 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently viewed the film on dvd a few nights ago and haven't gotten the film and all it's aural and visual treasures out of my mind. It's a film to view best (I believe) when one has the time and mind-frame (and very comfortable sofa) to enjoy it. I cannot think of a single aspect in any technical category that needs improvement - it's close to perfection as a film. From the Leonard Rosenman adaptation score, cinematography, writing, acting, and Stanley Kubricks impeccable vision and Direction. I can recall initially seeing the film at The Cinerama Dome in Hollywood when it premiered - huge screen and thankfully comfortable seats. The film was and remains 'pure time-machine' to another era, both in it's filmmaking style and of course as 'escape' for the viewing audience.
Would you care to share your impressions of the first time you saw the film, and how it's held up through the years?
And yes, they don't even make film posters as marvelous as this one anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably Ryan O'Neal's best ever performance.
Liked the film first time. when I was about 18.
Loved it second time around in my 30s.
Would watch it in an instant if it was on again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 18, 2011 - 2:18 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ScottDS
(Member)
|
I bought the Kubrick Collection (the second, remastered edition) on DVD when it was released but I didn't see Barry Lyndon until many years later.
In short, I loved it. I didn't find it slow or dull at all. It might just be my favorite Kubrick film, along with Dr. Strangelove. I'm 28 and not exactly known for my love of 18th century costume dramas. 
A couple years ago, I wrote on this board requesting info on the soundtrack and an FSM member in the UK responded that he saw a copy for £15 in a local record store. One PayPal transaction and one trans-Atlantic shipment later, I got my soundtrack!
It looks like WB is finally releasing it on Blu-Ray but for now, it'll only be available in a boxset with the rest of his films. Judging from the write-up on The Digital Bits, no new transfers and a couple new extras for A Clockwork Orange, plus the inclusion of A Life in Pictures (not remastered), Dr. Strangelove, and Spartacus (and its botched video transfer). I shall wait...
|
|
|
|
|
|
First two-thirds perfect. Drags a little in the last third (a characteristic of long films from that time).
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is also my favorite Kubrick movie. Extraordinary performances, grisly and realistic battle scenes and hugely innovative photography. An experienced photographer himself, Kurbick realized that the ultra-fast lenses Carl Zeiss had developed for NASA would (with adaptation) fit onto "obsolete" Mitchell BNC cameras. Thus he was able to light many scenes with candlelight alone.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
It was an enormously-influential film, informing the style of many subsequent period productions, like The Duelists, Amadeus, Revolution, Dangerous Liaisons, John Adams, etc.
My mom is an consummate aficionado of the 18th century and baroque and classical music, and I grew-up in a house that was furnished almost exclusively with antiques and decor of the late 1700s, so watching Barry Lyndon always "takes me home" (it is also, unsurprisingly, is one of my mom's favorite movies as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
brilliant on all counts , at least in these eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 19, 2011 - 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
KubrickFan
(Member)
|
An absolutely brilliant movie. I got into Kubrick's work through the usual suspects; I started with The Shining, then Full Metal Jacket, and then 2001: A Space Odyssey. By that time, he was already one of my favorite directors.
When I bought the Kubrick Collection, the only movies from that set I had never seen were Lolita and Barry Lyndon. Since those two were often called the "lesser Kubricks", I was a bit weary, but both blew me away, and made me think that his so-called "lesser" work was merely underrated. I feel the same about Eyes Wide Shut.
But yes, it's a long movie, and if you don't have the patience for it, it's going to bore you out of your mind. But if you're open, it's a wonderful epic story, made all the better by the cinematography and choice of music. Of course, I was ecstatic to learn that Warner finally did the right thing and release both Lolita and Barry Lyndon on Blu-ray, but then suddenly they decided to include them in only in a new Stanley Kubrick Collection Box. Completely unnecessary, since most fans of his work already own the titles on Blu-ray. Anyway, I'll hope that they'll be offered separately in other countries, because there's no way I'm going to buy that box set for just two movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw it at a local theater in high school and it was way over my head, but I do remember being blown away by the imagery. But its impact has increased with every viewing since--the movie is finally going to be released on blu-ray in a box set of Kubrick's other films (including Spartacus) and I can't wait to watch it again in that format. Along with 2001 and Citizen Kane it's a movie that's long been dismissed as something that's "good for you" (i.e., boring) when it's actually deliciously entertaining, coldly hilarious, brutally sad and searing in its icy personal confrontations.
Ditto!
They really need to release this seperate along with Lolita on Blu-ray. It's not cool to have to cough up 100 bucks for a bunch of movies I already own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this at a press preview at the Ziegfeld Theatre in New York. My older brother was a minor film critic at the time, and knew everyone in the business, and was able to get me and my then wife into many a screening.
Loved the look of the film, though I still consider it a beautiful doughnut, with the hole at the center being Ryan O'Neal, who, to my way of thinking, just didn't seem to have the depth of awareness to portray this character. (Of course, this is probably exactly what Kubrick wanted, but I nevertheless think that a better good-looking actor would have contributed a deeper dimension to the film's center. Just think of what Albert Finney, of TOM JONES fame, could have brought to this picture! Not to mention the irony of the same actor in similar period setting.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like O'Neal just fine in the role--in fact as his personal life later seemed to prove, the part was very close to him: a vain, shallow bully coasting along on his looks. He's unlikeable yet the story is so well-crafted that you feel worse and worse for him as the movie goes along.
One thing I love about the film is Barry's character arc -- he is, as you say, a bully, and his coarse manners prevent him from ever ever fitting into genteel society. Yet at the end, he finally does the compassionate thing by sparing the terrified Bullington (when he'd every right to shoot him dead) -- and Bullington repays him by pointing his own pistol at Barry and firing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love the film. I saw it first at a screening in Edinburgh.
If you read the negative reviewers, you invariably find that they didn't take the time to find out about the book on which it's based, Thackeray's 'Luck of Barry Lyndon'. It's all very well to say a film is not a book, but a reviewer needs to at least get the gist of the book a film is based on, or he's talking wind.
It is of course a satirical film about life and fate and attitudes, but the original was also a satire on the Irish in the 18th Century. People expect an adventure film, or romance, but this film isn't that: like 'Tom Jones' it hops back to a time before the 'Romantic' era and its conventions. If they'd been making films in the 18th Century, they might have paced it this way. Some 18th Century Dubliners were intent on apeing the Anglo-Irish, or bettering themselves.
The real comedian in this film, just like in '2001', is the camera, who alone lets us in on the secrets. We always know well in advance that Barry will slip on various banana-skins, so there are no surprises as the film unfolds, but why should there be?
It only doesn't work for you, if you're one of those who defines films by their pace and your expectations. I never had any time for that outlook. Your attention span is your concern.
It's classically constructed, with each transition in the film being heralded by a duel of some sort: there are five duels, two battles, and a funny scene where he thrashes Lord Bullingdon, and each fight means a change for Barry, first upwards, then down.
The slow pace is beautiful, and in keeping with the visual style. The opening scene just after the Handel title is almost Pasolini, no music, no intricacy, but it develops stunningly. Kubrick HAS captured Ireland in the 18th Century, and also I think Austria and England.
O'Neal is very good. He's a sort of eternal youth in this film, and he reminds me of folk I've known. He's more vacuous than the 'Harry Janos/Baron Munchausen' boaster and braggart in the book. The book makes it clear that Barry's stories are often exaggerations, but the film takes it straight, with the camera telling us that he's the victim. It's all about FATE, and the duels always bring fate into play. 'Rise and Fall' stories, where folk 'made their fortune' were very much what 18th Century literature tended to be about. Who cares what the action picture audience thinks?
There are a lot of hidden symbolic things too, but they're best not coughed up here. This film will survive when people return to sanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
