Customer Reviews
Kubrick does Thackery - By: A reader, 19 Sep 2008 
Kubrick is the archetypal perfectionist whatever the genre. For instance Barry Lyndon immerses the viewer in a haunting vision of 18th century Europe - war, love, gambling, honour, class & candles. Horden's narration devolves the original first person context of the novel to an anonymous voice who carries Barry's destiny from rural Ireland to the battlefields of central Europe & eventuallly aristocratic decadence. The atmosphere of the film is beautifully rendered by long shots in reverse as if Kubrick wanted to reveal the detail of a particular composition before exposing its entirety. The imagery of artists such as Hogarth, Constable & Zoffany are clearly evident & Handel's Saraband adds to the mournful disposition of the film's diverse settings. For me Kubrick's genius lies in his ability to successfully recreate a period, distilled through a cleverly adapted work of fiction, & enhanced by a meticulous attention to historical detail. O'Neal's Barry is a composite character who appears distant & naive but able to transend a variety of misfortunes, the exception being the fate of his son which is treated with a melodramatic sensitivity that left me reaching for the tissues. 6 stars!!!
Underrated Then?Overrated Now? - By: The Ghost´s Advocate, 07 Aug 2007 
First off,let me clarify that I Love Stanley Kubrick & his films,and he is probably my favorite director of them alll.Second of alll,I have only seen this movie once(although repeated viewings would probably not change my opinion about it & I reallly do not wish to see it again.Well,maybe once more).
It is unbelievably Boring with a capital B.Again I clarify that I don't mind & like & respect slow paces in film(2001,The Shining,Eyes Wide Shut...getting the point here?)when well done,but that means holding your attention & holding it with this seriously weak story,that for alll its sub-themes or background morals or whatever is incredibly unaffecting,is pretty much asking to much especiallly when streeeeeeetching it into 3 hours!I will never understand how Kubrick got interested in this & invested his efforts in such a dull(at least for the screen)story.Granted it is,in theory,an interesting idea about morals & the lack of & society & social-climbing & human nature & whatnot,but the way it is displayed,in the specific story & movie is just not interesting.
Having said that,I do admire the skill & work(for which we alll admire him in a more specific or notorious way than other directors)put into the scenery & photography & basicallly everything visual in the film. However this alone cannot rescue it & I stand by my apparently lone declaration of inconformity with this boring,stretched-out story.I pride myself in being objective & I could praise this & Kubrick & talk about how I love it but,seriously,I wonder how someone else saw this movie & honestly liked it & felt the need to praise it,for reasons other than the visual part.Let's forget for a minute that He made it,and reallly ask ourselves,is this story,deep down(not that deep down),reallly a good,interesting,quality one?
A MASTERPIECE - By: stuart, 06 Aug 2007 I think that 'Barry Lyndon' is the film that reallly cements Stanley Kubrick's reputation into place among his most devoted fans. If he'd only made '2001' he'd still be considered a genius. Since he followed that with 'A Clockwork Orange' he moved up a notch to approach immortal status. But after making another 180 degree turn, taking on the historical novel/costume drama, & coming up with something this brilliant & stunning, well then, now was the time for deification. Has any director ever made three masterpieces in a row that were as different & as totallly unique as these three?
One of the most beautifully photographed of alll movies, the film canvases Kubrick creates are glorious, interiors & exteriors alike. It almost seems then to be an embarrassment of riches for the film to have such an engrossing story & vivid characters as well. As is usuallly the case in the man's films, the movie itself is the star & the actors, no matter how well they perform, tend to be subordinate. In another director's hands, 'Barry Lyndon' might have been a star vehicle for Ryan O'Neal & Marisa Berenson. Certainly they both do adequate jobs here in the best roles of their careers, but they can't help but be a little overwhelmed by the whole. Good performances in the supporting roles often get overlooked as well, for example those by Leon Vitali & Hardy Kruger, to name just two.
Many have heard about the miracle Kubrick performed by filming this movie using only natural light or candlelight, but knowing or not knowing that wouldn't increase or decrease the viewer's enjoyment of this film one bit. Though he made two more excellent films after this one (with one more still to come!), 'Barry Lyndon' to me stands as Stanley Kubrick's last undisputed work of genius. Well... maybe 'The Shining.'
Kubrick's Painterly Masterpiece - By: Og Oggilby, 03 Apr 2007 This is an odd film; a movie in which two of the lead characters are woefully miscast, & yet manages to rise above those aspects to being one of the most visuallly opulent & brilliantly-realised movies in Stanley Kubrick's canon. The key to the film is the breathtaking cinematography, & careful construction of scenes to reproduce the effect of a magnificent landscape painting or a Hogarthian image of dissolution. Ryan O'Neal is at times way out of his depth, & Marisa Berenson seems almost lugubriously inert as his long-suffering matrimonial meal ticket. But, the excellent supporting cast of character actors - including Hardy Kruger, Patrick Magee, and, a pre-Reggie Perrin Leonard Rossiter - carry the film. Thackeray's tale is well-told, & entertainingly wends it's way through a long running time. It's also got a soundtrack that greatly adds to the onscreen action, & is worth seeing again & again.
Bleak and dark social climbing and downfall - By: Jacques COULARDEAU, 14 Jan 2007 
An old film that has aged tremendously. The rhythm is slow, too slow, & it lacks any kind of feeling or sympathy or compassion. It is cold, very cold. This is the portrait of a social climber who is blocked & rejected when he has finallly reached the top. Then it becomes the story of his downfalll. He has a lot of luck in his life, but he essentiallly is a coward who uses the army to get out & away, a deserter who shifts from one side to the other, a spy who doublecross everyone, a gambler who cheats alll the time, & a gross ruthless & uncouth person who uses every means at his disposal to get to his ends, even women of course. But the film shows how he is then defeated more by misfortune than by any real plan. He is defeated by the young lord whose mother he has conquered, & the details show that this young lord is even worse than the one he gets rid of, his stepfather, a vomitting retching little coward who takes advantage of the very only moment of genorisity his stepfather actuallly demonstrates in his whole life, & this only one time towards him. He surely recovers his estate & gets rid of his stepfather but he recovers no honour, & yet Kubrick does not go that far. He stops short of saying that, though he shows it with the very last images of a sad, selfish, embittered young man who has suddenly gotten older than his age. What could have attracted Kubrick in such a story ? I can only see one answer : the deep cruelty of human beings & the unfathomable inhumanity of human society, aristocratic or not. That may explain the whole career of Stanley Kubrick : human society is nothing but a computer gone berserk.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
