MovieChat Forums > Barry Lyndon (1975) Discussion > This movie was not good

This movie was not good

posted 9 years ago by Hythlodaeus
35 replies | jump to latest

I'm shocked. I usually have movie tastes that are in mine with the mainstream but I was not at all impressed with this movie. I would almost go so far as to call it utter self-important garbage.

The characters were non-compelling, except Lady Lyndon who was hauntingly beautiful and for a short time her son who was the only honorable character in the film.

If Barry was a real person I would make effort to know him and understand and surely would find humanity in him, but as the film was made, there is no aspect of provoking conscience or taste that compels me or anyone not to hate him.

And before someone writes, "You gave Jumanji a 10--you have no taste!" Yes, I did love Jumanji for what it is a child's movie. I also gave Citizen Kane a 10 (and I believe Nights of Cabiria), which was a truly great movie. Barry Lyndon had some beautiful scenes but it was not a great movie.

In fairness, though, what did you like about it?

What hump? 

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

It was good but not great.

It humoured me enough to keep watching throughout the whole 3 hours and was never bored. The great character actors brought a humorous edge to it most notably Murray Melvin and Leonard Rossiter.

It looked beautiful and the editing was sharp, an editing style that accompanied and complemented the wonderful music for long sections, like it coasted along with the musical beats.

I thought the pacing was good and never lingered longer than it needed to, even though sometimes shots intentionally lingered which I did like mainly due to the wonderful cinematography. Every scene looked like an oil painting, camera barely moving and holding the frame. It was a beautiful looking film.

I was only really gripped once during the final pistol duel and that whole segment was pushed along by 11 minutes of music from where Lord Bullingdon entered the drink house Lyndon occupied until just after the final shot of the duel.

I don't think the film was meant to keep you gripped, like I said it humoured me, it was an amusement. That's what I think this film is, an amusement and it succeeded with that in my eyes.

7 out of 10

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

Great photography with often incredibly beautiful images but at the same time very very slow, boring and tedious film. Also, "wooden" is almost a compliment for acting of two main leads. There were some engaging scenes but far too few for the 15 hour duration of the film...

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Yes wooden. I usually see those portrayals as subtle and good but wooden may be a better word here.

I felt for the Lady and her son and even then there wasn't much for the audience to latch on to - subtle or not.

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

Interesting that despite great imagery and use/simulation of natural light this film comes off as very cold. Also the two different halves of the film have quite different feel; it is uneven in that respect.

John Alcott got a deserved Oscar for photography but other than that the words "glacial" (pace), "wooden" (acting) and "unengaging" (storytelling) describe the film perfectly.

The final duel scene was good and I was also impressed with couple gambling scenes in candle light, specifically this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkJZOxqB-qk
(Redmond Barry meets Lady Lyndon the first time)

That's imo great moody scene but couple good scenes and photography just couldn't save the long film from tedium. Rated it 4/10.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Someone will have to explain to me how this movie is so wonderful. How does one describe a fine wine or a unique rose? There are still descriptors and evaluation.

[–] jones7418 9 years ago

This was a beautiful film in every way except for one thing. Who the hell thought casting Ryan O'Neal was a good idea?? He was dreadful in the role; one of the worst acting performances ever. But that final shot of Marisa Berenson at the end, so lovely that words fail me.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

I agree O'Neal was not good.

The trouble though is that everyone is throwing labels out calling something good or wonderful doesn't really do anything to prove a point.

I am willing to accept that many people liked this film but that doesn't mean it was a great film. I'm unconvinced, though people certainly can and will enjoy the movie regardless of my conviction.

What hump? 

[–] markalite 9 years ago

I cherish Barry Lyndon for the reason that, unlike most other period films, it makes no concessions to our contemporary sensibilities or values. Hollywood films set in the past almost invariably suffer from attempting to make their stories and characters "relatable" to modern audiences by having them adopt behavior, speech and style that are anachronistic to their period. One feels the strain of the filmmakers' efforts to make past events relevant and palatable to today. Think of films like Gladiator, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Tom Jones (the Tony Richardson film). As enjoyable as they might be, we know that there's no way anyone in the period depicted would ever speak and act the way the characters do in those films.

Kubrick was painstaking in recreating the past in not only its physical forms (using actual costumes and settings from the period, shooting only in natural or candle light, scoring with authentic period music), but in every one of its sociological details. A good example of this is the battlefield scene, which to our modern eyes, appears completely absurd in the armies' adherence to rules of engagement based on outdated notions of honor. That absurdity extends to the use of dueling to settle moral disputes, beautifully delineated in the scene where Barry and Balibari, who have clearly cheated their opponent at cards, nonetheless are allowed to prove their innocence by defeating him in a sword fight. These customs, and others, are presented as matters of fact, without commentary or the need to render them relatable to us.

By doing so, the film refutes our wish that the past may be accessible to us. As the epilogue reminds us:
"... good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now."

[–] Felixthecat34213 9 years ago

This was a beautiful film in every way except for one thing. Who the hell thought casting Ryan O'Neal was a good idea?? He was dreadful in the role; one of the worst acting performances ever. But that final shot of Marisa Berenson at the end, so lovely that words fail me.

What was bad about his performance? I found it very compelling and I am not a fan of Ryan O Neal at all.

Initially, before watching, I thought the casting was going to ruin the film. After watching this film, I can't imagine anyone else in this role.

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

Rose is a wine, Brainiac. Does your sommelier use a straw?

[–] Felixthecat34213 9 years ago

I'm shocked. I usually have movie tastes that are in mine with the mainstream

This sounds like it might be your issue with the film. This is not what I'd call a "mainstream" film.

but I was not at all impressed with this movie. I would almost go so far as to call it utter self-important garbage.

The characters were non-compelling, except Lady Lyndon who was hauntingly beautiful and for a short time her son who was the only honorable character in the film.

If Barry was a real person I would make effort to know him and understand and surely would find humanity in him, but as the film was made, there is no aspect of provoking conscience or taste that compels me or anyone not to hate him.

It sounds to me like you have more of a problem with the book than with the film itself. Kubrick did not create any of these characters, he adapted a novel into a film.

Redmund is a "non hero" protagonist, so you're not supposed to like him per se. You are on a journey with the character good or bad.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ErnestHemingstein 9 years ago

What? Jesus why does everyone try and sound so fancy on Kubrick boards, what does it gain you to try and sound smart this is the imdb boards. Did you really use per se? I might let you have hauntingly beautiful but " there is no aspect of provoking conscious or taste that compels me" is the most aggressive attempt I've ever read to sound qualified to critique this or any movie, I mean come on dude Jesus Christ lighten up.

I said good day, Sir.

[–] kelly-527 9 years ago

I agree. Beautiful but boring. Ryan O'Neal was a terrible choice for this movie. Pedantic at best. Perhaps another actor could have saved it.I was shocked when I saw 8.1 rating.

[–] ErnestHemingstein 9 years ago

Moron

[–] redbrioche 9 years ago

I guess if there are no car chases or explosions, drug dealers, rock or rap or miniskirts this can seem a boring movie to today's ignorant audiences. Well, I loved the style, the music and the "manners" of the time, even though they could be as harsh and dangerous a time as ours -- but also a lot more interesting. A great change from what is offered as "entertainment" in 2016.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greenbudgie 9 years ago

I wasn't too keen on the characters generally. Reverend Runt and Captain Feeney should have featured more. They are the characters that took my eye.

The strength of the movie for me is the evocation of period setting. It is what I would imagine being transported back to the 18th century would be like. And the photography is terrific.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Yes the period aspect was good as were some characters.

[–] RP_Mac_27 9 years ago

Kubrick did some good stuff. This is not one of them.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

agreed

What hump? 

[–] KobiyashiMauru 9 years ago

You can see the incredible effort made by the cast and crew to get this period piece classic to the screen. I enjoyed the entire film. One of my Kubrick favorites. 

Luke Skywalker, your Mom was hawt! Darth Vader

[–] sturmtiger00 9 years ago

Just watched it for the first time and I thought it was great.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Your perception is correct. It's a masterpiece.