Thank You, Jeeves!

When muddleheaded Bertie Wooster - London playboy & man about town - gets himself into trouble, he can always rely on the inimitable Jeeves, his gentleman's gentleman, to extricate him from the plight. When Bertie becomes involved with a beautiful mystery woman, Jeeves must utilize brawn, not brain, to rescue him from a dangerous gang of international thieves. Hopefully, Wooster will once again be able to say, `THANK YOU, JEEVES!'

Very loosely based on one of his novels, Sir P. G. Wodehouse's immortal characters come alive in this, the first of two Jeeves films produced by 20th Century Fox. At only 57 minutes long, the film wastes no time in getting into its funny business. Fans of the short stories & novels will notice that liberties were taken with the characters. Jeeves is less of the all-knowing automaton; in fact, he uses not his cerebral matter but a knowledge of fisticuffs to catch the villains. Bertie is still rather zany, but his (eventual) success with the fair sex has noticeably improved.

Having played butlers so often, Arthur Treacher here has the plum role of his career. He is perfect as Jeeves: tall, with forbidding intellect - but not afraid to unbend and sing a rousing hunting song or swing a mean battle-ax. David Niven is a lot of fun as Wooster, vague & a bit befuddled, but loyal & brave in defending his lady love. She is played nicely by Virginia Field. Willie Best has some very funny moments as a stranded saxophonist who adds to the hilarity.

He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.

I have two problems with this movie.

First: If you've ever read any of P.G. Wodehouse's classic "Wooster and Jeeves" stories you will be sadly disappointed by this adaption. Only the names are left from the original, this is a vehicle for British comic actor Arthur Treacher and nothing else.

Second: Treacher as Jeeves hogs every scene, and the enchanting (elsewhere) David Niven is left with nothing but feeding him a few pathetic straight-man lines. What a waste, he's one of my favorite actors and would have made a perfect Wooster had they let him anything try.

So, what we have is a glorified Music 'All turn by Mr. Treacher preserved on film. Many critics seem to like it, they may be right, I was too blinded by my love of the books to be objective.

For fellow Plum fans I recommend the fairly recent adaptations done by Hugh Fry and Stephen Laurie, I believe they're available on video. They're well done and faithful.

Arthur Treacher and David Niven were terrific in the first big-screen adaptation of P.G. Wodehouse's classic comedy series. As a lifelong Wodehouse fan, I only wish there were more Jeeves & Bertie movies with those two. (The 80s BBC series comes close.) Both were exceptionally funny, although in "Thank You Jeeves" Niven's talents were pretty much wasted in favor of Treacher's. By the way, check out Arthur Treacher's appearance in two 1964 episodes of "The Beverly Hillbillies." He's a riot!

This must be, by a very large margin, one of the worst adaptations of all time of Wodehouse's immortal Jeeves and Wooster novels.

It features an intelligent sex-mad Bertie, a singing, dancing, and pugilistic Jeeves, an unnecessary black saxophonist, and so on and so on.

One can only hope that Wodehouse (whose name appears in very small type in the credits) simply took the money and ran.

If I could give it zero out of ten (or even better, minus several hundred, I would) but as the system doesn't allow me to I give it a resentful zero. How on earth did it get to rate 6.3?

The mind boggles.