Lord Jim (1965) User Reviews (57)

O'Toole Sails Serene Over Choppy Waters

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 7/10 · 18 October 2023]

It is sometime in the late 19th century, and Jim is an up-and-coming merchant seaman. After rising through the ranks under Captain Marlowe, Jim is injured and stranded in Java. After recovering, he signs on with the first available ship: the SS Patna, bound for Mecca with hundreds of pilgrims. During a storm, the crew abandon it, thinking it will surely sink, and in a moment of weakness; Jim joins them. Back in port, they realise the ship was saved, and Jim's guilt impels him to turn himself in. After a public humiliation at an official inquiry, Jim becomes a drifter in the Asiatic waters; determined to one day restore honour to his good name.

Written and directed by Richard Brooks- and based on Joseph Conrad's novel of the same name- 'Lord Jim' is a grandly photographed adventure that is enjoyable, though doesn't live up to its source material. Despite Brooks' best efforts, he fails to recapture the psychological intrigue and headily atmospheric nature of the novel. His version of the story is more of a straight adventure piece, missing the subtle, profound examinations of guilt and honour that made up the dark heart of Conrad's tale.

This is not to say the film isn't worthwhile, however. Though it culminates with a dull battle sequence, and the pacing is sluggish in places, 'Lord Jim' still engages and entertains. Brooks' dialogue and characterisation is strong, while the portrayal of the colonial attitudes of the time is striking and powerful. Despite the fact that his handling of the novel's themes feels lightweight, the central message about redemption and dignity still comes across; albeit a little watered down.

Furthermore, Freddie Young's immersive colour cinematography gives the film a crisp look and an epic feel. He successfully captures the contrast between the different settings of the film, from the bustling port of Java to the exotic, remote village of Patusan. His utilisation of various camera angles and movements creates dynamic, dramatic scenes, whether it be the stormy night on the Patna, the tense trial of Jim, or the final showdown. Young's consummate work enhances the mood and tone of the film, making it a visually stunning spectacle.

Conversely, Alan Osbiston's ponderous editing lends proceedings a sluggish pace, which is most evident in the latter half of the film. Though just under two and a half hours, 'Lord Jim' feels more protracted than it should have. On the other hand, Bronislaw Kaper's score is atmospheric and stirring, giving life to even the most lethargic of scenes, complementing the fine work of the aforementioned Young.

Also worthy of praise is the cast, led by a pitch-perfect Peter O'Toole. There were- and still are- few actors who could inject the same degree of intensity into their performances as O'Toole did, time and time again. As Jim, he enthralls with his obsessive desire to clear his name of dishonour, and his co-stars prove to be equally impressive. Eli Wallach does typically fine work as the villainous warlord The General, while Curd Jürgens steals every scene he's in as the duplicitous, drunken Cornelious. Moreover, James Mason's turn as the oily, cut-throat bandit Gentleman Brown may make your skin actually crawl; and is the main highlight of the uneven latter half.

In conclusion, Richard Brooks' adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 'Lord Jim' is a mixed-bag if ever there was one. Though Conrad's fascinating tale of guilt, honour and redemption is slightly truncated, it is not totally lost in translation; and the film still packs a narrative punch. Freddie Young's cinematography is captivating, while Bronislaw Kaper's score is stirring and the performances are of a particularly high quality- especially that of star Peter O'Toole. At the end of the day, though it goes through some choppy waters, 'Lord Jim' is still a cruise you should embark on.

Conrad's treatise on fear, heroism, cowardice and death

[JuguAbraham · 8/10 · 10 March 2006]

I have seen the film three times over the past thirty years and each time I loved it. The subject of the film must have attracted director Richard Brooks who was essentially a screenplay writer who later became a director. He knew the merits of a strong script with philosophical lines from Conrad. Coppola was to use the related original material (Conrad's) in his "Apocalypse Now" for the Brando scenes several decades after this film was made and mostly forgotten.

What Brooks does not realize is that lines like "it only takes a split second to make a coward a hero or turn a hero into a coward" and "every sinner wants a second chance at redemption, without realizing he is damned for ever" are philosophical lines that one expects to hear from very literate individuals. Here, in "Lord Jim," the lines are often spoken by the dregs of society. Jim, of course, we are told by the narrator (Jack Hawkins' Marlowe) was philosophical, dreamed of heroism, and was a gentleman.

The film is made up of three distinct segments: 1. the "sinking" of SS Patna 2. The liberation of Patusan ("Patna" + "us" make up the name Patusan, remarks Jim to his love) and 3. The battle with a group of scoundrels (led by James Mason's 'Gentleman' Brown) with some fine speeches on honor, death, and fear.

Each segment could stand alone but together the film adds considerable worthiness that exceeds the action and plot, the elements that most viewers use to judge a movie. The lesser characters in the film add color and counterpoints to the script. Christian Marquand's French Captain who defends Jim's "cowardice" with the words "fear can make us do strange things" or Paul Lukas' Stern who compares his dead butterfly collection with the "wonderful, perfect human beings that God created" or the native who wonders why some pray to one god instead of a host of Gods are a few examples of dialogs that force you to reflect on what you heard.

The film's subject covers several religions. The fervent Muslims on the way to Haj survive the storm. The Christian Jim prays to his God. The Buddhists pray to Buddha. And the natives pray to their array of gods (a touch of Hinduism?). Yet, the film is not a religious film. But faith in God is underlined at every stage.

Conrad was Polish and a seaman before he became a writer. Brooks is an American. O'Toole leads a cast that is predominantly British. Daliah Lavi is Israeli, Marquand is French, Jurgens is German...The film is truly international.

Brooks not only wrote and directed the film but this was the first film that he produced. The film proved to be ideal for O'Toole reprising his roles of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Becket", roles that draw thin lines between cowardice and heroism and consequent attempts to redeem oneself. The film is not great cinema--but will remain for me cinema based on related major literary works ("Lord Jim" and "Heart of Darkness", both narrated by the fictional Marlow) adapted for the screen with some delightful performances from O'Toole, Mason, Wallach, and Marquand and commendable photography by Freddie Young.

Read the Book and Watch the Film Twice

[ries-93957 · 8/10 · 4 August 2022]

Lord Jim is one of those great works of fiction that is best watched after having read the novel, or at least a solid summary of the book. Without this background, the movie could be hard to understand. I also found that it was helpful to watch the film twice. Since some of the details of the movie do not square with those of the novel, it was a bit confusing at times to follow the sequence of the movie, and a second viewing brought all of that into focus. In my opinion, the motion picture does capture quite well the spirit of the book, if not the absolute letter.

I actually found Peter O'Toole's depiction of the lead character to be a quite good representation. He is just as naive and disoriented a character in the movie as in the book. His heroics in the movie are appropriately tempered with self-doubt, and his ultimate fate squares with the novelist's intent for his hero/anti-hero.

I enjoy watching movies of this kind to see how a director and actors visualize the plot of their respective novels, and to me Lord Jim was not a disappointment.

Superb Acting; Don't Miss This Classic Drama

[illini86 · 24 October 2001]

"Lord Jim" is a film that offers viewers satisfaction on many levels. Although it is set in an exotic locale and has a considerable amount of action, the real story of this movie is its exploration of the human condition. Love, honor, courage, commitment and redemption all come into play as the story moves from the sea to the jungle. It reminds us how a split-second decision can alter dramatically the course of our lives.

"Lord Jim" is a well-paced, engaging film. Peter O'Toole's thought-provoking and moving performance will stick in your mind long after you see this movie. I haven't read the book so I can't speak to the movie's faithfulness to the original text, but it does stand on its own legs as a thoroughly entertaining film. If you like movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Sand Pebbles", you will definitely enjoy "Lord Jim." I highly recommend it.

Hopefully, it will become available on DVD soon.

Peter O'Toole is magnificent as a deranged sailor in an interesting story of cowardice and redemption

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 25 February 2015]

Exciting and brooding picture based on the complex novel written by Joseph Conrad (who also wrote Darkness heart) and brought to the screen in lavish budget and colorful visual style .After being discredited as a coward, a 19th century seaman (Peter O'Toole) in British Merchant Marine lives for only one purpose : to redeem himself. As he suffers a deep scar and pain for the rest of his life . But then , he becomes leader of a Southeast Asia village in spite of his past clouded by allegations of betrayal and cowardice . Meanwhile , the native villagers are being slavered by a group nasty cutthroats led European thugs (Eli Wallach , Curt Jurgens) . As the belief shown in him by the villagers is put to the test .

This is a thought-provoking and intelligent story based on Joseph Conrad's novel written in 1900. This prestigious novel has been simplified for easier compression , appreciation and nicely developing . This adventure flick contains , thrills , action , intrigue and wonderful outdoors . Excellent acting by Peter O'Toole in the title role , he is a sailor in Souteast Asia who is adopted by a suppressed village as its leader . After the film's tepid reception, especially for his own starring performance, a once-enthusiastic Peter O'Toole declared, 'It was a mistake and I made the mistake because I was conservative and played safe and that way lies failure'. Movie's biggest moments provided by strange acting by the great Peter O'Toole . Supporting cast is frankly sensational such as Curd Jürgens , Eli Wallach , Jack Hawkins , Paul Lukas , Daliah Lavi , Akim Tamiroff , Andrew Keir , Jack MacGowran ,Ric Young , Noel Purcel , Walter Gotell , among others .Evocative and exotic cinematography by Freddie Young , shot on location in Malacca, Malaysia Lantau Island, Hong Kong, China and Angkor Wat, Siem Reap, Cambodia. Although the Cambodian government never demanded any script approval, one condition of its agreement to allow on-location shooting in the troubled nation was for the production company to build a lot of rooms addition to an existing hotel near the famed Angkor ruins .

Directed and screen-played with awesome style by Richard Brooks . He was a fine writer/director so consistently mixed the good and average which it became impossible to know that to expect from him next . Firstly he worked regularly as a Hollywood screenwriter . After that , his initial experience of directing was one of his own screenplays called ¨Crisis¨. The Richard Brooks films that have the greatest impact are realized during the 50s and 60s as ¨Cat on a hot tin roof¨, ¨Something of value¨ , ¨Elmer Gantry¨, ¨Sweet bird of youth¨, ¨In cold blood¨ , ¨Lord Jim¨. Brooks was a writer and director of Chekhovian depth , who mastered the use of understatement, anticlimax and implied emotion . His films enjoyed lasting appeal and tended to be more serious than the usual mainstream productions . Richards formerly directed two good Western titled ¨Bite the bullet¨ and ¨The professionals ¨ with various tough stars as Burt Lancaster , Lee Marvin , Jack Palance and Robert Ryan , including the same musician , Alex North , and similar outdoors . The ¨Lord Jim¨ is an authentic must see , not to be missed for buffs of the genre . A magnificent movie , hardly noticed for its theatrical release ; however , being nowadays very well considered . Rating : Above average because of its awesome acting , dialog , score are world class.

Not half bad!!

[Hilldoc · 7/10 · 22 April 2005]

Peter O'Tooles eyes are disturbingly blue. Lots of visual detail, good cinematography, cheap special effects. It moves slowly and doesn't really explain the motivations of the main character very well. O'Toole is good but oblique. The movie doesn't really pick up until Eli Wallach shows up. He is quite good, cheerfully cruel and sadistic, and I think he may have taken things from this role that he later expanded on in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Curt Jurgens is delightfully seedy, a sweaty and cowardly drunk who needs a haircut. I don't know anything about the rating system here but I'm giving it a seven for just for watchability.

Epic Jim

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 29 December 2010]

While quite a few filmmakers try to either be as realistic as possible or go the complete opposite way (fantasy or action wise), there was a time when a story was defined just by the main role. As is the case in this movie. The central character is so epic (in his achievements but also in his failures), that it would feel ridiculous to compare him with a human being.

There will be Blood tried to bring that sort of movie back (and depending on your view it achieved or not just that). But while Daniel Day Lewis played a different character, the intensity in the portrayal was the same! The general story line is very familiar. The central performances give this the edge it needs. But it might not be enough to convince you. Whatever you may think, it's intense and packs a punch or two along the way. Cann you bear with it (and it's central character) throughout or will you give up on it?

The split second difference

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 23 August 2015]

Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim made it to the big screen for a second time, the first being a silent screen version. The tale which is about the split second difference between being a hero and a coward which is the time it takes to either give in or control your fears.

Peter O'Toole who recycled some of his Lawrence Of Arabia persona plays the title role of the cashiered British merchant marine officer who abandons his ship during a storm with the rest of the white crew leaving a boatload of Moslem pilgrims to Mecca to fend for themselves. The ship doesn't sink however, it's survives and is salvaged by the French in the Red Sea.

In fact O'Toole further compounds his problems by owning up to the decision forcing a court martial and a cashiering.

But fates give him a chance to redeem himself somewhat when he becomes a deliverer of sorts to a Malaysian tribe being subjugated by a bandit general played by Eli Wallach recycling his bandit character from The Magnificent Seven.

Other folks in the cast are Paul Lukas, Curt Jurgens, Akim Tamiroff playing parts they are well typecast for. Although he doesn't come in until 80% of the film is done James Mason is memorable as a rather cultured but deadly river pirate who Wallach makes common cause with to regain control in his area. Mason to be compensated by some hidden treasure the natives are reputed to possess.

In the end O'Toole has set some impossible standards of human behavior for himself and feels he has to live up to them.

Conrad as author is almost as difficult to translate as Hemingway. This was certainly a better effort than the version of Victory that Fredric March did. I think that O'Toole was fortunate to have burst on the big screen in a breakout role of T.E. Lawrence that was similar to his character here. It was well brought out by director Richard Brooks.

Fans of the listed players should like Lord Jim.

J.Conrad superb novel portrayed in a dark and poethic cinema language

[jfsequeira · 10/10 · 25 January 2004]

The double edge of humanity: fear and courage. In his darkest hour, Lord Jim finds a redeeming path of self-sacrifice facing his past and the burden of a dramatic split-second decision. A coward´s decision aboard the Patna? Heroes before the action, dreaming of epic challenges often "freeze" in the face of danger. The survival instinct is in clear contradiction to the strong desire of young Jim to do good. Peter o´Toole reveals a dramatical and deep performance, outstandingly faithful to Conrad´s masterpiece. James Mason is superb giving life to an ignominious as well as charming dark face of evil. The vivid colour of the jungle and the thick river myst create the perfect atmosphere for this dark novel(with a major future influence in Coppola´s "Apocalypse now"). In this film you can see portrayed the all time dilema of our lives. Everyone in his or her lifetime will sometimes have to make a decisive split-second decision, that will change irreversibly his life and that of others. If it is the wrong decision, will we ever have a chance of redemption?

Worth a Visit

[ilprofessore-1 · 7/10 · 2 August 2009]

Yes, it's too long and too pretentious with Richard Brook's heavy hand pounding out Conrad's philosophies about Good and Evil, Bravery and Cowardice, but the film has many redeeming qualities for those willing to sit through the longeurs, among them a sterling cast of international character actors at their very best: Russia's Akim Tamiroff, Germany's Curt Jurgens, America's Eli Wallach, England's James Mason and Hungary's Paul Lukas. Lovers of the supreme and subtle art of the British lighting cameraman (so different from the usual Technicolor gloss) can revel in Freddie Young's mastery of atmospheric color photography, some of it shot on location in Southeast Asia, but much of it reproduced magnificently at London's Shepperton Studios with perfect sets by Geoff Drake who learned his trade as Vincent Korda's assistant. The sound effects (uncredited) and native music used during the action scenes are particularly effective. Trivia fans will note that the gorgeous Asian girl played by the Israeli actress Daliah Lavi is now on her fourth marriage and apparently living in Ashville, North Carolina far from the heart of darkness.

Did Brooks read Conrad's book?

[Age_of_Therapy · 2/10 · 19 August 2022]

After 10 years since my first reading, I finished Lord Jim for the second time under the avocado tree at my mom's house on my summer vacation today. I couldn't believe how brilliant the book was, and when I got to the last ten pages, I wanted more and more. My jaw dropped at the brilliance. The ending is phenomenal, and the book is overall a masterpiece and perfect in so many ways. I was amazed to learn that Conrad learned English in his 20's as a third language, after Polish (his native language) and French. He writes with a command of the language better than most professional authors and surely way better than I could ever dream of, despite being a native speaker and passionate English student.

With a huge amount of passion for the book, I excitedly rented the film from Amazon and set aside 2.5 hours to watch it tonight! I am a huge fan of Peter O'Toole, Eli Wallach, and had a great interest in James Mason and the rest of the cast, like the gorgeous Daliah Lavi. The acting is not at all my point of contention with this film, because I think they did great.

What happened with the directing and the script? Robert Brooks, did you read the same book I read? This became a bang-fest of guns and fighting where the book had maybe two pistol shots and one rifle snipe in the entire novel, with oblique reference to some other possible squabbles. The novel was primarily an existential struggle of a man trying to get back his lost honor, with complex narrative and immersive naturalism. The movie version had weak cinematography and horribly simplified and confusing writing where the emphasis hit hard on stuff that the book didn't ever mention, and totally ignored some of the most important and poignant points of the novel.

If you want a good Lord Jim, please read the book. If you want to be left confused and disappointed, frustrated and bored, watch this film. The last scene is atrocious. It is technically the same as the novel, but oh so different in every way. What happens with Jewel, or "the girl" in the film (because they somehow decided it was better not to give her a name) is totally unacceptable if you are going do call this film "Lord Jim".

Yes, this is a piece of trash, and I will never watch it again. I can't say that I regret my time watching it, because I had to as homework for my love of the novel, but it is so terribly adapted, and so insulting to the original author who toiled with a very challenging life to hew the story like a sculptor in another language, that please, what the heck happened with the Brooks script? Did he read the same novel? Could he or Hollywood just not help the distortion? He had a goldmine of base content but completely blew it! Doramin is nothing like the tragic, titanic, elephant leader of the book, and we terribly miss his amazing motherly witch wife, Jewel doesn't even merit her name in the movie and is a hollow shell of the strong feminine counterpart to Jim's groping leadership that she is in the novel, Jim is trapped in a confusing, castrated version of himself that doesn't make any sense, Brown is not Brown, Marlow who is the most important character is deleted from the script, Tamb 'Itam as well is deleted to terrible effect because his presence is critical to establish the believable bridge between the white leader and the native society that is immediately "taken over" by Jim (Tamb 'Itam is also an outsider in Patusan, but fiercely loyal to Jim), Cornelius is a far cry from the abject beetle that he is in the book (and Conrad didn't even think to make him alcoholic because his abjectness was already so absolute), the Rajah Allah was for some reason reinvented as "the general" which is totally opposite of his bedraggled fawning terrible scared leader character, Dain Warris loses his soul brother connection with Jim, Stein is a shadow of his powerful presence that he has in the book, and on, and on. Seriously I am scratching the surface with how much Brooks robbed the essence of the novel when making this film that cannot even stand on its own as a film. I would be willing to pardon his.pilferage if he had just made a good film with the source material, but he lost his way.

Film and novels often have a hard time in adaptions of one to the other, because they are such different mediums. You might conclude that it is never possible - and that is not a bad conclusion. But, there are some amazing attempts, like John Houston's adaptation of "Under the Volcano" (1984) or "Willy Wonka" (1971) or "The Excorcist" (1973), and so many other great adaptations to cinema that amplify the experience of the book. But dang, it is simultaneously sad and it makes sense that one of the treasures of literature, "Lord Jim", continues without a good adaptation, because it is allusive and built on paradoxes and complexity of narrative and appeals the the most profound extremes of the imagination.

Good Peter O'Toole performance in a great Joseph Conrad story

[roninstgeorge · 9/10 · 24 March 2005]

Moving story of an idealistic seaman forced to deal with his act of cowardice and how he ultimately redeems himself. The film has good action sequences and a moving love story. Performances by Eli Wallach and James Mason are colorful and solid, and there are plenty of Peter O'Toole's trademark "vacant stares". Daliah Lavi is gorgeous and her role more substantive than those of her other films. I love Peter O'Toole's films from this period (Lawrence of Arabia, What's New Pussycat?, Night of the Generals) and this one is as good as most of them. I looked for this film on DVD and finally had to tape it off of AMC (in the good old days before they saturated their programing with commercials). I'd like to see it restored and re-released.

Mediocre but worth watching.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 29 April 2000]

This film is certainly overlong, the narrative tends to meander and O'Toole's overly earnest performance becomes monotonous after a while. But it still includes bits of excellent dialogue, Eli Wallach and James Mason give smashing performances and, near the end, some philosophical depth is actually achieved. Overall, not a very successful picture, but one with enough redeeming qualities to be worth watching at least once.

Dull and over-long

[MOscarbradley · 4/10 · 15 August 2006]

Richard Brooks continued his flirtation with the great works of literature with this, you may think, unnecessarily lavish production of Joseph Conrad's novel which surely cried out for a more metaphysical treatment. What Brooks gives us isn't so much a tale of redemption as a lush adventure with a blue eyed blonde hero in exotic locations indulging in a load of derring-do.

As Lord Jim, Peter O'Toole reprises his role as Lawerence but this time round, since he has only an idea to work with, his performances comes across as moribund and dull. The film has a large, starry cast but Brooks' way with actors seems to have deserted him, except in the case of James Mason, who is the only actor to capture the Conrad spirit. Unfortunately he doesn't come into the picture until two-thirds of the way through by which time you have lost all interest in Jim and his exploits.

It is certainly a handsome epic, beautifully shot by Freddie Young, but it also overlong and a bit prosaic, something of the kiss of death for a film of this kind.

A Period Piece

[calquirky · 19 February 2007]

Based on the novel, this movie is not only representative of the period piece that Joseph Conrad's story was, but also of movie-making at that time (1965). It's an epic story told in the way that they did back then --sweeping landscapes, exotic locales, hundreds of extras, good performances and many questions regarding philosophical and practical values. At times a bit clunky and unexplained, the movie is a study in movie-making during that era.

It brings up the same issues that Conrad did in his book, sometimes so much so that the dialog feels as though it is dragging. O'Toole's character emotes plenty, despite acting flat for a good portion of the first third. The scene between him and James Mason is the spark of the piece. At 2:34, this movie flounders and drags in the middle. Still, it's a good piece to watch.

Watchable and visually appealing

[Marlburian · 7/10 · 19 September 2005]

"Lord Jim" is a visually-impressive film with Peter O'Toole almost as charismatic (and troubled) as a leader of a native rebellion as he was in "Lawrence of Arabia". But apart from his conveying arms and gunpowder to the tribesmen one wonders if he was really needed, because they seem well prepared to attack their oppressors. His romance with Daliah Lavi reminds one of 1950s Westerns where the stranger rides into town and immediately strikes up a relationship with the local beauty who seems to have no other suitors. But the film is already long enough (at 154 minutes) not to embrace the other film cliché of there actually being a suitor who becomes jealous and betrays the newcomer to the other side.

After Jim is captured there's quite a build up to his torture which, when it happens, is anti-climatic in its brevity, certainly compared with O'Toole's ordeal at the hands of the Turks in "Lawrence". And the general's psychoanalytical assessment of Jim is unconvincingly remarkable in its accuracy, and the subsequent psychological pressure does not seem that arduous.

When the natives were celebrating their victory, I was wondering if I had misread the cast list as James Mason hadn't appeared. Then the film "starts up" again with a new plot line. It would have been better if Mason had been introduced earlier on, perhaps when Jim was trying to get a boat to transport the arms and gunpowder up-river or as an accomplice of the general.

That said, the film is good to watch. O'Toole performs well, and Mason makes a striking baddie. Their mid-river debate is compelling to watch.

Disappointing Conrad Adaptation

[dglink · 6/10 · 18 January 2016]

The 1965 Columbia Pictures film, "Lord Jim," has an excellent pedigree. A fine writer-director in Richard Brooks, who made such distinguished films as "The Professionals," "In Cold Blood," and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof;" an outstanding cast of international stars that includes Peter O'Toole, James Mason, Curt Jurgens, and Eli Wallach; and a classic story by Joseph Conrad. What could go wrong? Plenty it seems.

Conrad's story details a man's search for redemption. Midshipman aboard a leaky tub that is over crowded with 800 pilgrims, Jim and other crew members panic and abandon the ship and the passengers during a violent storm. Jim and his mates reach safety, where they discover that the ship and the passengers have been rescued, and, while the other crew members flee, Jim faces an inquiry into his cowardly actions. Against picturesque Cambodian locations, Jim tries to keep a step ahead of his past, while seeking heroism to compensate for his perceived cowardice. Unfortunately, Jim's introspective quest makes for a pedestrian workmanlike film. The few battle scenes are static and unexciting, watching Jim grimace and flash back to his cowardly actions is not dynamic filmmaking, and the characters talk and talk and talk.

Peter O'Toole excelled in such rich flamboyant roles as Henry II, Lawrence, and Alan Swann; however, Conrad's Lord Jim is an internalized character, and O'Toole's cool detached performance turns Jim into a colorless unsympathetic man. Jim relates to no one, even his supposed affection for the girl, played by Daliah Lavi, is unconvincing; O'Toole and Lavi have no chemistry, let alone any romantic spark. While Eli Wallach is always interesting to watch, and his General is easily the most memorable part, a supporting player cannot carry a two-and-a-half-hour movie. A film laden with veteran actors that also include Akim Tamiroff, Jack Hawkins, and Paul Lukas, in addition to the aforementioned O'Toole, Wallach, and Mason, "Lord Jim" had the potential to be a film rich in performances.

Perhaps Conrad is an impossible author to successfully film, unless risks are taken, such as those dared by Coppola with "Apocalypse Now," his loose adaptation of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." Brooks wrote a literate script, perhaps too literate, and cast veteran actors with proved skills in an evidently big-budget production. However, while the recipe was good, the end result was not. "Lord Jim" is slow going and requires patience to sit through. Given the effort, the director, the cast, and the location photography, the film can only be rated a major disappointment.

A coward dies a thousand deaths before he can be reborn....

[ianlouisiana · 7/10 · 13 September 2008]

From a time when Civil Servants,Remittance Men and Army Officers and their Ladies ruled half the world,"Lord Jim" is the sort of tale set before starry - eyed British public schoolboys to encourage them to sally forth and perpetuate the Empire and spread Victorian Values to the "Fuzzy Wuzzies".A Public School Man would understand that Jim - by deserting an apparently doomed ship - had broken the self - imposed "Code" of the upper middle classes.Stokers and stewards jumped overboard,Etonians and the like were supposed to be "Useful at a Hunt Ball - indispensable in a shipwreck" and behave accordingly. Jim would be termed a "funk" and face social ostracism - frankly he would have been better off dead.Nonsensical today,but de rigeur a century and a quarter ago. Chaps who adapted to the indigenous culture were deemed to have "gone native" and considered beyond the pale.Jim had well and truly burned his boats. Former seaman Joseph Conrad was an early proponent of post - colonial guilt(see "Heart of Darkness"),and most of his European characters are greedy and self - serving,if not downright criminal.Only Jim with his perceived need for redemption has a pure heart.He is played with blue - eyed innocence by Mr P. O'Toole.As a colonialist who has broken ranks he is treated sympathetically by his creator.Mr O'Toole never gets much beyond B.O.P. level with his character,the philosophising falling uneasily not to say oxymoronically from his lips.Messr Mason and Wallach benefit from the relative lack of restraint imposed on their respective characters.Mr Mason in particular has a fine old time and lifts the movie up several notches just when it has given every appearance of having become moribund. Miss Lavi as "The Girl"(Is this indicative of Conrad's disinterest in women except as ciphers or is she representative of his conception of "Eternal Woman"?)has an intelligence to match her beauty. Redemption is of course one of the Great Themes of literature and "Lord Jim" as a novel is clearly concerned with it throughout it's length.The movie - on the other hand - uses it only in passing.It is not it's raison d'etre.Part travelogue,part adventure,it's sometimes beautiful to look at,well - photographed,directed in a deceptively breezy style and always worth watching.But it is not a serious exploration of the fragile psyche of a self - styled "coward" and an enquiry into how many people have to die before he can be "reborn".

'Lord Jim' is a stretched but frequently enjoyable adventure.

[those_who_dig · 7/10 · 7 July 2015]

'Lord Jim' is a film adaptation of Joseph Conrad's acclaimed novel, in which an English seaman (Peter O'Toole), upon being exposed as a coward after abandoning a sinking vessel, seeks a life of anonymity in Southeast Asia. On his travels, he is tasked with a mission that may allow him to reassert himself as a hero, or at least a man of courage. The task is to smuggle weapons to a group of indigenous rebels, who are resisting the tyranny of a sadistic general. The barbarous General (unnamed) is played well by Eli Wallach, but the villain's lines are a little uninspired and cliché: "Death is the end of everything," he tells Jim at one point. At another: "Do you know what makes pain unbearable? It is the brain." It isn't original enough to be sinister, and cheapens the character. (The film has some nice lines, though, such as: "Become a father before you judge a father's anger," and, "There is too much pride in your humility.")The General had the potential to be like 'Apocalypse Now''s General Kurtz, but the writing steers him towards the role of "nasty, dim-witted pirate". A later villain is introduced and is competently played by James Mason; this antagonist is the better of the two, but still isn't great, and the charisma of 'Lord Jim' has to be delivered almost singly by Peter O'Toole's title character. The story is generally quite compelling in places, but the whole production feels quite stretched. It could be a classic if the plot lived up to the action – and the action is, in places, fantastic. 'Lord Jim' is a little 'Lawrence of Arabia', a little 'Treasure Island' and a little 'Indiana Jones', but lacks the tightness and cohesion necessary to equate it with any of these titles.

" You can no more escape who you are, . . . than what you are "

[thinker1691 · 10/10 · 28 August 2010]

In 1900, Joseph Conrad published his extraordinary novel Lord Jim. Since then it has traveled around the world and received inter-national recognition and acclaim. In 1925, it was superbly adapted into a film called " Lord Jim ", which was re-made in 1965. In this version we have Peter O'Toole as Lord Jim. Basically, it tells the story of a young English sailor who joins the British Merchant Navy and feels he has found his calling. Having been injured, he is sent to recover in a hospital. Upon his discharge, he is anxious to return to sea, he signs on the first available ship called The Patna. The aging vessel has been assigned to transport Arab pilgrims to the middle East. A huge storm strikes the floundering ship causing the Crew to abandon ship. Jim is forced to choose and he jumps. The ship, however does not sink and the cowardly crew goes into hiding, all except Jim who insists on being court-martial-ed and disgraced. For the rest of his life, Jim must live with the consequences of his fateful decision. He travels deep into the jungles of Malasia, where he seeks solace, redemption and a second chance to prove himself. The movie cast includes, James Mason, Curd Jürgens, Eli Wallach and Jack Hawkins. The film has become a benchmark for O'Toole and a definite Movie Classic. It is filled with suspense, dark drama, physical action, explosions and spectacular sequences. The sum total of which created a not-to-be missed Classic for all. ****

A literary adventure film

[mark-rojinsky · 7/10 · 18 July 2021]

'Lord Jim' is a serious and literary adventure film from the mid-'60s based on a novel by Conrad. Ostensibly it deals with notions of major setbacks, failure, self-image, honour, resilience and second chances in life. After a perverse act of negligence - James Burke - a merchant seaman - along with the other white crew members abandons a rust-tub, the 'Patna' carrying Moslem pilgrims during a sea-storm. In disgrace he ekes out a living as a menial worker in Oriental ports. He is given a second chance to redeem himself after he stops an explosion on a boat in the port of Saigon. He is observed by a shrewd dapper businessman, Stein (Paul Lukas) who hires him to transport gunpowder and rifles inland in bandit country. Peter O'Toole's performance as Jim is cited as his finest performance after his role as Lawrence of Arabia. A fairhaired free spirit he displays neurotic tics and sense of purpose. The supporting cast - the dapper Stein, the seedy money-grubbing businessmen Stromberg (Tamiroff) and Cornelius (Jurgens), a diminutive Irish sailor and cadger Robinson (MacGowran), the swarthy aggressive bandit The General (Wallach) and a devious one-eyed oriental (Young) are excellent. Full of profound phrases, sense of adventure and evocative oriental settings; it is also interesting to see the interaction between two Yorkshire actors - Leeds (or Tipperary-born) O'Toole and Huddersfield-born James Mason.

Average, overlong adaptation of the Conrad novel

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 11 January 2017]

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.

Has Two Of The All-Time Best Film Villains ...

[ozymandias312 · 10/10 · 5 January 2003]

... in Eli Wallach's barbarically philosophical warlord, "The General," and in the late, great James Mason's "Gentleman" Brown, a latter-day South Seas pirate, guilty of "even some things not mentioned in the Bible." I never read the Conrad book, so I can't compare the film to that, but only judge it as a film. And I think it is worth remarking that one film has two of the all-time coolest villains in it.

Patchy Jim

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 16 September 2017]

Lord Jim is an overlong, literate would be epic about redemption of a cowardly sailor.

Adapted from the novel by Joseph Conrad, Jim (Peter O'Toole) is an officer in the merchant navy in 19th century far east. In heavy storms he joins his crew in abandoning his ship and his passengers bound for Mecca to perform the hajj pilgrimage.

The ship and passenger reach port safely, Jim faces censure for his cowardly actions and stripped of his sailing papers.

Jim disappears into anonymity working anywhere he can find a job. One day he gets a chance at redemption as he defends some island villagers from a ruthless warlord and later a river bandit.

Director Richard Brooks was hoping O'Toole and Jack Hawkins would elevate this film to the heights of Lawrence of Arabia. The film was extensively shot in Cambodia, there is a literate screenplay and it has all the hallmarks of a would be epic.

Yet the film fails because it is uneven, it is overlong, after a promising start it becomes plodding, at times it even looks cheap despite the overseas shooting. O'Toole has a good stab at playing the doubting, depressed Jim but somehow he lacks passion. I think both Brooks and O'Toole realised that the source novel was just too difficult to adapt.

Its Potential Is Lost In A Long And Drawn Out Story

[sddavis63 · 2/10 · 3 September 2010]

There were some good things about this movie. The opening half hour or so depicted some very realistic depictions of life at sea, and an exciting ride as the storm hit the Patna, in the last half particularly there are some reasonable depictions of battle and action scenes and throughout there's a potentially interesting character study that's going on. That study revolves around the lead character of Jim (Peter O'Toole) a sailor who finds himself in disgrace after an act of cowardice and then spends the rest of his life trying to redeem himself. Jim was a character with some interesting background and with interesting demons to do battle with. The culmination of his struggle leads to a worthwhile philosophical reflection: "Maybe the difference between heroes and cowards is that they're ordinary men who for a split second do something out of the ordinary." That's not a bad lesson. There's also some good photography in this, and some great scenery.

Unfortunately, all the potential gets lost in a story that I felt resembled little more than a long and drawn out muddle. To me it seemed to have a lot of unnecessary filler and it failed completely to hold my attention. By the end, my attention had wandered so often and so far that I really had little idea what was happening on the screen. That could be a critique of my own attention span, I suppose, except that it's unusual for me to lose track of the story even if I don't find it particularly interesting. Personally, I was disappointed in this.