Avis des utilisateurs

In terms of story this is on the surface at least, the simplest thing Kubrick ever made. However in terms of the technical aspect, it must have been one of his most challenging. The plot is basically about how greed, arrogance and ignorance can easily become the ruin of a man. The story itself is well told, but mostly quite simple as I said. The humor keeps us interested in the story, as does its undeniable visual beauty. It is not a stretch to say that this must be among the most beautiful looking films ever made. Every scene is filmed in all natural light, whether it be by sun or fire, and the landscapes and architecture handpicked by Kubrick himself are amazing. As in all Kubrick films, so much attention to small details equates to a great result in the end. Spielberg himself has called this film "possibly the most beautifully shot film in history.".

In terms of story, it's entertaining, in terms of it's technical achievement, the film is a landmark. Even for all the story's simplicity, there is a startling statement in the film that certainly can give the viewer real pause and thought. The finality of this world, the equality of all things in the end. It is certainly an interesting, powerful and very humbling down to earth observation. It is the kind of worldly observation that could perhaps lead some people to ruin, and yet lead others to strive for perfection. Perhaps that is part of Kubrick's thinking here, a Kubrickian challenge if you will, as he certainly was always an artist that was challenging his viewers. That through this observation people may become more aware of what they're leaving behind in this world...as one day, we will all equally be gone. For all the things written about this film, it is probably not nearly as unimportant of a story as many critics have said of it. Then again, critics and moviegoers alike have long been trying to catch up to Stanley, and never the other way around. 8.5/10.

In the midst of the many wonderful films made by Stanley Kubrick, it is strange to note how rarely people mention "Barry Lyndon".

The film portrays an unusual young Irish man, Redmond Barry, and his endeavours as he is forced to leave his home and tries to make good his life elsewhere. His life away from home starts out as a career in the British Army; only to evolve in surprising ways and lead to as different places as a position of trust within the Prussian Army and later a title of nobility, gained by what our time can only measure as rather disgraceful means.

Some consider Barry Lyndon a slow and tedious film – and it is in deed past three hours in length, but this is because of the artistic flow of a film that strays not only to tell a tale about a man who is by no means neither hero nor villain, but also a film which is in no hurry and takes the time for every detail to sink into the mind and heart of the viewer. Some of the scenic images in "Barry Lyndon" are in themselves pieces of art, rendered with a passion for the landscapes and the man-made structures within them.

The myth that all scenes were recorded using no artificial lighting no doubt stems from the very realistic lights during indoor takes, and some of them truly did not feature artificial light. This is but one of the many details that so easily conveys a sense of a realistic portray of the era; the 18th century and the time after the seven-year war in the later half of the century. The impressive atmosphere and the wonderfully picturesque scenarios along with the fact that the entire plot moves at a calm pace makes this film a very pleasant experience.

"Barry Lyndon is", amidst Kubricks' many masterpieces, a film so easily dismissed due to length and the fact that it is overshadowed by others, but I deeply recommend this film to anyone who would like to see a film both for the plot line, the story and the pure enjoyment of the images presented. Stanley Kubrick made many great films – and this one is most definitely one of them! KimotoCat

The beauty, the depth, and the mystery of this film are unsurpassable - what Kubrick was doing with light is just a miracle. Special lenses were designed to shoot interiors and exteriors in natural light. In one scene Barry (Ryan O'Neil) was having a dinner with a German woman who was feeding her baby and the candle light made the whole scene look like a Caravaggio's painting. This is just one of many scenes. Each of them is perfection and harmony. Costumes and sets were crafted in the era's design. Age of Enlightenment with its gallantry, wars, and duels, had been recreated in the film with the precision of the celebrated landscape and portrait masters of the period such as Thomas Gainsborough; Sir Joshua Reynolds, founder of the Royal Academy of Arts; George Romney to name just a few. If nothing else, watching BL is pure aesthetic delight - and there is one man who responsible for it, Stanley Kubrick. If ever divine film was made, "Barry Lyndon" was it and Kubrick could've quoted the Bible - "God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good".

I've read the comments and articles that call "Barry Lyndon" cold, slow, boring, "the collection of pretty pictures', "flawed" masterpiece, and the most ridiculous one, "glittering ornament with a hollow center". I simply can't understand it. "Barry Lyndon" is the most compelling and compassionate realization of the inevitable finality of everything in this world which was presented by the visionary director with elegant sensual melancholy. Stanley Kubrick known for his detached, seemingly remote and non-sentimental style chose to reach out to his viewer directly during the epilogue, "It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personalities lived and quarreled, good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now". I don't recall any other movie that would illustrate the old wisdom, "everything will pass" in such sublime and deeply moving way.

In fact it's one of Kubrick's most gripping pictures, with a narrative drive second only to that of "Dr. Strangelove" (and it's unquestionably a more glorious creation than, say, anything he made in the 1950s). English director Michael Powell (while attributing a similar failing to one of his own works) says that Kubrick fell into "the trap of the picturesque", but while I admire Powell as a creator, the judgment is absurd: at the VERY least, each lush image shows us people not just occupying a part of the screen but inhabiting a world, and tells us much about their relation to that world. Many shots are indeed amazing and beguile the eye, but they don't have the effect they do simply because they would make nice postcards.

THIS, I feel sure (without having read Thackeray), is the proper way to adapt a long story from novel to screen. Each scene is either allowed as much time as it needs to make its point and its impact, or it's cut altogether - you won't catch Kubrick skating too quickly over his material for no better reason than to fit it all in. The third-person narration (consisting of witty, beautifully crafted sentences - it's about time I did read Thackeray) almost performs a kind of dance with the images, gliding in just when we need it, taking a step back when we don't. (So rarely is even third-person narration used so well.) And as always, Kubrick's musical sense is unerring. My impression at the time was that I was listening to mid-eighteenth century music that gave way to pieces from the classical era as the hero started to move in higher and higher circles. I was more or less right. But then I noticed Schubert's name in the credits - and I realised with a start that I'd been listening to, had even started tapping my feet to, a Schubert piece I was familiar with, without the anachronism registering.

It's a pity Kubrick stopped making epics after this. Look at the ones he's responsible for: "Spartacus" (not a project Kubrick was fond of, admittedly, but still the most magnificent of all Roman epics) "2001" (the most magnificent of ALL epics), and "Barry Lyndon". The last of the three is by no means a poor cousin.

Some movies - I wish there were more of them - simply look like a series of great paintings. This film has that look. You could freeze-frame many of the scenes and swear you were looking at a Gainsborough, a Vermeer, a Hogarth or similar work of art by one the great artists of three to five centuries ago. It's just beautiful.

For that, we have Director Stanley Kubrick and Photographer John Alcott to thank. Being a three-hour movie, there are plenty of wonderful shots to admire, too. In addition, the costumes are lavish and authentic and the scoring is notable. It's no accident that Oscars were garnered for art/set direction, cinematography, costume design and scoring. Yeah, if you enjoy classical music, you'll really enjoy the soundtrack, too, under the guidance of conductor Leonard Roseman.

Not to be overlooked is the fine acting and the interesting and underrated story. I say "underrated" because this film, from what I've read, bored a lot of people and and it was a box-office flop. That's too bad because, frankly, I found the story (outside of the first 10--15 minutes) to be fascinating. As I watched, I kept wondering what strange occurrences will happen next to the lead character, "Redmond Barry/Barry Lyndon," played beautifully by Ryan O'Neal. (For most of the movie, he's called "Redmond Barry," so I will refer to him as that.)

Overall, this was a low-key adventure story about the rise-and-fall of a "scoundrel" back in late 18th century Englishman. "Mr. Barry" is an Irishmen living in England who winds up dealing with a number of people: Irish, English, Prussian, French. His dealings with these people are bizarre at times. While he mainly is shown doing what he can to promote himself, for either monetary gain and prestige of a name and power, he's not all bad. There is a compassionate side to him, but it only shows itself in small doses. It makes him all the more interesting to watch, because you don't always know how he's going to react to his circumstances, which change radically every few years.

We witness his rise to prominence and then his fall when his "sins begin to find him out," as the Bible would describe. It's quite a roller coaster ride.

This is an emotional, involving story, and a feast for the eyes and ears. It's quite different, too, certainly not the average fare from Kubrick. I can only hope this comes out on a high-definition disc some day. Admirers of this film need to see this in all its glory.

Kubrick's adaptation of Thackeray's Barry Lyndon sharply divides fans of the great director's work, as the languid pace and seemingly interminable running time -- not to mention Ryan O'Neal's questionable performance in the title role -- are cherished by some and deplored by others. Little argument will be made against John Alcott's Academy Award-winning cinematography or Ken Adam's production design, however, and Kubrickian motifs are manifest in the gallery of characters' wide-ranging displays of cowardice, guile, duplicity, avarice, jealousy, greed, and cruelty. Marisa Berenson is terribly short-changed in her role as the Lady Lyndon, but a number of other performers are given the opportunity to create a handful of memorable moments -- especially Arthur O'Sullivan (albeit briefly) as the charming, intelligent highwayman and Patrick Magee as the Chevalier. Love it or hate it, Barry Lyndon will remain essential viewing for aficionados of the director, who enjoys taking his usual shots at the more discouraging aspects of human behavior.

After he finished his Science Fiction masterpiece, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 1967 (the film would be released in 1968), auteur Director Stanley Kubrick turned his attention to a detailed Bio-Pic of Napoléon Bonaparte, spending years researching the period of Napoleon's life and all of it's myriad of details. Unfortunately, he spent so much time researching Europe of that time that another film - WATERLOO - was filmed and rushed to the movie theaters in 1970. This movie, with Rod Steiger in the lead role of Napoleon, bombed at the box office.

Consequently, no studio would touch a Napoleon Bonaparte film - not even one that was Directed by Stanley Kubrick.

So, Kubrick turned his attention to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and when that film came out in 1971, Kubrick went back to his deep research of 18th Century Europe and sought a story to that he would fit with that background. He discovered an 1844 novel by Makepeace Thackery entitled THE LUCK OF BARRY LYNDON and Kubrick had his next film.

He should have kept looking for a better story.

Breathtakingly shot - Kubrick's eye for detail is in full flower with this beautifully shot film - every scene is set up and shot like a Masterpiece painting and this film is STUNNING to look at, so much so that Cinematographer John Alcott, Art Director/Set Director (Ken Adam, Roy Walker, Vernon Dixon) and Costumers (Ulla-Britt Soderlund & Milena Canonero) all won richly deserved Oscars - as did Leonard Rosenman for his haunting score.

Kubrick was also nominated for Best Director and Best Screenplay, but (deservedly) did not win these for the Direction and Screenplay are amongst the weakest links in this film for Barry Lyndon (as played by Ryan O'Neal) floats through a series of events that seem to skim the surface (at least until the end) and did not pack much of an emotional punch (again, until the end).

While Kubrick wanted Richard Harris in the lead role (and what a different - and probably more interesting - film this would have been if that had happened), Warner Bros. Studios would not bankroll the film unless Kubrick cast one of the top 10 Box Office stars of the day in the lead. That list included Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Barbra Streisand(!). None of those would suffice. Kubrick had to choose between Robert Redford and Ryan O'Neal. O'Neal was keen to play the role - and since he was the #1 Box Office star at the time (Redford would pass him the next year), it was a "no-brainer"for Kubrick to cast O'Neal.

And that's the biggest issue with this film, O'Neal just isn't a fine - or subtle - enough actor to pull off the role of a vagabond, social climbing rogue in such a way as to have the audience care what happens to the lead character of this film until much, much too late in this 3 hour film.

Kubrick spends the first 2 hours of BARRY LYNDON bouncing from vignette to vignette and while there are some interesting moments - and characters - by such worthy performers as Hardy Kruger, Patrick Magee and Leonard Rossiter - it is all too fleeting and O'Neal just cannot be the glue that keeps things together. It is only in the 3rd hour of this film when the action - and Barry - settle down when he marries the Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson - who is interesting to watch, but isn't given nearly enough to do) that this film begins to engage the audience emotionally.

But by that time, the audience is marveling at the gorgeous pictures on the screen and not caring much at all about what happens to Barry Lyndon.

Oh, what might have been.

Letter Grade: B-

6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to theBank (ofMarquis)

Barry Lyndon (1975) has to be Stanley Kubrick's most realized project that he has ever taken. A big task for the maverick director. For a film like this to be made during the free wheeling seventies had to take some big stones. One must admire Mr. Kubrick for even trying to produce and direct such a complex and expensive film that had all the ear markings of a financial and personal disaster. Not only did Kubrick manage to out do his last epic "2001" but he has created a movie that not only showcases the untapped acting abilities of Ryan O'Neil, but a beautifully lensed film that uses minimal lighting , gorgeous sets, perfect balance, positioning and meticulous timing. I have never seen such a magnificent film such as this one. Every shot and frame plays out like an eighteenth century oil painting.

A young Irish man of lower class has the strangest quirk of luck. After participating in an illegal duel, young Barry is forced to flee from his home village. After being accosted by some gentlemanly highway robbers, Barry winds up cross country and becomes a conscripted soldier. Rising in rank, Barry is sent to fight in the Seven's Year War. Whilst in battle he watches his friends and fellow soldiers being slaughtered in combat due to poor tactics and leadership. Having enough of this life of hardship and struggle, Barry uses his god given talents to do what he has to do in order to survive and become a man of proper social standing.

I was very impressed with this movie. I've put off watching this film until recently. Some have told me how long and boring this movie was. Others have said it was pretty self serving and not worth watching. But after seeing part of it on T.C.M., I just had to find a copy of my own. The film is over three hours in length but they go by very quickly because Barry's story is so captivating. Kubrick poured his heart and soul into this film. The results are on the screen. He's clearly a master film maker. His reputation is cemented forever with this movie. Ryan O'Neil impressed the hell out me with his role as Barry Lyndon. He gives the character some dignity and depth that no other actor could have possibly given to the title role.

Overall I would have to give this film one of my highest recommendations. This is one of my top ten films of all time. If people tell you not to watch this masterpiece ignore them. I advise you to get a copy and enjoy. For a film like this you need to set aside a weekend afternoon to fully appreciate a film such as this. Believe me you will not regret it.

Highest recommendation possible.

It doesn't matter whether you watch it on D.V.D. or V.C.D. because the transfers are excellent on either format.

The same things that make "Barry Lyndon" interesting are what make it problematic. Long drawn-out scenes, lingering close-ups of stiff-faced actors, no rooting interest, a sudden personality shift (for the worse) in the lead character, and minute attention to period detail that seems director Stanley Kubrick's main reason for making this.

Kubrick shoots his 18th-century costume drama, based on the William Makepeace Thackeray novel, with nods in the direction not of other filmmakers but rather period painters like Gainsborough and Hogarth. His frame, often moving but slightly in the course of a scene, captures moments of wondrous, intense beauty which seem to defy gravity in their not-quite static state, such as a woman in her bath or a man riding across a country path. For that, it is a unique film, one that transfixes many still.

Still, it's a hard film to love, at least for me, starting with the main character, a young Irishman named Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal) forced to flee his homeland after a duel who gets himself trapped in not one but two armies in the middle of the Seven Years' War. He escapes with a tricky gambler to Belgium where he meets Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) who falls in love with him and offers him an opportunity to rise in the highest realms of society, if only he can control his mendacity and bitter temper.

Not a lot to love there, and some say it's either O'Neal's fault or Kubrick's for casting him. O'Neal is in typically wooden form, but this is one film that serves such an acting style, as the cast here converses less in dialogues than colloquies while barely moving so much as an eyebrow so as not to disturb Kubrick's delicately candlelit interiors. O'Neal surprises on occasion, especially late in the film when he delivers a crying scene as powerful as Russell Crowe's in "Gladiator." Once you get past his weak Irish accent, you may find him as good a man for the job here as anyone.

There's also nice character work by Murray Melvin as the dour minister Mr. Runt, Leon Vitali as Lady Lyndon's son by a prior marriage, and Steven Berkoff, unrecognizable as the same man who menaced Eddie Murphy in "Beverly Hills Cop", as a foppish dandy who trifles with Barry to his regret. Patrick Magee, often over-the-top on screen, nicely underplays his part of the gambler, Barry's tutor for a time. Kubrick's work with the child actors here showcases his exceptional, undercommented work in that department.

This is one Kubrick film where there is little overacting. It's hard to overact when you can't even move. Kubrick is so bent on making with his pretty pictures that any droplets of vitality dribble off the screen. Audience identification, too, is hard, except I think some of the charm of this film is in how alien it is, presenting a world we think we know in an askew but somehow more real-seeming way than ever before.

It's a triumph in "Barry Lyndon" how fine and layered a visual scheme Kubrick is able to put on screen, and the story, especially in its first half when Barry is on the rise, has its compelling moments. A mordant narration by Michael Hordern that carries on for the length of the film seems intrusive at first but gradually turns out a rather sublime counterpoint to the action on screen. You come to need Hordern after a while. At a little over three hours, one feels like one is sitting through Barry's wastrel life in real time. Some may see that as an accomplishment, but you can only stare so long at a painting, even a masterpiece, before yawning sets in. It sets in more quickly here.

Martin Scorcese reportedly considers this to be Kubrick's best film. I must agree, and I would say it's his best by some fair margin. I've never seen a film with photography that even begins to approach that in Barry Lyndon. But everyone mentions the photography. The three things that most decisively set this film apart from all of Kubrick's others and really haven't been mentioned enough are its enormous heart, its uncompromising spirit, and the way it seems to suspend time over and over again, simultaneously standing still yet flowing along easily, almost breathlessly. If you watch it expecting A Clockwork Orange or The Shining, you'll be very disappointed and may end up calling it long and boring, but if you set aside an entire evening and surrender yourself totally to its magic, I swear you'll be looking for yourself in Stunland a few hours later. I's time to treat yourself to Barry Lyndon. You may be shocked at discovering what's been there for so long.

Acclaimed by many as Stanley Kubrick's finest, I think Barry Lyndon is a good film that misses being a great one due to some truly bad casting. I can only imagine such folks as Peter O'Toole, Richard Harris, and Albert Finney were off doing other projects that Ryan O'Neal was selected for the title role. Try as he might O'Neal is just way too American to fit the part of an 18th century Irishman who wishes to rise in society and not care how he does it.

I have to say that Kubrick's recreation of the 18th century in both its look and mores is nothing short of magnificent. Small wonder that Barry Lyndon won Oscars for Costume Design, Best Music Score, Cinematography and Art&Set Design. The technical aspect he nailed down beautifully.

As for O'Neal in 18th century Ireland and assuming he's a Protestant there are still limited means of opportunity. Seduced by Gay Hamilton his first love, she abandons him for marriage to a wealthy British officer. And when O'Neal refuses to leave she and her family play a very interesting trick which I won't reveal to force him to leave.

After time in both the British and Prussian armies during the Seven Years War and some lucrative years at the gaming tables, O'Neal has his turn at seduction when he beds Marisa Berenson while she's still married to the titled Frank Middlemass. Then he dies and O'Neal weds her and her money, but earns the undying enmity of her son Leon Vitali. That in fact seals his fate.

O'Neal and Berenson do have a child of their own and seeing the scenes between O'Neal and his own son made me think that Thackerey's treatment of the father/son relationship was the model for what Margaret Mitchell did with Rhett Butler and Bonnie Blue Butler in Gone With The Wind.

Kubrick opted for a full treatment of Thackerey's novel just as David O. Selznick did with Gone With The Wind. Unfortunately Ryan O'Neal just did not fit the title role as Clark Gable did with Rhett Butler.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

Stanley Kubrick's beautifully opulent production takes many liberties with William Makepeace Thackeray's picaresque romance, The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon, Esq (1843), narrated in the first person depicting events from the eighteenth century. In particular, Redmond Barry who becomes Barry Lyndon, is something of an admirable rake, whereas in Thackeray's novel he is a braggart, a bully and a scoundrel. No matter. Kubrick, in keeping with a long-standing filmland tradition, certainly has license, and Thackeray won't mind.

Ryan O'Neal is the unlikely star, and he does a good job, rising from humble Irish origins to the decadence of titled wealth, employing a two-fisted competence in the manly arts, including some soldiering, some thievery at cards and a presumed consummate skill in the bedroom. Marisa Berenson plays Lady Lyndon, whom Barry has managed to seduce; and when her elderly husband dies, she marries Barry thus elevating his social and economic station in life. But Barry is rather clumsy at playing at peerage, and bit by bit manages to squander most of the Lyndon fortune until his stepson, Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali) grows old enough to do something about it.

This really is a gorgeous movie thanks to the exquisite sets and costumes and especially to John Alcott's dreamy cinematography and a fine score by Leonard Rosenman. The 184 minutes go by almost without notice as we are engrossed in the rise and fall of Barry's fortunes. There is fine acting support from Patrick Magee as the Chevalier de Balibari and Leonard Rossiter as Captain Quinn, and a number of lesser players, who through Kubrick's direction bring to life Europe around the time of the Seven Years War (1754-1763) when decadence and aristocratic privilege were still in full flower.

The script features two dueling scenes, the first showing the combatants firing at one another simultaneously at the drop of a white kerchief, the second has Barry and his stepson face each other ten paces apart, but due to the flip of a coin, the stepson fires first. Both scenes are engrossing as we see the loading of the pistols with powder, ball and ramrod, and we are able to note how heavy the pistols are and how difficult it must be to hit a silhouette at even a short distance. It is this kind of careful attention to directional detail that absorbs us in the action and makes veracious the story. Notice too the way the British soldiers march directly en mass toward the French guns. They actually used to fight battles that way! Also note the incredible pile of hair atop Lady Lyndon's head. Surely this is some kind of cinematic record.

Bottom line: one of Kubrick's best, certainly his most beautiful film.

While this is, in my opinion, not the best of Kubrick's films, it is in no way a bad film of his... some have claimed it is overlong and dull, but I don't think so. From what I've heard, it does the novel justice, and I believe that is what Kubrick went after, more than anything else. That is admirable, for a man who throughout his career was known for making unfaithful film adaptations of famous and popular novels, much to the dismay of the authors. The film perfectly presents everything from the time period in which it takes place... something that few, if any, other films have accomplished. It deals with the life of Redmond Barry, his ups and downs. The first half has us feeling sympathy with him, and shows his rise to a high position and gain the name Barry Lyndon, and everything that entitles. The second seems to turn us a little more against him, as he goes through the expected downfall that must always follow an unexpected rise to high life. Through the film he gets desensitized and careless. We follow him through most of his life, and an uneventful one it is not. As all other Kubrick films, the visual side is probably the most prominent one of the film, as he grants us several long looks at the beautiful sets and locales, and there are more than a few of his trademark shots slowly zooming out from the focus point to display the surroundings. The plot is great, and almost constantly developing. It is narrated with a good sense of irony and clever social satire on the time period. There's plenty of humor in the film to make the three hour run-time seem less long. The pacing is good and thorough without the film being slow(though I do admit that it isn't a film for those who are not used to long, visual films). The characters are well-written and credible. The acting is excellent all the way. Not even the child-actors seemed less than perfectly convincing. The costumes and sets are great. From what I understand, there is no detail in the film that is even slightly historically inaccurate. That is quite impressive for a film that takes place about a century and a half before it was made. I have heard of great deals of work done to keep many films accurate, but I don't believe one exists that manages to do so with such perfection as this. Even the very language that they speak is accurate. The special effects in the film also deserve mention here... for a film that is almost thirty years old, it's impeccable how believable and convincing the effects are... I couldn't tell how most of them were done. Kubrick was indeed one of the most brilliant directors ever... he was not only a master at his craft, he was also one of the most innovative and inspiring film-makers to have ever lived. I recommend this great piece of cinema to anyone who has an interest in the time period the film is set and any fan of Stanley Kubrick. Don't miss this one. Not his greatest, but a truly great one nonetheless. 10/10

When I was in high school, it was considered "cool" to watch Stanley Kubrick movies as they were seen as "more enlightened forms of entertainment" over stuff by Steven Spielberg and John Hughes. If you didn't memorize the opening speech to Full Metal Jacket or hadn't seen Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut then you were rejected from the clique. This was at the time when I was first viewing Kurosawa's Rashomon and Ran and accidentally came across this gem. Sure, the rest of the gang would be quoting along with Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange, but not one of them would dare sit down and watch this or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fools.

Barry Lyndon is another sign of sheer genius on behalf of Kubrick. Notice that in his career he is never concerned about making money, just creating an image and telling a story. Imagine if Michael Bay did the same, he'd be out of the business in no time and having to sell his own movies at the Video Hut. This movie is one of his better detailed (and yet mysteriously unsung) masterpieces that is so beautiful to look at that it almost becomes artistic pornography (in the sense of creating intense emotion). This isn't to say that Barry Lyndon is vulgar. By comparison to Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining, this is a kid's cartoon.

Kubrick is once again a certified genius with his camera. The elaborate and glamorous scenes ranging from duels to gardens and even just the opening prologue are beautifully rendered in a style reminiscent of Monet or other artists. I found it interesting how Kubrick includes pigeons (doves?) in the final duel. Perhaps John Woo gained some inspiration from this.

The story is paper thin compared to 2001 and lacks much of the symbolism. In fact, it is very hard to either sympathize with Ryan O'Neil as the title character because of his lack of portrayal. As a whole, none of the characters gain either support or disapproval because of their fleeting presence. The sets and costume designs themselves become more of a character than the actors. Thankfully, the story is not as convoluted as I expected. It flows nicely and never gets boring because of the variety of powerful elements infused into it.

First off, kudos to both Ken Adam and Vernon Dixon for their brilliant production design. I loved what Ken did with Dr. Strangelove (smart move for him to ditch the Bond series for that). John Alcott is one of Kubrick's lesser cinematographers, but he is still very talented here. I'm certain that, if he had lived longer, Kubrick would've kept using him. He is not as concerned about symmetry, that or the topics aren't, as the rest of Kubrick's work. The biggest irony about Barry Lyndon would have to be that everyone in the categories EXCEPT Kubrick won an Oscar for their work. I think the Academy has something of a grudge against him because of his superior quality of work.

Overall, a phenomenal quality of film that they just don't make anymore. I put this in my Top 10 required viewings for anyone who wants to be in film. Kubrick has transcended Shakespeare with this film. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

1. "See the pretty pictures"

2. You can watch it while you do the ironing.

3. It's narrated by Paddington Bear … aw, that took me back.

4. Ryan O'Neal kisses another man … twice (Nelson and Hardy leap to mind).

5. It's great fun watching Ryan O'Neal compete with Reginald Perrin for the hand of an 18th century slapper.

6. You needn't worry you'll miss something if you go to the kitchen for a cup of tea … the same scene (and in come cases the same shot) will still be on when you get back.

7. There are no likable characters in the film so you don't need to worry about what happens to them.

8. It'll remind you to buy candles in case there's a blackout.

9. A pleasant reminder that guns don't kill people … period.

10. "Women of Ireland" by Sean O Riada – Mnà na hEireann!!

"Barry Lyndon", William Makepeace Thackeray's tale of the rise and fall of young Irish ne'er-do-well Redmond Barry in late 18th century Europe is brought to the scene by legendary auteur Stanley Kubrick. The cinematography is outstanding as Kubrick was experimenting with a number of high-aperture lenses originally developed for NASA to allow filming in minimal light, allowing him to shoot candle-lighted interiors in ambient light. There are also extremely long-distance wide-angle shots of the English countryside and long-distance pull-back zoom shots. There was some criticism of Ryan O'Neil's limited range as an actor when tasked to play such a complicated and central character and the long film (184 min) moves at a very languid pace (ultimately, not a lot happens), but I found the story interesting and the character development superb. Overall, "Barry Lyndon" is a beautifully crafted 'costume drama' and if a bit of patience is required to see the story through, it is well rewarded.

Not his best(2001), but Barry Lyndon is a beautiful film that is so easily dismissed. I am fond of Stanley Kubrick's movies, and I honestly think Barry Lyndon is one of his best. I am not sure about it being underrated, but it is almost certainly misunderstood. Yes it is long, and yes it is slow. The length didn't bother me, and neither did the pace actually. The slow pacing as others have said is deliberate, it is essential to the rhythm of this film. Even if you can't adjust to the film's pace, so many other things compensate, especially the authentic period look, the ravishingly beautiful photography, Kubrick's superb direction and a hypnotizing music score. The story is well constructed, as is the dialogue, while the acting is fine. Ryan O'Neal and Marissa Berenson have often been criticised, but I think their bloodlessness and vacancy are a strength rather than a weakness. That aside, Leonard Rossiter, Hardy Kruger and especially Leon Vitali give fine supporting performances, while the climatic duel scene is definitive and the narration from Michael Hordern is excellent. So all in all, actually an excellent film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

... no matter how many pistols or shots are fired. Poor old Barry manages to squander all he could ever have wished for but ultimately gets what he deserves, as does the audience, but only after an unsatisfying three hour wait.

I'm a big fan of Kubrick's films, so back in the early days of DVDs I bought a boxed set that contained Dr. Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Lolita and Barry Lyndon. I had never seen the last two on that list, so I was really looking forward to watching them. Lolita, apart from the intentionally creepy subject matter, wasn't bad. And then I got to Barry Lyndon.

On first viewing, I couldn't believe this movie was made by the same person who had made those others. What a dull, dragging, pretentious...did I mention dull?...movie this is. Now, I can handle deliberately slow-paced movies. I love 2001 and that film is almost as glacially paced as this one. But when that slow pace is coupled with a painfully boring story and wooden acting, it makes for a nearly unwatchable movie.

It probably didn't help that Warner Brothers crammed a movie that's over three hours long onto a single DVD, resulting in sub-VHS video quality. But within half an hour I was looking at the clock, wondering how much longer the movie had to go. By the time it reached the intermission an hour and 40 minutes in, when most movies would have the decency to just end, I was ready to give up. But I soldiered on and watched the remaining hour and a half...I should have just gone with my original instincts.

What made me return to this movie recently was that my wife is a big fan of 18th century period piece movies, so she had watched the last two thirds of this one on TV and asked me to get the DVD out so she could see the part she missed. She liked the detailed costumes and settings, and actually enjoyed the story. So I thought maybe my original opinion had been hasty and maybe I should give it another try.

Nope, this movie is just awful. Such flat, bland acting and boring direction it's like the film was given some experimental treatment to extract any emotion, action or interest from it. The main character, Redmond Barry, rises from poverty in Ireland to wealth and high society in Europe not by any virtues of his own, but mostly through stupidity, cowardice and cheating. Once he finally steals the wife of a sickly Lord, he loses any likability he had in the first half of the movie and changes suddenly into a disagreeable jerk who mistreats his wife and cheats on her while squandering her family fortune. Why exactly are we supposed to care about this guy? I guess you can't expect perfection every time, but it's hard to believe the same guy who created Dr. Strangelove, 2001 and Clockwork Orange was responsible for this mess.

Maybe it's just because I prefer sci-fi to period dramas, but I can't for the life of me understand why this clunker has an 8.1 average on IMDb and so many people have given it raving reviews. I can appreciate that the costumes, dialog and settings are all very authentic to the time period, but so what? That alone doesn't make for a good movie. This film should only be taken as a cure for insomnia.