Blaironit Excellent film with a gripping story!

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

MissSimonetta O Lucky Man! (1973) has been overlooked for decades, though luckily nowadays it is becoming more appreciated for the lost classic it is. The movie is a bizarre odyssey through 1970s Britain, with the innocent every man Mick Travis serving as a sort of Adam stumbling outside of paradise (note how often he is shown munching on apples). His adventures are black comic, grotesquely sexual, and even frightening, yet in the end, in the face of massive disillusionment with the human race, Mick reaches a sort of enlightenment in what may be the most cautiously optimistic ending in cinematic history.Lindsay Anderson's direction is marvelous, combining the classical epic, musical, and in some cases silent cinema to create an entirely unique movie experience. Malcolm McDowell (who also co-wrote the script) is just perfection as Mick Travis, innocent and idealistic but never one note or dull. For me, both the villainous Alex Delarge of A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Mick Travis in O Lucky Man! are his finest moments as an actor. I wish that someday he'll get one last chance to play a similarly fantastic role. Alan Price's music is very early 1970s and catchy. His music acts as a sort of Greek chorus for Mick's adventures.O Lucky Man! is a spiritual sequel to Anderson's 1968 movie If...., which explored the rebellion of the 1960s counterculture. O Lucky Man! is more about the 1970s, of course, and I think it a far more interesting picture, though If.... still remains a great favorite of mine. The 1970s was one of the greatest decades for movie-making worldwide, and if you love this decade, then you owe it to yourself to see O Lucky Man!

berberian00-276-69085 I wish to put in this tabloid a small commentary on the scene with the hog-man, stanza a. 1h 15 min, from the film at hand. Now "O Lucky Man" is a most remarkable film indeed. Besides its complex plot and its considerable length, the movie offers a real gem in the field of allegory. On broad canvas Mike (the main hero) is just another young man from the lost generation in 1960s. Me being a slightly later offspring from the same cold war epoch and a curious kid from the 1970s, was a real shock to watch a film like this one on the wide screen. I remember that by the end of the movie half of the cinema hall was empty since the "grown-ups" had left the saloon bored. This was then socialist Bulgaria, people could hardly perceive a social satire that the film was and really a small number of spectators could perceive this movie as just another Orwellian "1984", whatsoever. I want to return to my primary idea about the hog-man. It came smoothly and unexpectedly in the narrative of the film; that maybe was done purposefully to gain maximum effect and embroilment. It was not such a disgusting scene to see creature with a head of man and a body of hairy pig. I have seen much more disgusting movies of blood spilling and cannibalism (for instance, playmate Rogero Deodato does such kind of cinema). Instantaneously, here you go with an outcry and everything is over. If you are impressed, you have to find the movie on a tape and watch the same scene over and over again. "How much did they paid you", says Mike and turns away the sheet that covers his shivering companion. That's all.Elementary ethics condones the spectator to think about where did the scenario get the idea of such a plot. I have watched thousands of movies and as much special effects, but never have seen such an grotesque image of a clinic where people are castrated and turned into living animals. I know that Mr. McDowell wrote the script himself based on personal experience and maybe its a secret that he prefers not to reveal to public. I wish him all the best and many more creative years in the future! Thank You.

ViernesTresAM I had seen "If..." and was not very convinced about weather I had liked it or not. I guess, as I am not English nor have I lived in the 70's, and I am a girl I couldn't really relate to the movie. But I decided to give "O, lucky man" a chance anyway. I liked so much more than if...! It gets some aspects of the capitalist world spot on, and it mocks it in a really over the top manner, making the plot line change continually. It still didn't make me crack up, but there's another aspect of the film that makes watching it worth while: the soundtrack is one of the best ever! It has a few Alan Price's songs throughout the film, that are written for it and performed in the studio. The band even gets a part in one scene! It's really an incredible soundtrack, amazing songs. So even if this movie is not for you, you'll at least have enjoyed the lovely music Alan Price provides.

DarthVoorhees 'O Lucky Man!' is a brilliant modern day tragedy befitting the times and culture in which in it was made. It is often very cynical and damning in it's critique of basically everything from capitalism, religion, and government. In many ways I found it more depressing than Anderson's masterpiece if... where we were first introduced to Malcolm McDowell's Mick Travis. 'O Lucky Man!' is a challenging film, it has really no plot or coherence to it. It is surrealist as it is described the only constant being the very naive Mick Travis is broken and broken by a society that eats up people who view the world with good and idealist eyes. Do we really like Travis? It's hard not to like Malcolm McDowell in anything even in the midsts of him playing sociopaths in if... or 'Clockwork Orange'. The thing about Travis that really draws the viewer in though is that his own personality s part of the surrealist landscape. No one is as hopeful or bright eyed of the world as Travis is. The great irony about 'O Lucky Man!' stems from taking this character and placing him in this hell. What I really appreciate about this film and if... that preceded it is the idea of Travis being an everyman. The societies in if... and 'Oh Lucky Man' are exaggerated to be sure but they offer an interesting exploration of these ideas. if... was a film about the young and old and how they violently collide and yet I find 'O Lucky Man' much more troubling. Essentially the film is about the breaking of Michael Travis. It's about money, the young and the old, and more importantly about finding an ideology to live by. Travis thinks he can make it in this world and the film mercilessly says that one cannot make their own destiny. That is what 'O Lucky Man' is about.. I find the soundtrack and even the irony of Travis eventually becoming the lucky man fascinating. Anderson has created a comedy of the blackest sort. Society says one thing and we see another.Michael Travis eventually gets his luck but at what cost? He signs his life away several times over the course of the film and the bright eyed youngster is reduced to a broken cynic by it's end. When the world eventually finds some use of Michael Travis, Michael Travis ceases to exist. I love that Anderson portrays this as a light hearted comedy because it is in actuality a very very dark film and that's what makes it all the funnier. We are asked to laugh at dreams and laugh at Travis because he resists cynicism. And of course the film ends when he becomes a cynic, brilliant and frightening.