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.
Matthew_Capitano
This movie is lavish and all the acting is first-rate except for one role.... the lead, Redmond Barry, played by Ryan O'Neal, who has all the talent of a rotted-out wooden log.Try to get past O'Neal's one expression throughout the film and savor the fine acting performances of the entire rest of the cast as well as the fine sets and costumes.
JLRVancouver
"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.
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!
