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.

This film emerged from the "revolutionary 1970s" as an example of unplanned obsolescence. Everything the director dislikes is set up as a strawman for denunciation; some sex is thrown in now and then to keep the proles watching and nodding to every malformed political thesis between boob shots. Its politics have been overtaken by events; the socialism it espouses by default revealed to be even more mindless, amoral and homicidal than the worst it can say about capitalism.Basically, you have to have a raging crush on one or more of the actors in this film to like it, or to value technique over substance. While Helen Mirren IS hot, she's not hot enough to redeem this crock.Guys, if you hate modern civilization that much, there are places you can still get away from it in. Go move there. That way, you won't have to bore us with adoring reviews of self-indulgent film school projects like this.

Lindsay Anderson is undoubtedly the greatest film director in Great Britain, and of his famous trilogy ("If..." ,"O Lucky Man!","Brittania Hospital" ) the "Lucky Man" is the best:it is not only a bold and grotesque picture of our society today,but a warning of the worse to come... The adventures of a young coffee salesman is just a frame to show different aspects of life:corruption,lack of moral values,cynical manipulation of human lives, the absurdity of the military,power of money,etc. The protagonist, Mike Travis,is not a victim, but an avid participant in "all that jazz".He wants to get his "room at the top" at all costs, but his naiveté (which is akin to stupidity, at times)throws him into the most unbelievable, indeed, dream-like and surrealistic situations.A special mention should be made of the brilliant cast and superb soundtrack. The main value of the film is that it makes us, the viewers, ponder the simple and inevitable question:"How to live decently and with dignity in this mad,mad,mad,mad world?"

A social satire that works more in the form of an absurdist deluge, "O Lucky Man" suffers like its protagonist from an excess of ambition and an absence of common sense.When we last saw Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell), he was shooting up an English boarding school in "if..." Now, a few years later, he's trying to make it in the rat race as a salesman for the Imperial Coffee Company, with the whole of north England as his beat. But strange things have a way of happening to Mick. He finds himself alternately interrogated by the military, threatened by a mad scientist, and a pawn in capitalism's greedy game."There are thousands of ways of making it," Mick naively tells his ladyfriend Patricia (Helen Mirren). "It's only a question of picking the right one."As a big Malcolm McDowell fan, I really wanted to like this one. He never did get another star vehicle like this again, and it's a shame. But "O Lucky Man" is a hard film for me to love.It is a brilliantly shot film, with a solid rock score by Alan Price that sounds a bit like Badfinger did. What grates is its dyspeptic, nihilistic tone, not to mention a catch-as-catch-can randomness and assorted left-field oddities. It's bizarre hearing McDowell in the DVD commentary talking about how director Lindsay Anderson kept railing about tightening up the story's construction; the final result on screen is as slapdash as one can imagine, with Travis sent in every possible direction without apparent motive.One quibble: Why is he playing Mick Travis again? The character here is nothing like the antisocial character we saw in "if...". McDowell barely seems to be playing the same character from scene to scene. He's alternately an eager go-getter, a cynical corner-cutter, and a wide-eyed innocent. The basic idea was taken from McDowell's own experiences as a coffee salesman, but the coffee-seller angle is abruptly dropped so the movie can have some fun with Mick being captured by the military, falling unconscious in a church, and then hitching a ride back to London, his job forgotten for the rest of the movie.Anderson and screenwriter David Sherwin want to pack everything in they can think of, and then twist the reality around to confuse and challenge the viewer. I don't think you can challenge a viewer before bringing them along somewhat, like getting them into the story or else liking the protagonist. The story never stays in one place long enough to develop momentum. Worse, McDowell never finds the character that would impel us to take his side, the way he did with "if..." and "A Clockwork Orange." He's slow and dull here.The film's restless spirit does keep things hopping, and so does the brilliantly eccentric Graham Crowden in three roles, each madder than the last. The acting is pretty solid around McDowell, and there's a good moment here and there, like an interrogation scene where Philip Stone, one of McDowell's castmates from "Orange", asks Mick if he believes in the "brotherhood of man". Mick says yes."Think carefully about your answer," the interrogator warns.If "O Lucky Man" offers any answer, it's to keep your mouth shut, believe in nothing, and enjoy yourself as best you can while you can. It's an answer some can take to heart, but "O Lucky Man" lacks the craft or apparent interest to sell it to the rest of us.