Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

tomsview I didn't quite know what dystopian meant until I read it years ago in a review of "A Clockwork Orange" and looked it up. Dystopian: relating to or denoting an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad.It applies equally to Lindsay Anderson's "O Lucky Man!" although it is set in contemporary Britain circa 1973. The film seemed to draw a lot of energy from Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" mainly through Malcolm McDowell's performance – he even gets beaten up by homeless people in both movies.In "O Lucky Man!" he plays Mick Travis, a naïve young coffee salesman who is sent to the four corners of Britain uncovering everything the filmmakers thought was wrong with the country and society in general.Viewed 45 years later "O Lucky Man!" seems a pretty heavy-handed satire, especially the sequences involving Sir James Burgess (Ralph Richardson), the Africans and Honey. Most of the characters climb onto their soapbox at one time or another.Lindsay Anderson's sense of satire often ran to explosions or mowing people down if you remember the ending of "If". But it was the 70's and self-indulgent movies were de rigueur, however based on length alone, this one would have to take the cake. It's long, really long, and to emphasise the fact, some of the actors reappear a number of times as different characters, the way a marching band will come around again and again in a long parade.Although the British establishment was in director Lindsay Anderson's sights, other things were happening in the 70's to make any viewpoint fuzzy: Vietnam, drugs, hippies, strikes, left wing militants, Watergate and disillusionment with institutions everywhere.To show how much the 70's were playing with the filmmaker's heads, the sanest, calmest and most enlightened group in the film are the members of the rock band whose song lyrics punctuate proceedings every now and then."O Lucky Man!" is possibly a hard one to sit through these days, but as an example of the way society was gazing into its navel in the 1970's, it's fascinating.

Tin_ear Most of the counterculture films of the period have the feel they improvised on the fly and are horribly self-indulgent. But where some hare-brained films like Easy Rider can win you over through the characters, soundtrack, technique, or dialogue (never mind that Easy Rider campfire diatribe, the Fifties were just as crappy as the Sixties politically), this film is dated and borders on cheesy. For some reason there is a guy in black face, because, it was metaphorical or something. Again, it's a counterculture film, they can make eccentric choices and film scholars can explain the brilliance of the casting choice later, that's their job. Also, the soundtrack is a huge part of the film, so if you don't like it, you will probably be annoyed. After the third song you will realize whether it will grow on you or not.It's hard to say that the film really works because the message is broad and unfocused. I don't think it is saying anything. The film is so absurd, erratic, and uninterested in developing characters you get the impression they either worked to fill out the plot by brainstorming ideas in all-nighters and intentionally shrugged off narrative or character arcs, or they filmed six hours and this was the most coherent cut they could salvage. Rarely do you invest three hours in a film and are left utterly apathetic to the character, who he is, why he is, or what it all means. You'd mistake this for a light-comedy for the ease this guy falls ass backward into willing sexual partners, but it isn't funny. However satire is too strong a word, instead it hovers awkwardly in the gap between.The film has an edge, the only reason Warner Brothers supposedly authorized it was the success of A Clockwork Orange but oddly it is not really shocking or entertaining though that was surely what it was going for. It doesn't date very well, most "edgy" farces don't. I have to reiterate, this whole production has the feel of a director who keeps saying "hit me" to the dealer on 18, and each time gets a seven.Jerry Lewis invented the "trick" ending and for some godawful reason the avant-garde community has never let go. I can't really say more without getting into spoiler territory, but the ending pretty much ends up justifying your suspicion that you've wasted your time watching a bunch of people have fun in front of a camera, instead of filming a movie.

jandesimpson I have to admit that I re-approached Lindsay Anderson's Michael Travis trilogy, ("If....", "O Lucky Man" and "Britannia Hospital") with a certain amount of trepidation. Films that belong very much to their age so often become dated almost to the point of embarrassment. Imagine my delight when these scored two out of three. I suppose there was never much to redeem "Britannia Hospital", a strangely unfocused attempt to swipe at Thatcherite Britain and the monarchy that somehow lacks the savagery needed to bring it off. By finishing Travis off toward the end in a welter of Hammer horror gore it all becomes unforgivably silly. The first of the trilogy, "If...., on the other hand is nothing short of a triumph. In its indictment of privilege through studying the hypocrisy and cruelty of of public school life, it has that very element of savagery that makes the introduction of the revolutionary element culminating in the final Speech Day massacre absolutely inevitable. I tingled with a real sense of rediscovery on re-seeing this fine film. To a certain, if slightly lesser extent, my excitement carried over to "O Lucky Man!" in many ways the strangest and most ambitious of the trilogy. Here the revolutionary Travis of "If...." embarks, as a coffee salesman, on a picaresque 'Pilgrim's Progress' journey of Britain in the early 70's. The stages of his 'pilgrimage' never quite add up (something shared with the Bunuel of "The Milky Way" and "The Phantom of Liberty") but with their endless variety of unexpected incident they always intrigue and satisfy. Part of the fascination is the way Anderson's stock team of actors turn up in different guises playing as many as two, three of four characters. By punctuating the various chapters of this 'road movie' with Alan Price's songs that reflect on the action like a Greek chorus, a very satisfying sense of unity is achieved in a work that might otherwise have seemed diffuse. Add to these elements a cleverly diverting ending in which Malcolm McDowell auditions for his role in the film and you have one of the most perversely brilliant works by someone who, like Bunuel, was a real maverick.

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.