Leray97
I can't get over how incredible this film's cinematography is. It's such an easy thing to point out when watching it but what John Alcott, (the cinematographer) has done for this movie is something that really elevates the whole thing to a different level, one that is unparalleled by many films today. The use of Steadicam in Kubrick's The Shining is something I'll always remember so fondly of but that technology wasn't even invented by the 70's. Instead, Barry Lyndon showcases numerous sequences depicting the lush countryside-esque landscape that the story is set in and makes use of natural lighting in both indoor and outdoor scenes. It's important to note the indoor parts as the visuals for the interior scenes also look amazing and detailed. Many of the scenes that take place in a house or some building are lit by candles, which would easily be a detriment to the visuals but works well in this case. Pausing the film during these moments of great cinematography would be the same thing as looking at a painting because they really resembled the looks of an actual piece. The framing, with its double shots and closeups, are also nothing short of perfection, as they keep the focus on the subjects whenever necessary while being mindful of the background.The story of Barry Lyndon is essentially a man's journey from rags to riches. Having this premise also be a period piece can be challenging because it imposes a lot of standards on the audience to believe in to be able to fully enjoy the film. I really liked it though, and this has to do with the presentation. I've said enough about the cinematography but the music and acting are also deserving of the praise they receive. I myself don't have a favorite actor or performance from this film because I felt like all of them kind of blended together and helped with the overall world-building, which is good.Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, this film also has an intermission, which I appreciated. Barry Lyndon is three hours long, and while I very much enjoyed the film in its entirety, I did feel the runtime by the time it was over. This also has to do with how the second part of the movie slows down, as it's in charge of steering the story towards the end. The intermission got me thinking a bit about modern films, especially because ones that are 2.5+ hours long are going to be made for as long as film exists. I definitely wouldn't mind having intermissions for newer movies and I'm curious as to why we don't really see them anymore. It's one thing to absorb everything that's happening on screen in one long sitting but making a film built around segmented parts with an intermission might make for a more easier movie-going experience these days. Having a short pause midway though might help the audience take a minute to reflect on everything that's happened and that's definitely something I did while watching Barry Lyndon which prepared me for the rest of the film.One of Kubrick's best, but The Shining is still my favorite. Thank god for John Alcott.
lukechong
"Barry Lyndon" is a wonderful technical achievement by a director most renowned for his technical abilities. Yet while the movie holds its three hour long running time, and if there are longueurs here and there, the whole movie fails to be as moving as it ought to be. And I really think much of the reason is due to the way Stanley Kubrick directs it - stately, picturesque and handsome to look at it is, it is replete with impeccable period details and design, but ultimately, like the acting of lead actor Ryan O'Neal, there is much to commend but also much there is lacking in the picture which ought to be more than just a period piece. Yet "Barry Lyndon" is not a film to be discounted easily.Adapted from a William Makepeace Thackeray novel and set in 17th century Europe, the movie was produced, written and directed by famous auteur Stanley Kubrick, whose obsessive eye for details is unerring in many regards in this 1975 picture. The movie is divided into two acts, with an intermission, which is the norm for long films in the 1970s: the first when Barry strives to make his fortunes, and the second, when Barry marries the rich and aristocratic Lady Lyndon, adopts her name and tries to become, ultimately unsuccessfully, an aristocrat. The whole movie is full of beautiful shots lensed by Oscar-winning cinematographer John Alcott, with the additional technical triumph of shooting in ultra low-light (candle-light) made only possible by using ultra-fast lenses developed for NASA.The main problem for critics at its release, though less for some critics of today, is the contrived artificiality of the film's acting style. The actors are made to emote as little as possible, and with faces often thick with white make-up, the flicker of emotions that runs across the faces of the actors are frequently underplayed, neither naturalistic nor very comfortable for audiences now used to the more realistic, Method form of acting. It is obvious many actors have great difficulties raising to the occasion, most definitely Ryan O'Neal and Marisa Berenson. O'Neal, not known for his strong thespian skills, has very little interplay or chemistry with any of his partners. Berenson is perpetually looking doleful à la Baroque or Renaissance oil paintings, not daring to act and to express herself. Only the fringe actors are relieved from this strait lace which Kubrick imposed on them; incidentally, some of the best acting comes from the supporting cast. The best I can say about this movie's style can be summed up by looking at the Arnolfini Portrait -- except that "Barry Lyndon", set in the 18th century, ought never be filmed in so contrived a style (even the tutor looks like he hailed from this portrait). However, other viewers might disagree.But the movie does have many strengths. Kubrick's pacing of the movie, though slow, is never ponderous, and the narrative is able to hang together quite artfully. The cinematography, as mentioned before, is one of its most wonderful features - surely amongst the most handsome films ever to grace the screen. Thackeray's story, about a rake's progress, have its quaint, period charms. All these add to the watchability of this movie. Whether this film is more than just picturesque and stately, more than its sum of its parts, is more for the individual to decide. I personally think it is definitely worth catching for its pictorial qualities, and though it is not exactly a passionate or moving film, one which showcases brilliant acting,the film is nonetheless an important technical document even if it is not perfect or flawless in my eyes.
Jithin K Mohan
Essentially a story of a villain, the film manages to make the viewers care about every character and hate them at the same time. The character arc of Redmond Barry is shown in a singular way that which only Kubrick could've done. The character arc of Redmond Barry is shown in a singular way that which only Kubrick could've done. With nonpareil production design and its innovative cinematography, Barry Lyndon's overlong runtime is justified to an extent.
clancyohara
I love this film. So much better than The Shining which I think is his worst. This story follows the arc of a tragic but wonderful life. Ryan O'Neal is perfectly cast as is the whole film. Ask any film person, it's all about casting. That's why The Shining didn't work. Scatman and the kid were miscast. But this film is beautiful to watch and has an incredible story. It's the perfect film, like looking at a Dutch master painting that moves. It's long but not boring and if you think it is then you are boring. This was my go to first date film. If the woman found it dull, there was no second date. It's Kubricks best film!
