Barry Lyndon

One of the most beautiful of all Stanley Kubrick’s films, originally released in 1975, this slyly savage tale of social climbing in the 18th century is also arguably his funniest.

Barry Lyndon is best known for its photography – Kubrick borrowed a low-light camera from Nasa so he could shoot in candlelight – and it is uniquely, heart-stoppingly gorgeous. But there’s much more to it: this is a story of identity, and the lack of it. And it’s fascinating.

Between the vast exteriors and candlelit interiors, the expressive authority of Kubrick’s direction is breathtaking.

Ryan O'Neal's excellent performance captures the shallow opportunism endemic to the title character who is brought down as much by his own flaws as by the mores of the ordered social structure of 18th-century England. Casting, concept and execution are all superb.

Ryan O’Neal has never been better cast than as the shallow and opportunistic hero of Thackeray’s early 19th-century novel.

Despite its ponderous, funereal moods and pacing, the film is a highly accomplished piece of storytelling, building to one of the most suspenseful duels ever staged. It also repays close attention as a complex and fascinating historical meditation, as enigmatic in its way as 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Seeking the sources of our alienation in the explosively random energies of the eighteenth century, Kubrick has created an epic of esthetic self-indulgence, beautiful but empty. He needs to come back to earth from the outer spaces of past and future. [22 Dec 1975, p.49]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Amazing movie.Kubrick is one of the best director of all time.This is a masterpiece with Rosseau's philosophy.

Probably the most gorgeous movie ever shot, and one of kubricks underrated masterpieces. Utterly brilliant.

Gorgeous film, every frame looks as if it was an XVIII century painting. On the other side, I hardly ever connected emotionally with the characters, and 3 hours may be a bit too much.

Funny what a lense time is. I sought out this film because of the reputation of the director. Without Kubric's touch I think this film would have been terrible, completely forgettable and left to the dustbin of history. It is only through the heightened cinematography of Kubric and his complete, almost compulsive, obsession to historical detail that this film is any good at all. The main character is bad. Not likable or charming. He has zero romantic chemistry with all but one female in the film. And its not the one that would make the most plot sense. Speaking of plot, in keeping with the stylized period painting esthetic of the film, the actors in many scenes are muted so much that the acting comes off wooden and you don't believe characters, especially professing love or fear. Stuff just happens and the narrator (and this film is narration HEAVY) justifies what we will see or just saw. Given that a lot of people will find the moving boring. I'm almost surprised I made it to the credits, the people I was with didn't.