Lord Jim

The chronological arrangement, the failure to show the duality between Patna and Patusan, and the widely divergent last ¾ of the plot make the film a chore. While the film preserves the novel's shaky pacing, the changes disrupt the plot so that the character motivations are incongruous with the ending and the romantic subplot is illogical. The film doesn't have the epic visuals, acting, effects, characterization, or pacing to justify its epic length. All it got right is Jim's fear of opprobrium.

Large scale epic has some impressive moments, and an uncharacteristically restrained performance from O'Toole, but sluggish pacing, and generally confusing plotting, make the film a mild chore. A big name cast is left to drift, with Jurgens managing some nice moments, but Wallach seemingly miscast as a native Chief. Brooks' direction of key action scenes in the second half feels somewhat stagnant, which robs many key scenes of their impact.

Meaty but somehow not satisfying, and very very long

Is it possible to release a handsomely mounted, action-packed epic, adapted from Conrad, filmed at beautiful Angkor Wat, headlining Peter O'Toole with James Mason among a supporting cast of notable character actors and have it turn out a colossal bore? Yes, it is.

Probably the most depressing widescreen adventure movie ever made. Adaptation of Joseph Conrad novel with O'Toole in fine form as the doomed hero.

A young Peter O'Toole looks uncannily like Jude Law in this scenically interesting and action-packed movie with little dialogue. I have information for Jude Law . . . Peter O'Toole is clearly his biological father. The author's (Joseph Conrad) narrative insertions are infrequent but well selected and enriching. Eli Wallach plays a very effective villain; his character is perhaps the most physically intimidating Jew I've ever seen. The whole thing is well done and better than a Chuck Norris film.