I've seen this film before but I just recently bought the Criterion Collection bluray release and I started watching it yesterday and was quickly reminded why I think this film is so brilliant.

If you have any interest at all in 18th century European politics and warfare, I highly recommend you see this. In addition, this is one of the most beautifully shot films I've ever seen and the performances by the actors are first rate across the board.


For me, there are three films which perfectly capture the look and feel of 18th century Europe: Amadeus, Barry Lyndon and Danton.

I've added it to my watch list,I'll let you know how I get on.

Thanks. I'll be very curious to read your review!

Just a great movie.

It’s truly remarkable. Kubrick, being Kubrick, wanted an authentic 18th Century look. So he commissioned Zeiss to build him custom-designed fast lenses that allowed him to shoot night scenes lit by candles with no other illumination. There nothing else that quite looks like it.

Absolutely. The card game scene where Barry meets Lady Lyndon for the first time is so visually striking that it draws you into that world.

Ok,the film is watched and here are my thoughts.

Firstly, I have never seen this film until tonight. I'd seen snippets of it on Youtube,the early battle mostly so I assumed the film was about Barry Lyndon's rise through the army. I imagined a 3 hour war film.How wrong I was.

Secondly,the film is 3 hours long so I decided to split it up into three one hour sessions but that idea soon went out the window. I was so engrossed in it that I just had to finish it in one sitting.

Thirdly,a fine smattering of English actors appeared throughout. My biggest surprise was Leonard Rossiter (Capt John Quin) who I don't think I've ever seen in a serious role. To me he will always be Rigsby,the penny-pinching landlord from 'Rising Damp'. Patrick Magee (not English,but Irish) who I recently saw in 'Clockwork Orange',a brief appearance by George Sewell ( Col. Alec Freeman from the UFO series) and ably narrated by the great Michael Hordern. I noticed that quite a few were also in Clockwork Orange.

As to the film,it was as has already been pointed out,beautifully filmed. I thought I recognised one of the locations they filmed at (the Lyndon house) but it wasn't,I checked afterwards. Handel's Sarabande is one of my favourite pieces of classical music so I was pleased to find it used throughout the movie.

A good,solid film then, pity it took me 43 years to finally appreciate it!

Good recommendation Panzer

I'm not sure about Amadeus, but I may have to follow up with Danton.

Okay, just bought it. That and Dr. Strangelove for good measure. Now please shut the "ef" up, Panzermeyer!

Thanks for the suggestion. Sounds interesting and something that I'll keep in mind. I do love period pieces. Honestly I'm finding it a tedious venture to get through 2001 though the visuals are impressive. I definitely recommend Amadeus Chucky!

Just finished Amadeus! Wow,I liked that too. I didn't realise he died so young. I was rather surprised at the funeral,however having looked it up,that was the custom at the time.

it is an awesome movie

I'm very glad to hear that you liked both "Barry Lyndon" and "Amadeus" Chucky.


I still get chills every time I watch F. Murray Abraham's performance in "Amadeus". If there is such a thing, he was truly born for the part.

He also had a small part in 2001: A Space Odyssey. He is one of the Russian scientists who meets with Heywood Floyd on the international space station.

The most accepted theory among historians is that he died from either pneumonia or tuberculosis. He was only 35.

Now you've jogged my memory,yes,I recall that now

If I ever win the lotto, I will finally be able to quit my marketable job and become a full time film blogger.

"The boy told me not to trust you. He said, you killed Mozart!"

"Possible. I killed many people. Moe who?"

"Zart."

One more comment about why I love this film so much:

I have this on DVD, always knew it was a masterpeice but it took the critics a while to get onboard. Just proves they know #%&*$#.

That is silly. there is a large range of opinions among film critics. Just because some of them don't agree with your particular opinion doesn't mean they "know #%&*$#". The trick is to learn which critics tend to agree with you and which disagree with you. Helps to reduce the chance that you will end up watching a movie you hate.

Barry Lyndon is a great movie. I was fortunate enough to see it during its theatrical run. Amadeus not so much. Other than the references to Mozart's crass humor, the movie got too much wrong historically.

Normally I'm not very forgiving of movies that make significant changes to historical facts but I made an exception for Amadeus since it was based on a stage play which already had made those historical changes and also because I think the movie works perfectly as a filmed drama and because the performances by the cast were so brilliant.

Barry Lyndon was universally panned when it came out.

From wikipedia:
"The film "was not the commercial success Warner Bros. had been hoping for" within the United States,[5] although it fared better in Europe. This mixed reaction saw the film (in the words of one retrospective review) "greeted, on its release, with dutiful admiration – but not love. Critics... rail[ed] against the perceived coldness of Kubrick's style, the film's self-conscious artistry and slow pace. Audiences, on the whole, rather agreed..."[5] This "air of disappointment"[5] factored into Kubrick's decision for his next film – Stephen King's The Shining – a project that would not only please him artistically, but also be more likely to succeed financially. Still, several other critics, including Gene Siskel, praised the film's technical quality and strong narrative, and Siskel himself counted it as one of the five best films of the year."

Guess your definition of "universally panned" would be different from mine. Also, regular movie goers generally disliked the movie at least as much as film critics.
Sorry, but your original claim still strikes me as being quite silly.

Fair enough. I feel the same about "Lawrence of Arabia". I can still enjoy it despite it getting a large number of important facts about T. E. Lawrence wrong.

In my opinion, the fundamental issue with the film is that both the setting and the subject matter were a bit too esoteric even for 1970's era movie theater audiences. That's why it was not a commercial success.

Kubrick seemed to alternate between immediate audience success and next-level slow-burn.

Lawrence of Arabia is another excellent example. Great film-making while taking many liberties with historical facts. Another one that falls in this category is Braveheart.

OK, *one* critic really liked it so it is not quite universal but close enough. My point still stands, these critics were wrong about the movie and know #%&*$#.

Your point is silly. People aren't full of #%&*$# when they disagree about what movies they like.

De gustibus.

Also, it is a very slow movie. Considering how tastes for fast paced films have grown since the '70's, it would be a complete flop today.

Absolutely. If "Barry Lyndon" were made today it would only be made by an independent art-house studio and at a very modest budget (ie under 10 million). Kubrick's film was both financed and distributed by a major mainstream studio and it had a large budget for its time.