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.

ygwerin1 The intent of this film review is to encourage the viewing of this underrated film O' Lucky Man, by a largely neglected English film director Lindsay Anderson. Readers should be aware from the onset that it may be considered a spoiler providing too much information, it's a fine line between too much/ too little information and I hope I've struck the right balance.Lindsay Anderson directed a trilogy of films around the central character of Mick Travis; they follow his travails through lives vicissitudes. The first film if... relates to his education in the bourgeoisie class ridden English education system. The second film O' Lucky Man covers his experiences in the world of work how he attempts to cope with having to make a living for himself in the dog eat dog world of 1970's England. I have to correct the misstated description here on IMDb of the film being a 'musical', it is NOT a musical, this is to clear up any misconceptions of people who could easily be put off watching it by taking this literally. Musicals in the popular consciousness conjures up the considerations of Oklahoma, and Mamma Mia where the films characters sing about their lot, whereas O' Lucky Man uses music as a 'soundset' to set or underline film scenes in an organic way with the musicians featuring an integral part of the film as characters in the films story. This is an important and not semantic delineation of the use of music as an essential element in the films storytelling.The third film of the trilogy is Britannia Hospital a savage satire of 1970's Britain of the fault lines of contemporary society, where no side comes out completely unscathed from Lindsay Anderson's biting criticism. It features Mick Travis as an investigative journalist endeavouring to undertake an expose of the Hospital to uncover its 'secrets'. The Hospital really stands as a metaphor for British society containing all of its foibles and idiosyncrasies.The three films don't need to be viewed in sequence they stand as individual works in their right they merely cover the journey of self discovery of Mick Travis through the formative period of his existence. I thoroughly recommend all three of them to anyone familiar or not with Lindsay Anderson, they can serve as an introduction to him and his abilities as a film director as well as providing a prism through which to view contemporary English/British society of the latter 20th Century or at least the decade of the 1970's.

fkkemble What a wonderfully self indulgent director Lindsay Anderson was. This movie was the result of a concept spring boarding from the bowels of the subconscious straight onto the silver screen with precious little intervention from the conscious mind. I also think that he had a wonderfully warped and colourful sense of humour. I loved Artur Lowe and his three wonderful roles, Malcolm Macdowell's characters always seem so much more real and substantial than he is, a true actor I guess. I quite lost my heart to Helen Mirren who is a goddess. I also loved seeing Britain in the early seventies, a country that, at the time, was still uniquely quaint, contrary and individual. Even though I don't live there I found myself hungering to be there at that time. I loved this movie even though it was gorgeously weird.