Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: torpid
Avoid Barry Lyndon like the plague. Worst movie from a great director ever, and I'm including jurassic puke here.
Are you crazy?? :Q
Barry Lyndon was Kubrick's masterpiece...
The only part of the movie that was interesting to me was watching the lesions on the characters' faces move around and grow in numbers. The movie was otherwise really unenjoyable. It didn't have the panache of something like talented mr ripley and instead expected us to actually care about a 3.5 hour movie following a jerkwad's conquests. No thanks. His cold style just did not work in this movie.
It's a technical masterpiece, the only movie in cinema history to be filmed completely with available light. This alone makes it a wonder.
You didn't like the script. I found it extremely intense, but from your comments I understand you were looking for more action, and Barry Lyndon is indeed a slow movie.
I didn't know it was an available light film, that makes me want to watch it again. I don't need action, but I need to be invested in the characters. It didn't go far enough so that I was relishing in the evil like In The Company of Men or House of Cards, but it went too far for me to actually like the protagonist. It was a long time ago, though, maybe 10 years, back when I was trying to watch every kubrick film. It's the only one I disliked.
Note: I think Von Trier's movies might be filmed with available light. Isn't that part of his whole spiel? That, and chalk outlines on the ground.
You are correct, part of the Dogma manifesto is using available light. Barry Lyndon was the first at his time, now not anymore. But the way Kubrick used available light is so incredible you can actually not realize it is an available light movie, while for the Dogma directors it is an element of style, and it's always quite evident.
The script is quite slow but in my opinion very dense. I found very captivating the fresco of a society where social mobility was basically impossible, and how the character is condemned to become an anti-hero in order to challenge the status-quo and achieve his obsessive target of becoming a noble.
I usually dislike history movies where they portray characters with a 21st century morality (most gross example Scott's Kingdom of Heaven), while Kubrick here didn't change the original novel (inspirited by a real story, as far as I know) to make it more politically correct. Kubrick believed a lot in this movie, investing a lot of his money in this project an risking bankruptcy while trying to recreate the ambients of the time using real historic objects. Every costume and scene decor is more than perfect, it's the real thing.
Of course, after all this, you could still hate the movie and find it boring. But I would say it is at least interesting from a cinematography history perspective. That's why your advise to stay away from it at all cost seemed a little bit overkill to me. There is so much crap in movie theaters today I think one can afford to lose some time with any of Kubrick's movie.