something which prevents it from truly sparking, but often mildly amusing none-the-less.
johnnyboyz3 July 2020
It is both predictable, not to mention often a little asinine when discussing these things, but Kingsley Amis' "Lucky Jim" novel works more efficiently than its adaptation. I thought it very easy to admire how well Amis got under the skin of his characters in his 1954 book - the quite crippling uncertainty its eponymous lead faced down in being kept on another year in his job; the fact he loathed the son of his boss; his friend Margaret's depressive state and the uneasy bond they happen to share. Certainly, the film misses a trick in not telling its story from a first person perspective, something which would have really allowed much of what Amis wrote to shine through in the form of voice-overs as the lead wades through the various situational mires he finds himself in.
"Lucky Jim", both the novel as well as this filmic adaptation, seem to occupy a strange place in history. They are works about rebellion, or at the very least the spirit of rebellion, set around a place of education and involving people very much attuned to an older guard coming up against someone whose feelings on much of what the older guard epitomises are, at best, susceptible to distrust. Made prior to the 1960's, it is tempting now to look upon the adaptation (less so the novel, whose writing has enabled it to withstand the test of time) as rather antiquated, in spite of its themes, though this is pre-eminently down to the immense power the counter-culture revolution had not long after it was made. So powerful was it, in fact, that it swept away near enough all that preceded it, including this very film. I imagine there was probably a very small window between about 1957 and 1966 wherein "Lucky Jim" would have been at its absolute zenith as an unruly comedy threatening upset, but not for long after.
We are informed during the film's opening shots that the action is to take place around a red brick university for the new 'Elizabethan age'. It is to be the sort of establishment which looks to the future with heady optimism; desperate to train the Francis Drakes and the Walter Raleighs of tomorrow - those who will become people synonymous with Britain's prestige and, I suppose, the sort of global indomitability you associate with explorers - in essence creators of the empire. Hindsight tells us, of course, that far less has come of the Elizabethan age than perhaps the captions were hoping, never mind the generations born therein it.
Occupying the rooms within the walls of the university itself sit the staff, dressed up in their extravagant gowns in an amphitheatre of wood panelling as they roll through their administrative business. A point is then made of how diametrically opposed our lead is to where he works in this regard when we move from the visuals of the above to surroundings more familiar to Jim Dixon (Ian Carmichael): a small rented room in a modest house sporting a bed; a basin and just enough space for everything he needs. A lecturer in history at the university, Dixon has a number of things to juggle to begin with, primarily as to whether he will be kept on for the following year as the summer approaches by the establishment figure Professor Welch (Hugh Griffith), before obtaining a few more besides.
The joy is supposed to lie in watching Dixon's situation go from bad to worse, as a mountain of problems pile up with little in the way of a quick-fix presenting itself. Much of it is effective because so much of it lies in the fact Dixon is so powerless to solving what he stares down: the lecture he's asked to give on a subject he cannot seem to grasp and disagrees with anyway; getting a straight answer on the future of his job out of Welch who, at the best of times, seems too spaced out to even realise he risks losing Dixon, and a newfound attraction to the girl Welch's son, Bertrand (Terry Thomas), is dating.
This last problem is exacerbated by a friendship Dixon has with a certain Margaret Peel (Maureen Connell), a scatty and sometimes neurotic young woman who does not even appear in the film before other characters have had the chance to inform Dixon to 'watch out' for her. This is something thereafter confirmed to us when, having observed Jim in a casual conversation with yet another woman on campus, she merely assumes they were in a relationship and cannot help but be a little offended. Interestingly, though ultimately to the film's detriment, Peel's suicide attempt out of her husband leaving her prior to the events of the novel seems to have been left out of the film, perhaps for reasons pertaining to the want to have the film appear lighter in tone.
But it is Amis' crisp writing, his paragraphs wherein Carmichael's character outlines what he's thinking and feeling are those which we miss most; the pessimistic, self-deprecating passages in a novel whereby Jim never quite has a grip on things: 'He felt the loyalty we all feel to unhappiness, the sense that that is where we really belong'; the mentioning of three cats somebody once owned named Ego, Superego and ID.; the frank conversations about love and relationships Dixon shares with Peel. Carmichael gives a very good performance with what he' offered of a man, in Dixon, building and building to the end of his tether, though the film too often feels like a series of quirky instances strung together for sake of a farcical laugh to be something one can love.
"Lucky Jim", both the novel as well as this filmic adaptation, seem to occupy a strange place in history. They are works about rebellion, or at the very least the spirit of rebellion, set around a place of education and involving people very much attuned to an older guard coming up against someone whose feelings on much of what the older guard epitomises are, at best, susceptible to distrust. Made prior to the 1960's, it is tempting now to look upon the adaptation (less so the novel, whose writing has enabled it to withstand the test of time) as rather antiquated, in spite of its themes, though this is pre-eminently down to the immense power the counter-culture revolution had not long after it was made. So powerful was it, in fact, that it swept away near enough all that preceded it, including this very film. I imagine there was probably a very small window between about 1957 and 1966 wherein "Lucky Jim" would have been at its absolute zenith as an unruly comedy threatening upset, but not for long after.
We are informed during the film's opening shots that the action is to take place around a red brick university for the new 'Elizabethan age'. It is to be the sort of establishment which looks to the future with heady optimism; desperate to train the Francis Drakes and the Walter Raleighs of tomorrow - those who will become people synonymous with Britain's prestige and, I suppose, the sort of global indomitability you associate with explorers - in essence creators of the empire. Hindsight tells us, of course, that far less has come of the Elizabethan age than perhaps the captions were hoping, never mind the generations born therein it.
Occupying the rooms within the walls of the university itself sit the staff, dressed up in their extravagant gowns in an amphitheatre of wood panelling as they roll through their administrative business. A point is then made of how diametrically opposed our lead is to where he works in this regard when we move from the visuals of the above to surroundings more familiar to Jim Dixon (Ian Carmichael): a small rented room in a modest house sporting a bed; a basin and just enough space for everything he needs. A lecturer in history at the university, Dixon has a number of things to juggle to begin with, primarily as to whether he will be kept on for the following year as the summer approaches by the establishment figure Professor Welch (Hugh Griffith), before obtaining a few more besides.
The joy is supposed to lie in watching Dixon's situation go from bad to worse, as a mountain of problems pile up with little in the way of a quick-fix presenting itself. Much of it is effective because so much of it lies in the fact Dixon is so powerless to solving what he stares down: the lecture he's asked to give on a subject he cannot seem to grasp and disagrees with anyway; getting a straight answer on the future of his job out of Welch who, at the best of times, seems too spaced out to even realise he risks losing Dixon, and a newfound attraction to the girl Welch's son, Bertrand (Terry Thomas), is dating.
This last problem is exacerbated by a friendship Dixon has with a certain Margaret Peel (Maureen Connell), a scatty and sometimes neurotic young woman who does not even appear in the film before other characters have had the chance to inform Dixon to 'watch out' for her. This is something thereafter confirmed to us when, having observed Jim in a casual conversation with yet another woman on campus, she merely assumes they were in a relationship and cannot help but be a little offended. Interestingly, though ultimately to the film's detriment, Peel's suicide attempt out of her husband leaving her prior to the events of the novel seems to have been left out of the film, perhaps for reasons pertaining to the want to have the film appear lighter in tone.
But it is Amis' crisp writing, his paragraphs wherein Carmichael's character outlines what he's thinking and feeling are those which we miss most; the pessimistic, self-deprecating passages in a novel whereby Jim never quite has a grip on things: 'He felt the loyalty we all feel to unhappiness, the sense that that is where we really belong'; the mentioning of three cats somebody once owned named Ego, Superego and ID.; the frank conversations about love and relationships Dixon shares with Peel. Carmichael gives a very good performance with what he' offered of a man, in Dixon, building and building to the end of his tether, though the film too often feels like a series of quirky instances strung together for sake of a farcical laugh to be something one can love.
Unlucky viewers
Hugh_Terry22 January 2021
A complete dud
splendidchap10 March 2020
It defies belief how dreadful this film is given that it comes from the Boulting Brothers and stars Ian Carmichael and Terry-Thomas. Dreadful script, desperately unfunny supporting cast - particularly Hugh Griffith and Kenneth Griffith who can suck the joy out of any comedy - and woefully inept direction.
No redeeming features whatsoever. Avoid at all costs.
No redeeming features whatsoever. Avoid at all costs.
"...they won't bite!....- they might nibble a bit..."
Brucey_D18 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with adapting well-loved books for film is that not all the things that make a good book good will readily translate to film, and even if they do, the result mightn't be what the film's intended audience will appreciate. In the words of a child being interviewed, " ....the pictures are better on the radio..."; this isn't radio of course but the same applies to a good book; in the course of the many hours it takes to read it, it can create a world in the mind's eye which is far richer than any mere film could ever hope to realise in a scant 90 minutes.
The Boulting brothers were -arguably rightly- pitching towards an audience who for the most part wouldn't have read the book (although they might have heard of it) and wanted an hour and a half of light relief from dreary post-war Britain, rather than folk who had read the book and wished to see it exactly reproduced on screen in every facet.
Today, I'd guess that very many people who watch the film will have sought it out having read and enjoyed the book, in some contrast to the bulk of the original audience.
So, if you have read and love the book in every detail, I'd suggest that you either a) don't bother watching the film at all, or b) somehow gauge your expectations vs. with other comparable films of the period.
By comparison with other similar films of the period, I reckon this film stacks up pretty well; it has an excellent cast, a lively script, and pokes fun at all levels of society. There are some nice gags in there; for example we see Prof. Welch compared with a gargoyle-esque statue, and the state of Welch's car (and his driving) is all too common in the realms of academia to this day.
I laughed out loud several times; Jim sure is 'lucky' and whilst he certainly contributes to his misfortunes, he is not solely responsible for them by any means, and things do work out OK for him in the end.
I can see how lovers of the book might be disappointed by the film; a comparable disappointment was (for me) the TV adaptation of 'Porterhouse Blue' in more recent times; again had I not read the book I'd have been very happy with it.
So, overall, whilst it might not bear comparison with the book, I think this is actually a pretty good film, and it deserves a higher score on here.
The Boulting brothers were -arguably rightly- pitching towards an audience who for the most part wouldn't have read the book (although they might have heard of it) and wanted an hour and a half of light relief from dreary post-war Britain, rather than folk who had read the book and wished to see it exactly reproduced on screen in every facet.
Today, I'd guess that very many people who watch the film will have sought it out having read and enjoyed the book, in some contrast to the bulk of the original audience.
So, if you have read and love the book in every detail, I'd suggest that you either a) don't bother watching the film at all, or b) somehow gauge your expectations vs. with other comparable films of the period.
By comparison with other similar films of the period, I reckon this film stacks up pretty well; it has an excellent cast, a lively script, and pokes fun at all levels of society. There are some nice gags in there; for example we see Prof. Welch compared with a gargoyle-esque statue, and the state of Welch's car (and his driving) is all too common in the realms of academia to this day.
I laughed out loud several times; Jim sure is 'lucky' and whilst he certainly contributes to his misfortunes, he is not solely responsible for them by any means, and things do work out OK for him in the end.
I can see how lovers of the book might be disappointed by the film; a comparable disappointment was (for me) the TV adaptation of 'Porterhouse Blue' in more recent times; again had I not read the book I'd have been very happy with it.
So, overall, whilst it might not bear comparison with the book, I think this is actually a pretty good film, and it deserves a higher score on here.
Hardly a classic and hardly a comedy
adamscastlevania211 March 2015
(34%) Of all the classic British comedies of the 50's and 60's this is perhaps my least favourite I've seen so far. It's not a terrible film by any means, but once compared to solid gold classics such a The lady killers, Whisky galore, or my personal choice The Titfield thunderbolt, then this looks more than a little lacking. I think the main problem here is that the script is based off a satirical novel that I'm guessing works much better on the page than on it does on the screen with its very dry sense of humour getting lost somewhere along the way. It doesn't also help that lucky Jim himself is not really a likable person, or indeed a very interesting one either. Also this works way too hard to get only mild laughs, the support characters are also dry and dull, and by the end I still hadn't really warmed to the lead character who quite frankly is a bit of git. A lucky git, but a git nevertheless. Besides the always fun Terry-Thomas, and the fact it is quite well made there's not a lot here in terms of laughs or anything else.
The material lacks laughs and bite leaving a plot that not even the names involved can do anything with
bob the moo23 August 2004
Jim Dixon works in that most protected of places a redbrick university! However his natural laziness and clumsiness sees him forced to keep in the favour of the dull and absentminded Professor Welch in order to protect his job. With his natural affinity for bad luck, Jim struggles to find a quiet life and a unwanted romance with Margaret (the professor's friend) just make things more difficult. Things get worse when he is put in charge of organising things for the new chancellor but Welch's son arrives in the company of a beautiful young woman, Christine, who Jim finds very attractive but totally unattainable.
With people like the Boutling brothers, Carmichael and Thomas involved I was definitely going to watch this film when they showed it last week as part of the normal cycle of black & white films on daytime TV afternoons, however I must admit not to be entirely won over by this. I have not read the book on which this is based, but I am told that it is a great deal sharper than this film, not a surprise since the film surprised me by having absolutely no satirical edge to it whatsoever and instead seemed to be aiming to be a vague farce. The plot has no sharp edges to it and it only has a very basic sense of humour that involves more pratfalls than witty dialogue and, as a result, I found little here that I actually cared enough about to get into the film. The laughs weren't forthcoming, the plot was rather shallow and uninteresting and the characters were thin.
With all these problems it is no real surprise that even the talent in this cast struggle to make anything of it. Carmichael plays it all too foppish and clumsy and he never really gets a character out of the film. Even Terry Thomas seems unsure of what he is supposed to be doing with this stuff and he doesn't make any memorable impact. Acker is very pretty and Griffith is suitable cast but generally the cast are let down by the material.
Overall this is an average film that doesn't compare to the many better films that the main cast members, producer and director have all done. Usually I would say that any film with these people involved would be worth seeing but unfortunately I can say it about this outing.
With people like the Boutling brothers, Carmichael and Thomas involved I was definitely going to watch this film when they showed it last week as part of the normal cycle of black & white films on daytime TV afternoons, however I must admit not to be entirely won over by this. I have not read the book on which this is based, but I am told that it is a great deal sharper than this film, not a surprise since the film surprised me by having absolutely no satirical edge to it whatsoever and instead seemed to be aiming to be a vague farce. The plot has no sharp edges to it and it only has a very basic sense of humour that involves more pratfalls than witty dialogue and, as a result, I found little here that I actually cared enough about to get into the film. The laughs weren't forthcoming, the plot was rather shallow and uninteresting and the characters were thin.
With all these problems it is no real surprise that even the talent in this cast struggle to make anything of it. Carmichael plays it all too foppish and clumsy and he never really gets a character out of the film. Even Terry Thomas seems unsure of what he is supposed to be doing with this stuff and he doesn't make any memorable impact. Acker is very pretty and Griffith is suitable cast but generally the cast are let down by the material.
Overall this is an average film that doesn't compare to the many better films that the main cast members, producer and director have all done. Usually I would say that any film with these people involved would be worth seeing but unfortunately I can say it about this outing.
Lucky Jim
sheila712519 June 2009
I haven't seen a lot of films from the fifties, so obviously I can't use the same standards I use in today's films to compare the book and the film itself. First and foremost, I must say that I enjoyed reading the book a lot and while watching the film I had the feeling that some parts were lost. When it comes to the characters, I didn't quite picture some of them as they were portrayed in the film. Professor Welch and Bertrand were two of them. On one hand, Welch was too serious and on the other hand, Bertrand was just too old. But, on the whole, I thought the cast was quite good. Another aspect of the film that I must mention is the excessive amount of slapstick comedy scenes that at times tended to be somewhat annoying. Apart from that, my biggest criticism goes to the fact that they haven't focus much on Dixon and Margaret's relationship and didn't include at all Margaret's past with the Catchpole. In my opinion, I think it would be, by far, much more appealing and interesting if they had done that. Even so, I think this is a film worth seeing since the post-war period is quite well portrayed. For those who haven't read the book, the film will only give you a glimpse of what the true story behind Kingsley Amis' novel really is. Therefore, I strongly recommend reading this classic of literature.
More appreciated by the older generation
a-carolinabarreto19 June 2009
The film is not brilliant in my opinion, but after reading some comments on the film I found out that the majority of people loved this British comedy of the 50's. In my opinion, it is a film for an elderly public, and its black and white images may discourage some younger people from seeing it.
"Lucky Jim" is a film adaptation from Kingsley Amis's novel, that portrays the life of a new assistant in a typical British University. The film adaptation replaces all the "clever" comedy described in the book, by a much "dumber" and physical comedy. However that could help to captivate a younger audience.
Nevertheless, in general, I thought the actors did a fantastic performance, really faithful to their book characters.
"Lucky Jim" is a film adaptation from Kingsley Amis's novel, that portrays the life of a new assistant in a typical British University. The film adaptation replaces all the "clever" comedy described in the book, by a much "dumber" and physical comedy. However that could help to captivate a younger audience.
Nevertheless, in general, I thought the actors did a fantastic performance, really faithful to their book characters.
Oh, Watch the Film
baileyemer18 January 2021
Academia and stuffiness comes under the Boulting's microscope.
hitchcockthelegend25 August 2011
Lucky Jim is directed by John Boulting and adapted from the Kingsley Amis novel of the same name. It stars Ian Carmichael, Terry-Thomas, Hugh Griffith, Sharon Acker and Jean Anderson.
A Redbrick university In Britain's New Elizabethan Age: Here Are Moulded The Intellectual Drakes And Raleighs Of Tomorrow-Fearless, Independent- -
And State Supported!
Enter Carmichael's accident prone Jim Dixon, who in order to keep his job at the University has to do the bidding for Griffith's dull Professor Welch. Worse still, maybe, is having to spend time with his boorish family, especially the Son, pompous show off Bertrand (Thomas). Salvation may come in the form of Bertrand's companion, though, Christine Callaghan (Acker)?
I haven't read the Amis novel this is based on, so can't have frame of reference there. By all accounts it's very different, and staunch Amis supporters are very dismissive of the Boulting movie. The film itself is hardly prime Boullting Brothers, who would produce British classics such as Brighton Rock and I'm All Right Jack, but it has a number of funny scenes whilst also being nicely flecked with satirical flavouring. Carmichael attacks the lead role with gusto and comic affability, while "scary eyebrows" Griffith and Terry-Thomas provide good comedy footings for Carmichael to work from. The ladies are pretty and effective enough, without really doing anything any other British actress of the time couldn't have done, but all told it's a well acted and genial time filler for the undemanding. 6.5/10
A Redbrick university In Britain's New Elizabethan Age: Here Are Moulded The Intellectual Drakes And Raleighs Of Tomorrow-Fearless, Independent- -
And State Supported!
Enter Carmichael's accident prone Jim Dixon, who in order to keep his job at the University has to do the bidding for Griffith's dull Professor Welch. Worse still, maybe, is having to spend time with his boorish family, especially the Son, pompous show off Bertrand (Thomas). Salvation may come in the form of Bertrand's companion, though, Christine Callaghan (Acker)?
I haven't read the Amis novel this is based on, so can't have frame of reference there. By all accounts it's very different, and staunch Amis supporters are very dismissive of the Boulting movie. The film itself is hardly prime Boullting Brothers, who would produce British classics such as Brighton Rock and I'm All Right Jack, but it has a number of funny scenes whilst also being nicely flecked with satirical flavouring. Carmichael attacks the lead role with gusto and comic affability, while "scary eyebrows" Griffith and Terry-Thomas provide good comedy footings for Carmichael to work from. The ladies are pretty and effective enough, without really doing anything any other British actress of the time couldn't have done, but all told it's a well acted and genial time filler for the undemanding. 6.5/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
