This movie was incredible.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Barry Lyndon
eweland — 9 years ago(September 19, 2016 08:53 PM)
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 — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 03:05 PM)
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 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 09:15 AM)
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 — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 07:40 PM)
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 -
Druffmaul — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 12:48 PM)
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 — 9 years ago(November 24, 2016 08:27 AM)
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.