Rating: 
Summary: Very good period epic, but doesn't feel like a Kubrick film.
Review: I just revisited Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon several years after my first viewing. I can remember not enjoying it so well the first time around, however, the second time I really did like it. It really doesn't feel like a three-hour film. When I first saw it, around the age of 18 or so, I was expecting something closer to the Kubrick films that I knew and loved like 2001, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. I did not expect a rather straight-forward period costume epic. I thought there would be something out of the ordinary about it. Some bizarre characters, wicked twists, graphic violence, dreamlike scenes. Yet Barry Lyndon contains none of this. It's an epic drama about the rise and fall of an Irish rogue in the late 18th century. Lavishly photographed, using only natural light, real costumes, good acting (with possible exception of Ryan O'Neal), but somehow lacking the Kubrick feel. It's a pretty conventional film. There's nothing really outlandish about it. However, being written (based on a 19th century novel), produced and directed by the man, it is undeniably a Stanley Kubrick film and deserves attention as such. Perhaps the most Kubrickian (if I may use the term) thing about Barry Lyndon is how un-Kubrick-like it is. Audiences had come to expect the unexpected from Kubrick, and what would be more unpredictable than to follow-up a film like A Clockwork Orange with a costume epic set in the 18th century? That's the way he was. Always taking the divergent path. Now, regarding the film itself, it's very well made, not surprising considering its creator. The story of Redmond Barry is interesting, particularly in its historical context. Several wonderful scenes alone make the film worth watching. A small battle scene during the Seven Years War, the card-playing scenes, and the duel between Barry and his stepson near the end. There are some sporadic scenes with dazzling camera work and Kubrick manages to sneak in a couple of his tracking shots. The film is leisurely paced, as nearly all Kubrick films, but interest is always maintained. I don't think that anyone would claim Barry Lyndon Kubrick's greatest achievement, but it is a remarkable achievement nonetheless. Perhaps more accessible to mainstream audiences than his typical work, Barry Lyndon is definitely an enjoyable experience for fans of Kubrick, but perhaps more so for fans of lavish costume epics. So enjoy it for what it is, just don't expect any of the old ultraviolence.
Rating: 
Summary: A Slow-Paced Classical Delight
Review: The late 18th century United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland was a great time to be a gentleman. One young, romantic, rakish man named Redmond Barry wishes to rise to this distinguished title: to have land, status, money, beautiful women, and to hobnob with the elite of the age. After losing the hand of his first love, Nora, to a captain in the army, Redmond resolves to make it his life's goal to gain rank, first in the army, then among Europe's aristocracy. He is not the most scrupulous of social climbers and lies, cheats, and fakes his way up. But there is misfortune awaiting him after he makes his way to the top . . . Inspired by Kubrick's favorite 18th century paintings more than the Thacakaray novel of the title, this film could not be more different from Kubrick's previous film, A Clockwork Orange--it is almost free from blood, sex, and random brutality (and was accordingly rated PG). Many have accused this film of being lifeless and boring, but I beg to differ: while indeed the cinematography, the use of all natural lighting, authentic costumes, and realism are its most outstanding features, Barry Lyndon is emotionally restrained, but it is not underacted or devoid of passion. Emotions are there, but it's kept just under the surface, as etiquette demanded for people of Barry's rank at the time. The admittedly slow pace of the film reflects the slower pace of life of the age and also allows the viewer to take in the atmosphere much better than quick cuts and loud action allows. (It really is not a film suited for modern attention spans in that regard.) This is a historical film in the best sense--the point is to immerse yourself in a reimagining of the past than to follow a plot. The only thing, for me, that breaks that illusion is that some of the music is not quite of its period; Schubert's piano trio does not belong in the 18th century, but the 19th. It does fit the mood, though. (More Bach would have been appreciated instead.) Barry Lyndon is probably a film best seen on video, and absorbed in the comfort of one's home--it's a very leisurely film that probably would try the patience of a theater audience, but I can't imagine a better way to spend three hours on a lazy afternoon. This is, by far, Kubrick's most underrated film and a masterpiece of historical filmmaking.
Rating:
Summary: A must see.
Review: I've justed watched this VHS amid the glorious kitsch bathos of Brazilian carnival, during a sweltering hot evening, and had the impression of receiving a much needed cold shower. Simply brilliant in coldness, irony, aristocratic distancing, and very true to the XVIIIth. century spirit. Also there was the opportunity to see the 1970s beauty Marisa Berenson in the best role of her life as a giant cameo of frozen beauty that surpasses any of Hitchkock blondies. Loved it!
Rating: 
Summary: Biographical interest only
Review: Like most Stanley Kubrick devotees, I was shocked by the awfulness of "A Clockwork Orange" when it was first released, but chalked it up to a great director exhausted by the effort required to make "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001." But the release of "Barry Lyndon" gave the first clues that Kubrick was suffering some kind of mental disturbance, and he never got over it. The film is a totally aimless realization of a little-regarded Thackeray novel, and Kubrick's detachment from the story is total. He reportedly was consumed by the technical challenge of filming by candlelight and bringing some of his favorite 18th century paintings to life. Poor Ryan O'Neal is rooted to the spot in scene after scene, forbidden by the director to move a millimeter for fear of spoiling the composition.It was revealed with time that Kubrick had wanted, after filming "2001," to make a movie biography of Napoleon. He talked of mustering 50,000 extras and 10,000 horses for some battle scenes. The studios quite rightly said no, and poor Kubrick frittered away the last 30 years of his life on nonsense like "Barry Lyndon," a sad document.
Rating:
Summary: A must see for all those who admire and appreciate good art
Review: I've heard alot of negative things about this film. I've heard how terrible it is to it just being one of Stanley Kubrick's failures. However, I have to disagree. First off, Kubrick never made a flawed film. Secondly, I would rank Barry Lyndon one of his best works. The cinematography by John Alcott is absolutly superb. Barry Lyndon is definitely one of the best photographed films of all time. Now, I do agree that the film is very long and fairly slow but if you keep with it and don't give up on it, you will be rewarded for your efforts. It is an artistic masterpiece created so perfectly. One reason being that Kubrick is a control-freak and a perfectionist. The music is synchronized wonderfully with the actor movement, the camera movement and the narrator. Anyone who says it is inferior to Kubrick favorites such as Dr. Strangelove or 2001 or Clockwork Orange hasn't really looked underneath the surface enough (the surface being how slow it is)and can't recognize good art when they see it. Sure there isn't a car explosion every 13 seconds or a robotic grenade launcher roaming the streets of LA, but all the elements of cinema and art are beautifully assembled. I think everyone should see it and give it a try.
Rating:
Summary: another favourable review for Barry Lyndon
Review: Winner of 4 Oscars, this lavish, sumptous film captures debauched and bloody 18th century Europe completely and evocatively. Every shot is like a Gainsborough painting come to life and every character is a dissolute rake, gambler... just waiting to be swept away by the wave of revolutions about to hit Europe. Personally i didn't find the film cold or chilly, I think it is just correct and appropriate for the era. There are some parts of it which are very funny and it is also very outrageous and uninhibited. Excellent film.
Rating:
Summary: 20th century meets 18th century thru 19th century
Review: Barry Lyndon is a great movie, who would doubt it? Sets, Light, costumes, etc.etc. are unbelievably accurate (not as some of the music (i.e. Schubert): a landmark in historical reconstruction in film-history.
If some reviewers find the film boring, dull, wooden etc., then this critic doesn't really blame Kubrick but Thackeray - read the brilliant novel "Barry Lyndon" (1853) by this author, and you will appreciate the movie even more. 19th-century-irony, its bitterly smiling look and distanced glance at the "galant" 18th century makes part of the film too, for that, screaming for "more authencity" or more "action" are directed against the most interior concept, the heart of the film - this film takes history as a past created by posterity, a mix of citations, parody, nostalgy, exotism, bewildering otherness.
See and enjoy: the more you research about the background of this film, the more you will admire Kubricks art.
Rating:
Summary: A self-contained whole.
Review: The difference between Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and the book by William Makepeace Thackeray that was it's source, "The Luck Of Barry Lyndon," is the difference between the story of a rogue which is played for subtle comedy and the story of a rogue which is played for high tragedy. Thackeray's telling of the rise and fall of Redman Barry aka Barry Lyndon is done from Barry's perspective---he boisterously proclaims his cunning, bravery and quick-wittedness throughout each of his exploits, and is shown with every statement to be a liar and complete fraud---and yet we almost are compelled to root for him at the end, a man down but not out and with great spirit in the bargain. Kubrick, on the other hand, chooses the third-person vantage point to the story. His Redman Barry is not allowed the protective coloration of his own words and is instead observed by an omniscient narrator as a soul being swept to destruction by his own follies. There's nothing to celebrate about his life as seen in the movie---it's been a life of bad choices and wasted opportunities, ending with him languishing in debtor's prison, completely broken. This is indeed Kubrick's slowest-moving movie, but that's entirely appropriate to the construct of the story. The characters are little chess pieces moving around the ornate landscape of 18th-century Europe, engaging in their intrigues, deceiving one another and themselves and, as the last title says, ending up all equally dust. Dialogue is less important than the juxtaposition of the characters to one another, and therefore it's not the worst thing in the world that both Ryan O'Neal and Marisa Berenson make, at best, adequate journeyman performances in the film. The movie emerges as a whole rather than the sum of it's parts, a concept that's very counter to the notion of "star vehicles," but which pays off in dividends here. Add to this the sumptious cinematography (overseen by the late John Alcott, one of the best Directors of Photography in movies over the last forty years) and the music of The Chieftains, Handel, Mozart and others, and what you get is as close to the definitive retelling of 19th-century literature as any American or English movie director ever got. Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" may not go down well with first-time viewers expecting moderate-if-not-fast-paced action throughout. But you may find yourself coming back to it, as I did, and having it grow on you with every screening. It's arguably one of Kubrick's finest filmmaking hours.
Rating:
Summary: Life and Times of Redmond Barry
Review: I won't reiterate what the other reviewers said: I can only rant that it is a sweeping tale of a lifetime: and one of my very favorite films ever. It is beautiful, moving, and brilliant.
gris=^.^=
Rating: 
Summary: amazzzzzing
Review: So here's someone who's supposed to be a great director and he has such subject matter as love, war, duels, adultery, espionage, dissipation and corruption of youth, and any number of other themes to work with. And what does he do? Makes it into a monumental three-hour BORE! The actors just walk on, say a few lines, walk off. Ryan O'Neal stands around with his mouth hanging open for most of the movie. Hardly says a word. I guess they didn't want it known that he couldn't do an Irish accent very well (or much of anything else except look pretty in his pretty clothes). It's as if Kubrick did all he could to underplay and downplay everything. Well, very subtle, very dull. This and 2001 almost put him in the same category of over-rated directors as Hitchcock, though at least Kubrick has Lolita and Dr. Strangelove to his credit.
|
