Masterpiece. I am thoroughly convinced that this is my favorite movie of all time. I watched it earlier this week for the first time and have watched it again twice since then. How can a film be so perfect? It’s so good that it makes me depressed thinking that I’ll never be able to see another film as amazing. Schuberts Second Piano Trio might be the most beautiful piece of music I’ve ever heard and makes me unbearably melancholy every time I hear it. Are there any other films that might live up to this one?
Holy shit, how is this movie so good?
Leo Powell
Levi Mitchell
is the narrator reliable or not?
Hudson Sanchez
I think the narrator is 100% objective and hammers home the theme of fate vs luck. He comments on events before they even happen in the film, making them appear set in stone; fate.
Grayson Brown
It's definitely in my top 5. I didn't watch it for the first time until about 2 years ago. Drank an entire bottle of port while watching it on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Perferct. I prefer Handel's Sarabande though.
Jayden Allen
Great poster
Not sure if reliable or not, but clearly based. Also the book is not reliable, movie is probably completely reliable.
The Duelists is also kino but not of this caliber.
Juan James
I wanted to see the Duelists so bad, I finally dowloaded it the other only to have the audio all fucked up. such a bummer
Brandon Stewart
I'm a Kubrick fan I need to watch this. Wish I had more time for kinos, lads
Tyler Long
You have to go back.
"Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's best" is the clearest pseud-marker in existence. His fumbling imitation of a painterly style and period-piece aesthetics, mastered by Griffith half a century earlier, is as dull as it is derivative.
Shooting on 'le special NASA stem lens' is always brought up as if it were some empirical evidence of genius. It isn't unique. David Lean had a lens specially made just for one shot in Lawrence. Hitchcock had to do extensive modifications to create the Vertigo effect without having a zoom lens. Welles was one of the first to utilize 18mm in Touch of Evil. Jacques Tourneur did amazing things with filters and Technicolor to mimic watercolor vistas in Way of a Gaucho. To say nothing of what Griffith accomplished with 1910s technology.
But even aside from the over hyping of the film's technical aspects, Barry Lyndon is worthless. It's a Bresson-ified 30s costume picture incapable of escaping its lowbrow picaresque entertainment roots (dissertations about fate et al.) Just like everything with Kubrick, it's calculated to appease the middle and lowbrow. To make them feel as if they are experiencing culture, as if they are "learning" something profound. This is peak cinematic art for people that have never seen more than 20 films from 1900-1938 tops.
Kevin Walker
This is a convention of the picaresque novel I think. They are essentially biographical stories of rogues looking back (often first person but not always) but in themselves a kind of parody of more heroic stories where the victory of the virtuous is preordained.
Jason Martin
Why are you assuming that the only thing anybody likes about the film is the camera work? As if it offers absolutely nothing else of value?