Buckywunder 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.).

vfrickey 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.

calvinnme 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.

runamokprods Surreal, often hysterically funny, sometimes surprisingly sad, full of sly political and social satire, and jammed with wildly brave film-making choices, along with one of the great movie song-scores of all time by Alan Price. Its Candide meets 1970s Great Britan as a young man rambles through life in a series of absurd adventures, with the great supporting cast (Ralph Richardson, Helen Mirren, etc.) having the time of their lives playing multiple roles.The three hour running time may sound daunting, but it flies by as we watch our hero Mick Travis (Malcolm McDowell, whose real life pre-acting experiences were the jumping off point for the story) slowly become wise to the ways of the world through a series of bizarre encounters, arrests, love affairs, and everything else that can befall a young man on the road. A must see film for anyone who appreciates unique films and British humor.