O Lucky Man! (1973) User Reviews

Classic cinema that makes you stop, listen and learn.

[Pedro_H · 9/10 · 9 May 2005]

A coffee salesman takes a rambling tour of 1970's Britain.

There comes a time when you think you know something about movies: What is good, what is bad, how things should go, how things should work, etc., etc. Thank goodness a movie comes along now and again that says "no you don't - you know nothing!" Oh Lucky Man! is like Pulp Fiction and High Hopes - it is a smarter film than you are a film watcher.

After a build up like that you might expect for me to say that this is a perfect film or that everything works. But it doesn't. The story rambles and pauses, moves left and right and tries to keep the audience on its toes. The humour is mostly black, but very true to life. People are often selfish and acting for themselves - while Travis (our hero - if we can call him that) is quite kind and thoughtful. Like an Adam that has been put in to the modern world rather than the garden of Eden.

I have seen this film twice. Like many films, once when I was too young to understand it. It is quite sexual graphic at times and that stuck in my memory for a long time. In one scene a black man plays out a scene at a sex club - and to this day I am puzzled as to what this represents. That the entirely white audience see the black as an entertainer to laughed at or cheered. That this is his only place?

Most anything-goes films are comedies, and while this has plenty of black comedy, I see it as social comment. Life has moved on from the 1970's, people have escaped their own class more, women have more of a role to play, people get away with things less. But no one can say - even viewing today - that it doesn't tell plenty of home truths about the UK.

(People that live outside the UK and never visit must be puzzled by what goes on here. I bet you would have to answer hundreds of questions if you watched it beside, say, an American.)

Lindsey Anderson sees all authority as being violent, ugly and corrupt. This is the kick in the balls society that existed before CCTV in police stations and human rights acts. Where people were fitted up for crimes that the police knew they couldn't have committed. I never wanted to walk down a time tunnel to 1970's Britain and this film is probably the last tie I have to that ugly and desperate decade.

Oh Lucky Man! is one of the best films ever made. It has something that few films ever have - instant cult appeal. You could watch this over and over again and not get bored with it, see something different and learn something new. They should bring it back as a musical or a stage play. While not every scene works and not every tune pleases, it is cinema from another world that we never quite had - but might have had if only the money men of Hollywood hadn't made their ugly mark on the world.

If you think film is about anything more than simple entertainment Oh Lucky Man! is a must-see...

Strange and Interesting; Surprisingly Compelling

[Wulfstan10 · 9/10 · 1 November 2005]

To say the least, this is an odd movie. It has no real "plot" per se or at least not a continuous , cohesive storyline but, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of La Dolce Vita (and I mean pretty loosely), it follows one man as he drifts through various events and people, and how those experiences do or do not affect him. The events are also rather surreal, often very strange, brutal, or sexual, and at times a bit disturbing. The commonalities or unifying elements throughout, aside from the character, are constant social commentary, often rather harsh; the fact that the whole film is a series of apparently random experiences, each by happenstance leading to the next, and an ultimate conclusion; and the fact that in the end the events change the character.

I won't say that this is one of my top choices of films to watch on a regular basis, at least not if I just want to relax and have a good time, but it certainly is interesting and strangely compelling. Despite the often tense situations and some humour, etc., I douybt most people would find the film particularly fun or exciting, so one should certainly not expect that. Nevertheless, there is something about the film, perhaps a mixture of the oddness, the apparent randomness of it all, the impacts of the events and people, and McDowell's great portrayal of a seemingly clueless but sympathetic character, that draws the viewer in to care about the events. The result is that the viewer does want to keep watching throughout the roughly 3 hours to see what is going to happen next. There is something gripping about the lack of a particular story line so that the viewer wants to see what seemingly random, unconnected event will follow and whither it will lead. In the end, the viewer does see a progression and how the film ends up with essentially a counterpoint to the beginning.

In addition, everyone is enjoyable to watch. This is particularly true of McDowell, of course, since he is usually great and is the one constant person throughout. He wonderfully portrays his character Travis and Travis's transformations.

At the same time, the viewer also constantly encounters numerous points, images, events, etc., that work themselves into the viewer and make the viewer think, even if not right away.

The film also has a great soundtrack that I think really helps the film. The songs have a way of deeply embedding themselves in the viewer just as McDowell's character and the events themselves do. The lyrics are also quite telling and catchy.

This film is certainly not for everyone and I'd say that the average moviegoer would probably not like it or at least be confused or bored. But, for some, at least, this will be an enthralling and gripping film.

I also think that any thinking person who takes the time to sit through this film, even one who does not especially enjoy the movie while watching it, will at least appreciate, and be affected by, parts of the film. There is a lot here to ponder, some extremely obvious, some almost unnoticeable. Some of it is in the specific events or characters themselves, some in the apparent randomness of these haphazard events leading into each other and ultimately changing McDowell's character, Travis. This latter element is clearly seen in how he changes from the very beginning to the very end.

Ultimately, this is a movie that I doubt anyone can fully appreciate right after viewing it, much less while actually viewing it. I think that full appreciation requires at least some time to digest the film after wards and possibly another viewing later. I won't say one could ever fully understand all of this film, as I don't think anyone can, while there are probably many ways to interpret a lot in this film.

I recommend that anyone who likes "different" or thought-provoking films, etc., to try it, be patient, and aftewards just think about it or let it wander around in your mind for a while without actively trying to think about it. I think that the film will work itself into a viewer's mind and stay there, without any effort on such a viewer's part, and that even someone who wasn't sure about the film right after watching it will be affected and appreciate something from it.

An often overlooked classic from the 1970's

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 26 May 2012]

This is simply one of my favorite films, and shows that just because the studio system was long dead by the 1970's, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of worthwhile classics from that decade and beyond. This movie is unique, and yet to watch it is to see something that was very typical of films in the early 1970's - film trying to reflect in some way upon the world as it exists or is heading. Then came CGI and the cartoonish escapist fantasies that comprise the vast number of films we have today. This film really requires multiple viewings to get it. It basically follows the moral journey of an initially smiling coffee salesman (Malcolm McDowell) as he has his ideals smashed one by one. McDowell was himself a coffee salesman as a young man, and the whole film is from an original idea and script of his very own. I think it does a perfect job of describing the 1970's, which was basically a bridge decade between the idealistic 1960's and the "If it doesn't contribute to the bottom line then it's expendable" mode of thinking that began in the 1980's and just gets more entrenched as time passes. This film isn't for everyone, and although the two movies have completely different story lines, I'd say if you liked "Harold and Maude" you'll like this one too.

The Test Of Time

[ccrivelli2005 · 10/10 · 26 August 2005]

It became my favorite film the day I saw it for the first time, 22 years ago! It still is. I saw it again on video a week ago and here it is, traveling through my brain as a familiar song with constant new messages. Malcolm McDowell and Lindsay Anderson had blown us away with "If..." a couple of years before. But if "If..." was the courting, marriage and honeymoon of two great artists, "O Lucky Man" is a confirmation of a great love story. I know there are a few other members of this menage, David Sherwin for instance or the amazing group of superb British character actors from Mona Washbourne to Helen Mirren but the incomparable presence of McDowell inhabiting Anderson's universe makes this "O Lucky Man" one of the happiest movie adventures of my movie going life. As you may have noticed, I haven't told you anything about the film, I just wanted to share my thoughts hoping to wet your appetite. If you haven't seen it, don't miss it.

O Lucky Me

[marcosaguado · 10/10 · 13 March 2004]

To see this film again has been a monumental thrill. Lindsay Anderson, what an extraordinary director. IF. THIS SPORTING LIFE. BRITANNIA HOSPITAL. THE WHALES OF AUGUST. So very few films, but each one of them, a journey of discovery. Entertaining but angry and provoking. His repertory of actors, from Malcolm McDowell his star and, I imagine, his lover to Arthur Lowe. The Anderson-McDowell collaborations deserve an in depth study. Very rarely a director and actor can bring such glories from each other. De Niro and Scorsese. Von Stemberg and Dietrich. Kazan and Brando and very few others. The joys of Rachel Roberts, Ralph Richardson, Helen Mirren, Mona Washbourne and a cast of a thousand glorious British character actors. The film is so filled with surprises that you don't want ever to end.

Some films do not date

[max redmond · 24 September 2001]

I have seen both versions (there was an edited version in the late seventees that did not include the rescue scene) of "O Lucky Man" several times. I first saw it in London in the mid seventees as I was very impressed by Lindsay Andersons earlier "If", not to mention a fine performance by Malcolm McDowell. The surreal quality of of Andersons allegorical perspective of life in England at the time was reflected in one of the films great lines, "Try not to die like a dog?" Having seen the film several times since (and turned some friends onto Lindsey Anderson), I was truly surprised at how this film has, not only, not dated, but actually has more relevance now than it did some 27 years ago. England, was about to undergo radical changes in both government and economy. The naivety of the care free sixties was well behind us. Major strikes were frequent. Punk was about to explode onto an exhausted music scene. And, soon there would be a new regime of economic rationalists running the country. The mood and pace of "O Lucky Man" seemed to reflect a sense of innocence lost. Troubled times ahead. A sense of fear and mistrust of the prosperity that is so often associated with capitalism and free enterprise. There are even blatant stabs at genetic engineering. But most of all the sense that England was no longer in control of it's own destiny. Through out this vision of uncertainty are some of last centuries finest comic performances. Most notably Aurthur Lowes' 'Dr. Munda' was, and still is, brilliant. WARNING!!! Even though this film does not follow the normal codes and conventions of narrative structure, my next comment is about a scene towards the end of the film. So, if you have not seen "O Lucky Man", but would like to, stop reading now. The best line of all that sums up the mood of this film is delivered by Mick Travis during the audition scene. After being slapped in the face by Lindsay Anderson when he was told to 'smile', he looks straight at the camera, sneers, and says, "What's there to smile about?". All these years later, still brilliant.

surreal narrative

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 24 June 2015]

Michael Travis (Malcolm McDowell) is a coffee salesman trainee who is put into a prominent position after the previous salesman in the Northeast runs off. He finds a corrupt system in decline. He gets lost driving in the North. He runs across a military installation and gets tortured for a confession. He escapes when fire breaks out. Then he gets involved with medical experiments by Dr. Millar. He escapes and lives with Patricia (Helen Mirren) in London.

This is dated. The surrealism is interesting for the first half hour. I get the general rant against the world. However the movie loses tension as each weird thing seems to randomly occur. I lose interest in the narrative. It's a fascinating bit of 70's British film. They are obviously throwing the traditional playbook out the window and trying something different. In addition to McDowell, it's fascinating to see Helen Mirren in her 20s.

Everyone is going through changes - No one knows what's going on. -And everybody changes places-But the world still carries on. (Alan Price)

[Galina_movie_fan · 10/10 · 18 June 2004]

Lindsay Anderson + Malcolm McDowell + Alan Price = O, Lucky Me!

What films do we include in our top lists? The ones that affected us in some very personal way or changed something – not, maybe our lives but the way we watch movies.

"O Lucky Man!" (1973), directed by Lindsay Anderson (with Ralph Richardson, Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren) is a constant source of joy when I watch it again and again. Off I go with Mick Travis (McDowell) in his crazy surreal journey up and down, back and forth, "around the world in circles" along with the Alan Price's band that provide the music commentaries in the traditions of a Greek Chorus or Brecht's Theater (whichever you prefer). And in the end we find themselves in…. Well, can't tell you. You have to find out for yourself.

I saw it again yesterday, and it still stands as one of my favorite films. This time, though, I noticed that it was much darker than I remember. The good things and the bad things happen to our hero, Mick Travis, and I think that he really changed - he started to think more and smile less. The look on his face in the end of the move after asked to smile was not that charming, winning smile that he had in the beginning. It was pain, confusion, and anger.

Wonderful film - I am never tired of it. Even though, I know all the turns on the Mick's way to the top and back, it is still so interesting to watch him. I believe it was best McDowell's performance. I know that his most famous one was in Kubrick's Clockwork Orange but my favorite is the everyman Mick Travis who just wanted to succeed.

Young Helen Mirren was lovely as Patricia who traveled in her own crazy circles; the rest of the cast did great job, each of them playing more than one character.

Alan Price - I love his songs to the film very much. Possibly the best use of a rock soundtrack in a film. I am a proud CD owner and I listen to it constantly in my car. It is short, unfortunately.(sigh)

"O Lucky Man!" is one of the best unfairly forgotten films ever.

I remember when I saw it for the first time in the theater, I did not know anything about it – I just liked the title. The girl who was next in line to the box office said to me, "You will like it – it is a very cool movie, I saw it already." Where ever she is today – I want to thank her.

Biting, Knowing Satire

[harry-76 · 7/10 · 20 April 2000]

"O Lucky Man" reminds me of the need to assume personal responsibility for one's experience. The "play" is already "in progress" when we enter the "theater," and it's up to us to make "life selections." When we act only upon face value (as did the character of McDowell) we can sometimes get "burned." Indeed, all that glitters is not gold, as this scenario graphically demonstrates.

The condemnation is broadly based, with all stratas of society coming under its ax . . . from the high lifestyle to the lowly. All have the potential for "game playing" and Travis plays into its fold with wildly fluctuating results.

Anderson touches a remarkably wide number of areas and topics to satirize, and the film's length tends to accommodate them in quite biting manner. His opus here joins "If . . . " as challenging pair of thought-provoking works. McDowell lends his unique presence to the lead role. Actually, his Travis doesn't have that much dialogue, yet McDowell dominates the film every inch of the way.

We'd better try and get as much solid information as possible when we made important decisions, and not get fooled by "surface shine"--or we might end up like Travis. An astute social commentary, this "O Lucky Man," which promises to provide intellectual stimulation on repeated viewings--for those with enough patience to focus in on and prune its mammouth three-hour presentation.

An overlooked, strangely upbeat satirical masterpiece.

[miloc · 10/10 · 4 March 2002]

This remarkable, often overlooked film deserves a higher critical reputation than it has largely received. It represents a blossoming of the themes introduced in "if..." (the previous film in Anderson's trilogy) and a playful, even strangely upbeat reworking of those ideas.

"if..." was an explosion of the subconscious, repression fermenting into fantasized revolution; in "O Lucky Man!" the repression has matured into deep, abiding social, political, and economic corruption-- but the fantasies have matured as well. Mick Travis's journey through early '70s England features calamity after calamity, atrocity piled onto atrocity, but it feels lighter than air. It rises like a joke-filled balloon. That vantage point gives the viewer the two advantages unavailable to Travis: wisdom and perspective, and the film's humor comes from the distance between us and the characters scurrying below. (But the film is not, I think, cynical; the road to enlightenment may be hard one but the film makes it clear that it's not unreachable.)

Surrounding Malcolm McDowell's indefatigable Candide of a hero, the supporting cast flows in and out of their multiple roles like a comic repertory company, in which the same actors show up in scene after scene shuffled into a new assortment of scoundrels, con-artists, victims and sages, climaxing (don't worry, I'm not going to spoil it) in a beautiful, subtle joke which has to be seen to be understood.

From the silent-movie pastiches through Price's terrific songs (the music is used admirably) through wild, spontaneous moments of parody, uninhibited symbolic flourishes, and a few small scenes of genuine poignancy, "O Lucky Man!" deserves to be recognized as one of the great films of the 1970s, and perhaps of all time. It's certainly one of my personal favorites. Movies, I think, though bigger than ever, have become smaller and smaller at heart; more films should have the ambitions this film does and deliver on so many of them.

Dystopian paradise

[tomsview · 6/10 · 14 July 2017]

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.

Adam cast out of Eden and into 1970s Britain

[MissSimonetta · 10/10 · 10 September 2016]

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!

Kind Of Interesting....But

[Seamus2829 · 7/10 · 10 May 2007]

A general knowledge of 'Candide' will certainly be of considerable help to get one through this rather confused film. Malcolm McDowell works in this film about the ups & downs of a coffee salesman. This film was the second in a trilogy that started with 'If' (1968),that itself is a remake (of sorts)of an old Jean Vigo entitled 'Zero For Conduct', about an overthrow in a boy's school. I actually didn't get to see 'If' until some years after I had seen 'Oh Luckey Man', so some things that went over my head were cleared up. When 'Man' isn't focused on the Michael Travis character,it seems to cut back & forth to a recording session featuring Alan Price (ex-Eric Burdon & The Animals keyboardist). Although the music does act as a pleasant diversion, it kind of bogs the plot down,and manages to pad the already overlong film out more. Worth a look,if you can get your paws on a copy of it (as far as I know, there's no DVD of it as of yet,so VHS may be your only solution).

A Bizarre Critique - Of Everything It Seems

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 31 December 2009]

For the first hour or so of this movie, everything seems pretty straightforward. Michael (played by Malcolm McDowell) is a young coffee salesman who's just starting to climb the ladder of success. His slow rise is sometimes humorous, and - with its sexual content - was somewhat reminiscent of the later American movie "The Secret Of My Success." At about the hour mark, though, this turns increasingly bizarre, beginning with Michael's arrest at a military installation. At that point his identity as a coffee salesman seems, for some reason, to simply disappear, and for the next two hours (yes, this is slightly over three hours long!) the movie takes on a darkly satirical note, critiquing pretty much everything: capitalism, religion, socialism, intellectuals - "the system" in general. No doubt the critique has some validity. I appreciated its balance in skewering pretty much everything, and truly appreciated that it took on the left as well as the right - so that Marx's famous dictum about religion becomes rephrased as "Revolution is the Opium of the Intellectuals" and Michael ends up being not only rejected but attacked by the homeless he tries to help; I took from all this the suggestion that socialists are often quite disconnected from those they claim to represent. The critique is valid, then, and the movie does make you think. It's also quite rambling at times, though, and often seems to lose its focus - or perhaps its better to say that it never really found its focus. In the end, it leaves little hope for redemption of any kind. If everything is as bad as this movie portrays, then frankly Mrs. Richards was right - and I'll say no more about that; you can watch the movie to find out about Mrs. Richards. In the end, I found this to be a rather dark and even depressing movie. 4/10

A classic - often overlooked

[neilmac · 11 October 2003]

There is something intriguing about this film. It won't suit everybody, but if you are in a reflective mood you'll find yourself drawn into the story and becoming fascinated by it.

It is a journey through life and its experiences directed with a deftness and real respect for the material. The points are all made with a lightness which somehow makes them all the more effective. You watch the story unfold and are reminded of your own life's progression.

Malcolm McDowell contributed to the script and is just superb in the lead role. He uses exactly the right touch in a perfectly judged performance - it is difficult to imagine anybody else in this part.

A classic often overlooked by mainstream film critics.

not like any other movie really - this is mostly a very good thing

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 10 December 2009]

The opening of O Lucky Man!, a three-hour epic black-comedy on one man's journey through self-discovery in 1970's Britain, is a little odd off the bat. We see some old documentary footage on the making of coffee beans (maybe it's real, maybe not), and it leads up to some coffee farmer in a bad mustache played by Malcolm McDowell getting his hands cut off for thievery. I suppose this is to introduce McDowell's character as a coffee salesman early in the film, but see how it cuts away from this to the rock band led by Alan Price plays, in a studio, the opening title song for the film. This is not just something that will happen once, but as something of a theme, like a rocking Greek chorus (or, perhaps, like Godard's Sympathy for the Devil). But then again, this is the simplest thing about O Lucky Man!

This is a complex nut to crack: on the one hand it's whimsical in its telling of Mick Travis (the same, or a variation, of the Mick Travis from If....), who starts off as a coffee salesman, then has a little bit of a road movie for the first half, then tries to become successful with a big-shot London businessman, and then after a stint in jail... becomes an actor, one supposes, much like McDowell in real life (albeit the only similarities one could see is that he sold coffee and became an actor). But on the other hand with the whimsy and dark comedy, sometimes bizarre (the "Pig-Man" at the laboratory Mick walks in on, the breastfeeding bit, the in-jokes on Clockwork Orange), sometimes political (the torture scene with the fascists), it's also an existential drama of sorts.

Of sorts I mean that you come to this conclusion when the film ends. As O Lucky Man rolls along and we see a story unfold that could only happen in the conflicted 1970s. Lindsay Anderson, by way of his writer and McDowell too, is presenting us with a clear-eyed double edged sword: how does one have a free will and have fun and games with women and rock n roll and be successful in business at the same time? Mick changes by the time he's released from jail, but in those final scenes he's still unsure where his life will go. Anderson's character can do whatever he wants- float along, get rich, fade away, become a star- and all the matters, perhaps, is that he does it with a smile.

McDowell is game from the get-go, and this is perhaps his most charming and (at times) subdued performance. There's little of the menace and devilish-side of his Clockwork Orange, nor that repressed revolutionary in If... Instead here it's a mix of gentlemen and Lady's Man, suave spy and lost soul, and McDowell does any and all the script asks of him with such joy and interest. That's the other curious thing: McDowell makes us really care about this guy Mick Travis, even when he seems to be heading towards real greed "at the top", which makes it easier (or just more fun) to take in awkward and surreal scenes, like when the man jumps from the window and the boss calls for a 15-second moment of silence. As it's a trip through British society as a whole, rich and poor, science and military, music and women, we need someone to bring us along, and McDowell is perfect to do it.

O Lucky Man is a long trek though at three hours, which sometimes passes by like nothing at all and only a couple of times drags (the long scene of the slide-show for the African businessmen is one of these), and it is very much of its time and place (one or two of the songs are dated, though on the whole Price's songs are excellent and even moving). What makes it work for any time period or place past 1970's England is the essential conflicts and contradictions this protagonist faces, and the inventiveness of the film-making. Where else will we see facts about the number of people in the world in prison in text-scrawl during a 5-year transition? It's bold and audacious, and just clever enough to keep us grinning along the way.

"What's there to smile about?"

[ShadeGrenade · 10/10 · 11 November 2009]

"If you have a friend on whom you think you can rely, you are a lucky man!" sings Alan Price at the start of this sequel to 'If....', which reunited director Lindsay Anderson, writer David Sherwin, and actor Malcolm McDowell, reprising his role as 'Mick Travis'. Mick has joined The Imperial Coffee Company where he is training to be a salesman. He catches the eye of Gloria ( Rachel Roberts ), who finds him charming. When Oswald, the firm's man in the North-East, quits, Mick is sent out to replace him. So begins a surreal, satirical odyssey through an exaggerated '70's Britain.

So what happens? Well, Mick witnesses a fatal car crash and is threatened with arrest by the police investigating it, is accused of being a Soviet agent while seeking directions near a power plant ( and almost blown up when it catches fire ), is breastfed in church by a vicar's wife ( Mary MacLeod ), volunteers for scientific experiments at the Millar Institure, run by psychotic Professor Millar ( Graham Crowden ) who is grafting people's heads onto animals' bodies, falls in with a travelling musical group ( led by Alan Price ), sleeps with the lovely Patricia ( Helen Mirren ), is made assistant to ruthless tycoon Sir James ( Ralph Richardson ), arrested by the Fraud Squad, sent to jail for five years, and, on release, becomes devoutly religious, resulting in him being attacked by vagrants who don't like his soup. Finally, after auditioning for a part in a new film called 'O Lucky Man!', he gets it, and is whacked over the head with a copy of the script by none other Lindsay Anderson himself.

'If....' was tightly controlled, whereas 'Man' is painted on a much bigger canvas, with Sherwin, Anderson and McDowall taking pot-shots at various aspects of modern life such as business, medicine, religion, science, the military and the permissive society. As Michael Palin noted in his diary after viewing a rough cut, some scenes work better than others. There is a strong 'Python' feel to the whole enterprise; people fall out of tall buildings, joke captions appear on screen, comical authority figures abound along with loads of bad taste and gratuitous sex. And it is nearly three hours long! Not to everyone's taste certainly. But it is never less than fascinating.

The usual Anderson repertory company ( Peter Jeffrey, Arthur Lowe, Mona Washbourne, Graham Crowden ) is augmented by the likes of Dandy Nichols, Geoffrey Palmer, Bill Owen, Michael Medwin, James Bolam, David Daker, Michael Elphick, Helen Mirren, and Ralph Richardson, many of whom are cast in more than one role. Lowe even appears blacked up in one scene. It is a little uncomfortable now to watch Rachel Roberts playing a suicidal housewife - the actress took her own life in 1981.

Travis is no longer the rebel we saw in 'If....', but more of an innocent abroad, reacting to events rather than helping to shape them.

Alan Price's songs pepper the course of the narrative, serving as a wry commentary on the action.

'If....' caught the mood of the time, but 'O Lucky Man!' works for different reasons. Travis returned in 1982's 'Britannia Hospital'.

A surreal indulgence

[fkkemble · 7/10 · 10 November 2012]

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.

A 1,000-word plot description.

[simnia-1 · 7/10 · 2 June 2006]

(band) = musical scene of Alan Price's pop-rock band

PART A: (band) The film opens with an old black-and-white film of a coffee picker who is caught stealing coffee beans, found guilty, and for punishment has both his hands chopped off with a machete. This illustrates justice in the past, in preparation to show justice in the future. Then the story switches to the near future. From a noisy machine room, workers for the Imperial Coffee company are called into a salesperson meeting, whereupon speaker Mrs. Rowe tells them the value of smiling. One of the company's salesmen, named Oswald, has mysteriously disappeared, and Michael is chosen to be his replacement. (band) While traveling alone on his first sales trip in his new position, Michael comes across a car accident where the police act suspiciously and threaten Michael with charging him for causing the accident if he doesn't leave and keep quiet. Michael arrives at the Sutherland House Private Hotel, goes through Oswald's old belongings, and meets an elderly gentleman resident named Monty. Michael goes on a sales trip the next day, and is immediately invited to a businessman's party where the mixed audience watches a stag film and a live sex act (done in underclothes) on stage. That night upon arriving back at his hotel room, Michael is interrupted from a sexual encounter by a phone call from his company saying he is now also responsible for business in Scotland, and has to drive 200 miles to make a 10 a.m. meeting the next morning. Michael gets lost en route, uses a pair of binoculars to see the government property where the road ends, government vehicles immediately appear, abduct him, and electrically torture him into signing a confession of presumably being a spy. During the interrogation, an alarm goes off, the facility suffers what seems to be a nuclear accident, everyone flees, Michael runs up a forested hill as explosions go off behind him, and the entire area is burned of vegetation. It starts to rain, and Michael finds his way to a church while a service is going on. He wakes up from among the pews, hungry, tries to take food from the altar, but is stopped by a church woman, who instead nurses him from her breast. Children show him the way, he finds a busy motorway and attempts to get a ride, the first motorist who stops tells Michael he can make some easy money by volunteering for medical experiments at the Millar Research Clinic. He volunteers, is sedated, but fails to fall asleep, overhears a conversation about sterilizing him, attempts to leave, comes across a patient in another room who has been turned into a half-sheep, he flees, is pursued by guards with dogs, but eludes them on bicycle. However, his bicycle is nearly hit by a van with traveling musicians, but he isn't hurt, and he gets a ride with them. Patricia, a lady with the band, falls in love him en route to London.

PART B: (band) The next morning Michael finds out that Patricia's father is the wealthy tycoon Mr. Burgess, and Michael is eager to make contact in order to further his own career. Michael disregards Patricia's warning, he quickly launches a fraudulent scheme to meet Mr. Burgess that day, while he's waiting at Mr. Burgess' office, Mr. Burgess fires an employee with 15 years at the company, the employee commits suicide by jumping from the office window, and takes another employee with him. Michael becomes Mr. Burgess' aide, they attend a meeting about investing in the country of Zingara, but Mr. Burgess is worried about the country's stability due to rebel activity. He and Colonel Steiger make an agreement that the British government's chemical weapon called PL-45, or "honey" for short, will be sent to Zingara to spread gruesome death to the rebels hiding in the miles of jungle territory. The next day there is another meeting of the investors and Zingara leaders, but the meeting is interrupted the British government's "Fraud Squad." Mr. Burgess tells Michael to trust him, and tells Michael to hide the papers in his pocket while holding a briefcase full of gold bars. One of the military men from Michael's earlier encounters joins the Fraud Squad, recognizes Michael, Michael is arrested, beaten by police en route to the jail, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison. The judge, after sentencing Michael, walks into a private room, strips down to his underwear and is whipped S&M style by a woman of the court. (band) Upon being released from prison, Michael comes across a Christian street gathering, he generously donates money to them, is immediately pick-pocketed, then people start mysteriously hurrying by with a ladder. It turns out a woman named Mrs. Richards in a nearby apartment building is about to kill herself. Michael climbs outside her window, attempting to dissuade her by reading poems and philosophy from a book he obtained from a prison warden. However, he falls from the wall as a pipe gives way, and wakes up at night with a policeman shining a light in his face. (band) The policeman tells Michael he is trespassing, and to "piss off." It's still nighttime when Michael volunteers to serve free soup to the homeless street people of the city. There he meets Patricia as one of the street people. When Michael attempts to preach to the crowd, they become angry, stone him, and roll a barrel down a hill at him. Michael survives, and during the daytime comes across a man handing out fliers to audition to be a movie star. Michael auditions, is selected and photographed, but the director has great difficulty in getting Michael to smile, in a reminder of the earlier scene of the company's motivational speech about smiling. (band) Michael manages to smile with great difficulty, and the film ends with all the characters from the film dancing together to Alan Price's band as balloons fall.

Brilliant film has only grown better over time.

[fred-houpt · 10/10 · 15 November 2007]

Some films that came out of the 60's and 70's were full of the vim and vigor of the times and often were full of themselves. Those were heady and frothy politically charged decades and films so often mirrored only those times.

Lindsay Anderson was already a well known and respected theater director when he directed Malcolm Mcdowell in "If". This trail blazing and outrageous drama held up the English private school system to an embarrassing scrutiny and the depiction did not look wholesome or attractive. The film made Malcolm an overnight sensation. How fortunate was he to have a life long friend and mentor in Anderson. The film "O Lucky Man" is based on an idea of Malcolm's. The soundtrack was, from what I gathered of Alan Price's comments on the DVD, something that had a life of it's own. If I am not wrong, it might just have been that the music was often written first and the scenes were shot afterward to match the essence of the songs. I will have to look into that....

OLM is such a charming and hilarious romp. Anderson's trademark use of actors in multiple roles (that re-appear from the film "if" -giving it yet another tongue in cheek twist) is very funny. The plot is unbelievable but so enticing it doesn't matter. It is much like a play on the screen; we know that it is not how things are in the real world but who cares? The film sometimes takes great liberties with reality and careens into the surreal; a fine example is the trip to the "hospital" were our poor hero discovers some things are horribly wrong with the medical research. I won't spoil it for you. Another example of a fairy tale flourish is the next scene where Malcolm awakes in a church, famished and after having been scolded by a young mother, she offers him her breast to suckle from, telling him that he's just a boy. It is so ridiculous and preposterous, you just have to laugh out loud.

Each scene in the movie, divided up as like a play, is worthy of shot by shot examination. What you come away with is the sheer love of life that underscores the "awakening" Zen slap on the face at the very end; the hero awakens to see the truth in all its naked simplicity. That slap leaves the hero with a calm but subtle joy of "realization" on his face. Nirvana and bliss? No. Seeing things clearly for the first time: perhaps. It draws this hero home to celebrate his awakening with a cast party free for all.

The music is the best material Alan Price ever did: period. These many years later it is still so foot tapping joyful and colorful....that the soundtrack is worth a purchase on it's own: I own it and listen to it regularly.

One odd disappointment with the DVD. There is a special section where Malcolm and Alan reminisce and they don't have much to say. Malcolm clearly expresses his love and admiration for Lindsay but they could have gone into more detail about other film trivia. Other than that, this is a film that has waited way too long to transfer to DVD. Although Anderson did 3 films with Malcolm that are only loosely related by theme, the first two are more closely aligned. I highly recommend this film to those who want to see movie making at its most creative, daring, outrageous, beautiful, entertaining and uplifting. A classic.

Candide Encounters Modernity

[GholamSlayer · 7/10 · 28 August 2019]

O Lucky Man! trades in the brevity of Candide for a more in depth examination of each scenario, which I can take or leave, but mostly I admire the ambition of this project. The scope, like Candide, is massive while still being small and personal. It will definitely merit a rewatch at some point.

journeyman

[sunsix · 9/10 · 16 April 2004]

Oldest story form which frankly not many take on today-the journeyman theme. I caught this movie on VHS and wish that ,in the age of the DVD someone would remaster this title,so I can retire my old beat up version. I've watched this movie a dozen times and love the journey. I didn't always appreciate the soundtrack BUT one reviewer aptly calls it classic; the movie would not be the same without it. The surrealism of using actors to double roles, the jumpy nature of his journey and the metaphor going on in that cold war installation joined with the crazy dark experiment scene! You won't find a statement/image like that in many movies, underground or mainstream. What a shocker! This is a great movie. A DVD version has just got to happen.

Hasn't Aged Well

[derek-duerden · 6/10 · 3 April 2024]

I recall a schoolfriend of mine - also a graduate of an underage viewing of A Clockwork Orange and The Exorcist - going to see this when it came out, and quite enjoying it. However, it's never really been a priority for me and even now it was a bit of a whim to catch it, prompted by the appearance on BFI Player - i.e. Currently free to subscribers.

It would be rather boring - and probably a bit unfair - to list the ways in which this 50-odd years old film veers into "unacceptability" but, for me, it oscillated between engaging, boring and excruciating a bit too often. I watch a lot of 1970s films and, unlike the best of the Italian Poliziotteschi (for example), the unfocused ire at the state of society on display here seems dated and obvious. And at nearly three hours long it does go on a bit... on topics that Monty Python covered in minutes.

Interesting to see some good actors in action, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Revisiting films of my youth, my opinion has changed

[Buckywunder · 5/10 · 5 August 2013]

My somewhat slow, long-term project of revisiting films of my youth that impacted me took me back to that staple of campus films societies at Wisconsin-Madison in the late 1970's, O Lucky Man!, where I first saw it.

Unfortunately, it has not dated well, at least in my opinion. (I know, I used to have a romanticized memory of the movie in my head as well.)

Seeing it again after many, many more years of film-viewing I see this movie as being too long by at least a third. I think it could have really benefited with stricter editing choices and a firmer hand on the story -- which is ironic since Lindsay Anderson himself allegedly kept telling Malcolm McDowell (and presumably the crew) that they needed to do that very same thing.

There's nothing wrong with being ambitious -- and normally I'm a sucker for an ambitious "failure," ESPECIALLY by Hollywood standards -- but they lost the story for some of the anti-establishment points they were trying to make way too inconsistently to hold focus or interest.

There are too many other reasons for falling short to mention here, but not the least of them is that it features the high-water mark of the career of Malcolm McDowell who was at the peak of his international fame between the two Lindsay Anderson films and Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (although also very good later in Time After Time).

Once his stock fell after the collapse of the British film industry and he was displaced to the United States (along with a very nasty cocaine habit), his career never fully recovered and seems to have tainted some of Anderson's legacy with him. History, as they say, is written by the winners and McDowell (though, admirably, he cleaned up and turned his life around) hasn't been on the winning end. And just to be clear, I like McDowell.

The cast is terrific (including a very young Helen Mirren who looks amazingly similar to Jennifer Lawrence of today) which is why I give it a 5, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone other than for film history purposes (British New Wave film, the 1970's, Lindsay Anderson, etc.).