ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

aramis-112-804880 PICCADILLY JIM is one of my favorite Wodehouse books. It's a non-series novel with the concomitant flaws of early Wodehouse. But the story has Wodehouse's most masterly "impostor" plot where a young man is introduced as a guest into a private home masquerading ... as himself. If you want an explanation, see this movie and all will be made clear.The cast is excellent. Sam Rockwell enters the Wodehouse world with surprising aplomb as Jimmy. Tom Wilkinson is superb as his father, an ex-pat American married to a woman (improbably) trying to buy him a title; but he misses baseball so much he sails home pretending to be a butler. Rockwell and Wilkinson have a tremendous rapport. Meanwhile, the real butler (Geoffrey Palmer) is assumed to be Rockwell's father by Francis O'Connor as the love interest. All clear? No? Good! The movie remains strangely loyal to Wodehouse's convoluted story, tinkering with it here and there for clarity. It's played up to the hilt, but none of the actors (even Hugh Bonneville, the worst offender as a German spy never quite goes over the top--though given the setting of the movie and the time the book was written it's never clear whether he's working for the Nazis or the Kaiser in trying to steal a new secret bomb formula, a little thing Wodehouse threw in just for added confusion).The problem most people have with this flick is the problem I feared I might have. And it's a perfectly valid criticism. Read on.While this Wodehouse is thankfully set in the 1930s (actually, PICCADILLY JIM was written a lot earlier, but we'll let that pass) it is a thirties that never existed except in the beautifully deranged minds of the designers. It's an alternative-history thirties, done in steampunk style. These thirties were never as they were (certainly no one seems to feel there's a depression on) but as they should have been were they more like the twenty-first century.For instance, the London nightclub Jimmy (Rockwell) goes to meet Ann (O'Connor) is playing ersatz swing music, far too booming to be real swing, and is sung by a singer with WAY too much decolletage for the period, but it works. They throw in just enough of the real thirties to make you buy the weird hairdos and clothes and far-outrageous Decco sets.The trick is not to take any of it seriously. It's a feast for the eyes. Sit back and enjoy it--at least the story is mostly straight.The worst result in this bastardized mix certain moral attitudes. The best of Wodehouse was free of post-Freudian angst. Even couples seeking engagement were not driven by sexual hankerings. Therefore, it is shocking when sexual activity is implied (which it is early on, but not so much later on). This is a liberty with the text I personally disliked, but is less unseemly with this bizarre 1930s/2000s blend.MAJOR SPOILER: As some reviewers have pointed out, the actual butchery of Wodehouse is a single change in the plot. And it's not a small alteration. Jimmy (Rockwell) was "Piccadilly Jim" who wrote little pieces for the paper. As in Wodehouse, Jimmy is now sacked and someone else is writing the "Piccadilly Jim" column. In the book, Jimmy wrote a bad review of a younger Ann's self-published book of romantic verse (in squishy leather). Any Wodehouse fan can tell you the attitude toward verse published in squishy leather. In the book, Jimmy wrote the review. In the movie, his successor is the real culprit, writing under the "Piccadilly Jim" brand name. But if Jimmy tells Ann who he's not just pretending to be Jimmy but he actually is Jimmy, she is less likely to marry him and more likely to kill him.And that's not the very worst. This is: Whoever wrote the review, Jimmy or his successor, the book and movie handle the situation in diametrically opposite ways. Wodehouse can be awfully, and hilariously, callous in his treatment of children and minor poets. But the movie treats the issue in more of a touchy-feely twenty-first century way that removes its fangs. Shame.Nevertheless, Jimmy's discovery of "his" reviews is very funny. And the movie's treatment of Ann is beautiful. Because of that review, Ann abandoned poetry and started writing crime novels noted for their violence. All written, no doubt, with "Piccadilly Jim" in mind. Though this treatment of Ann is hardly canonical, it's a lovely touch, and I like this neurotic and dangerous, hard-drinking, crime-writing Ann a whole lot better than Wodehouse's heroine of a century ago.Overall, it's a very good adaptation, only occasionally skating around Wodehouse's tightly-wound plot. It hardly presents any sort of real living conditions of the period, but ... frankly, neither did Wodehouse himself. If you can stomach the weird sets and styles, you're in for a lot of laughs. Unlike a lot of Wodehouse adaptations (for instance, I was never sold on Stephen Fry's Jeeves), this one is fast moving and FUNNY. And what is generally overlooked is that, like Wodehouse at his best, it's joyful.

hts284 Thankfully I didn't venture into a cinema to see this film, just bought the DVD and got what I could for it by re-selling on ebay. The start of the film with a Morgan sports car stuck in a tree should have warned me how bad this would become. The car was a very new Morgan, so the 1930's setting was blown immediately. I did try very hard to like this film, but despite some excellent British actors who normally turn in a very reliable performance, this was not their finest hour. It should be viewed as a reminder that writers like Julian Fellowes can, on occasions, work well below par and that normally excellent actors can attach themselves to a real turkey.

Hugues-Frederic Brouillette I really had fun watching this movie. More like a play put in a film 9few location, great dialogs, situation and imbroglio comedy) but wait what a beautiful set design, the cast is great, the plot is vaudeville's but hey what do you aspect of a movie called: Picadily Jim! You will laugh, maybe not all the time, but the movie is construct on a good tempo and should entertain you. I really like those independent movies, not trying to create a new world but just trying to give us good time without taking us for granted. Enjoy for what it is: a great moment of laugh, smiles and intelligence.Thank you for the film

zachgeo The mix of contemporary references and modern scenery, in what was ostensibly a period piece, just makes this film annoying. On top of this, the movie proves that Frances O'Connor cannot act, and that surrounding her with good actors and actresses will only increase the pain she causes audiences. Sadly, I really wanted to like this movie, but could not do so -- I love P.G. Woodehouse's work, and it is all eminently adaptable to film. Yet, somehow, the makers if this fiasco failed in what should have been a simple and enjoyable endeavor. This could either have been a period piece, or a modern adaptation, yet it is neither -- instead it is a mish-mash of references best suited for some sort of high school dramatic review. Do not pay money to see this!