Lord Jim (1965)
5/10
Average, overlong adaptation of the Conrad novel
11 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'll admit from the outset to not being a big fan of the author Joseph Conrad. I had to read HEART OF DARKNESS as part of a course once and I thought it was a right load of pretentious rubbish, poor enough to put me off the writer for life. So when I saw that this lengthy film was based on a Conrad novel, my heart sank. Unsurprisingly, LORD JIM simply isn't very good as a movie. It's overlong and has a sluggish pacing, which when compounded by unlikeable characters makes it a movie that's difficult to sit through. The early parts of the tale, including the traumatic event that shapes Peter O'Toole's later life, are well handled and engaging, but once the story moves to the East it becomes almost lifeless.

The movie was shot in Cambodia but fails to bring to life much in the way of local spirit or exoticism. The most interesting thing about the production is the casting of familiar Hollywood stars in almost unrecognisable roles; for instance, I could never have imagined Eli Wallach looking so tough here (much nastier than in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, that's for sure). James Mason is almost unrecogisable too, although Curd Jurgens plays his reliably hissable self, all cold superiority. O'Toole feels disconnected to the material at times and the familiarity of the events that ensue means that the viewer is never gripped as they should be, leaving this a very average film overall.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed