MovieChat Forums > Barry Lyndon (1975) Discussion > This movie was incredible.

This movie was incredible.

posted 8 years ago by eweland
28 replies | jump to latest

BARRY LYNDON was absolutely mesmerizing. Yes it moves slow, just like most people also did in this time period. If that's the reason many of you cannot relate to what's on screen, that's YOUR fault, and not the film's.

O'Neal is perfect in this role. A pretty-boy cad who cannot buy the social aristocracy, prestige, and respect he so desperately wants. And when it seems within his grasp he chooses the exact wrong behavior repeatedly to alienate all those around him. He has no one to blame but himself.

Those who dislike the film have frankly been spoiled by past epic films that didn't even attempt this level of period accuracy. I don't watch films expecting them to conform to my current tastes. I watch films like BARRY LYNDON to learn about times past. My favorite films would probably not be considered "entertaining" by the masses.

I want films that make me think. Kubrick's films are exactly that.

If you think this film was boring, then we will never agree on what are the great films. This is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful films ever made. That alone makes it indispensable.

Some of the posts on this message board are really quite astounding in their ignorance. If you judge all existence past and present based on current technology, this film will never make sense to you.

Slow the **** down and begin to realize that people really used to behave exactly like this. Not like the pile of badly-compromised-Hollywood-soap-opera-period-films you have previously seen.

Many famous directors also love this film. Please learn why they do, and you do not. Don't be like Redmond Barry. You are smarter than that.

[–] Steadybox 8 years ago

Yeah, it is a great, great film, and, yes, one of the most beautiful films ever made. One of my favourites for sure.

And one should not care about the posts calling it boring. For every great film, there is at least one thread calling it boring, overrated or pretentious.

[–] eweland 8 years ago

Absolutely.

Sometimes this site just turns into IMDd; the Internet Movie Dumbass database!

Trolls should be strapped into a chair and fitted with metal lid locks like Alex and forced to watch these great films until they crack...

[–] eweland 8 years ago

When an individual posts:

I would almost go so far as to call it utter self-important garbage.

You wonder what merited that viewpoint, because I certainly didn't see that at all.
To post such a negative critique about a Kubrick film is somewhat baffling. I can no longer trust that person's reviews as a critic. It's strange how so many just love to hate Kubrick's works as if they're somehow going to reverse his decades of influence on the art of film direction.

Everyone sees a film differently.
But "utter self-important garbage" sounds like a desperate attempt to impress.

I can't really call any Kubrick film something so ridiculous.
They all have merit in some way, compared to other famous directors' true garbage films. Kubrick had a rather strong output for the few films he made.

It appears that some people here can't see that.
Surreal.
_

THE SHiNiNG

[–] bobcat41702 8 years ago

Glad you like it, eweland.

... there has been technological advancement, but how little man himself has changed.

[–] Druffmaul 8 years ago

I "discovered" Kubrick when I was about 13, when my family got our first VCR and a subscription to The Movie Channel. I had always liked 2001 (because I was generally obsessed with futuristic sci-fi as a kid) and Dr. Strangelove (because my dad loved it and made me watch it with him whenever it was on TV) but I don't think I was aware of who had made them. After we got the VCR I finally got to see A Clockwork Orange and The Shining (which was only a couple years old at the time.) I knew Kubrick was a famous director, but it wasn't until then that I realized he made all of those movies. So that was when I started thinking of myself as "a Kubrick fanboy." Over time I met other Kubrick fans, we'd get to talking, and they always seemed to say the same thing: "The only Kubrick movie I don't like is Barry Lyndon. It's just so damn boring." So I wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to see it.

If I had seen Barry Lyndon back then, I probably wouldn't have liked it. I didn't see it until about 15 years later, and I loved it. It was slow, it had long stretches of uneventfulness, but every second of it was a feast for the eyes. My brain is very visually oriented, and Kubrick is a very visual director, so it's sort of a match made in heaven.

[–] Line-of-Flight 8 years ago

I don't know, the technical aspect is great, the cinematography is outstanding, there's a lot of detail... The movie is good, but it doesn't capture me as his other movies. Maybe it's because he wanted to do Napoleon and because he wasn't able to make that, he used certain interests he had in that project to make this one. Like somehow this is more of a promise of what could've been. It doesn't really capture my heart as most of his other movies.

[–] bayardhiler 8 years ago

Indeed it was, and unfortunately this seems to be one of the more over looked films of Kubrick. Shame, because it deserves to be just as revered as any other film he did.

[–] Sabrina (52) 5 years ago

Amazing movie! I've watched many times, but I noticed only now, when Lady and Lord Bullington were signing those checks, she signed H Lindon to the stupefaction of her son.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

What is the significance of her writing ‘H Lyndon’?

[–] Sabrina (52) 4 years ago

I assumed that shows she still cared about him, and acknowledge he was her husband.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Her last name was still Lyndon, and it was already Lyndon before she knew Barry. The name Lyndon came from her first husband Sir Charles Lyndon. Barry took on the name when he married her.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

So why the lingering shot of her signing it and all the reaction shots?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The significance of that sequence was not in the name Lyndon, but the fact that she was signing the annuity check for 500 guineas to send to Barry.

The lingering shot is on the text of the check, which says the following:
"To Messrs Bracegirdle and Chatwick, Bankers, London
Pray pay Redmond Barry, for annuity, the yr 1789
500 Guineas, and debit to my account."

The camera slowly zooms in on this so that Redmond Barry's name is more prominent in the shot, then Lady Lyndon signs her signature "H. Lyndon," which is actually only visible briefly to the viewer.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Wasn’t Barry bribed to stay away for that amount? In which case, it’s information we already know, so why end with that sequence at all?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The son, Lord Bullingdon, was responsible for banishing Barry and making him take that annuity. This scene is the first and only time we see how that whole business impacts Lady Lyndon.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Mmm. Fair point.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Like most Kubrick films, the pacing is fairly slow.

And it also looks beautiful, and draws you in, gives you plenty to absorb.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It is masterful.

[–] bobbydallas (8632) 4 years ago

I dare say this is one of the best period films EVER.
The atmosphere and character development are astounding today, tomorrow and in the next 50 years.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Agreed, absolutely.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I has very good visuals... but the pacing isn't holding up that well. Then again few movies of this time period and before hold up that well because often the pacing was much slower than it is today. It is a bit like Moby Dick, sure it was a good read in its day, but the expectation of people in what they read has changed and by today's standards it is an overly long book that will bore some people to tears. Same thing apply to Barry Lyndon, while I liked watching it decades ago I tried to watch it again after years of living on MTV style fat cut editing and I didn't enjoy the movie nearly as much as I did when I first saw it. Sure the visuals were still impressive but I kept think that I could have made the movie better with some better editing that would have quickened the pace.

[–] TheArgentinian (7205) 4 years ago

"while I liked watching it decades ago I tried to watch it again after years of living on MTV style fat cut editing and I didn't enjoy the movie nearly as much as I did when I first saw it"

That is YOUR fault. Not the movie's. It's perfectly paced.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No, when you've been fed a steady diet of fast-cut movies and content your brain becomes accustomed to it. It changes what you expect and what your brain wants to see. If there is any fault it is with Hollywood for embracing the fast-cut style of MTV, though frankly I don't see it as anyone's fault it is simply that time change. No movie no matter how much you liked it when you first saw it is going to remain perfect over time it will age, some will age worse than others. And Barry Lyndon is simply not a movie that has aged well. If I compare it to Lawrence of Arabia there is no comparison in which one has aged worse. I watch Lawrence of Arabia again about a month ago and it was as good as I remembered it being. It held up well even though it is longer than Barry Lyndon... I think in part because Barry Lyndon has some shots in it where Kubrick wanted to show how slick he was in pulling them off rather than only using what was necessary. If you watch Barry Lyndon it is a bit like being on a museum tour where the guide stops and asks you to look at this or that painting and take it all in... A movie shouldn't be paced like that because a movie is about a story unfolding not taking time to look at how a scene was shot or the lighting.. if you have so much time that you can fixate on how a scene was shot then the editor has spent too much time on the scene.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I would say this film is *supposed* to feel like being in a museum and stopping to take in the exhibits.

[–] bobbydallas (8632) 4 years ago

but remember you have to watch it with the intermission included between Parts 1 & 2.
the rise of Barry, and then the fall. I think Kubrick wanted to include ALL of his vision.. hence he split the movie in two.

for instance the intensity of the end "duel" could not be achieved with a faster pace.. it will lose its magic.