Dr Strangelove was TERRIBLE. Wide shot of war room. repeat. zoom shot closeup of airplane readings. repeat.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/

this is my favorite kubrick film. at 3 hours it's never boring. the only other costume period iece that compares is "the duellists"(1977) which ridley scott was inspired to make after seeing this.

I'd rent it first and check it out before buying. I just finished watching it and I liked it, but it seems way longer than it is. The experience is rewarding, however. So definitely check it out.

I admire the filmmaking, but I don't begin to see the point of this. I feel that way about a number of Kubrick's films.
"2001" and "The Shining" are two of my all-time favorite films. But, I am not sure what the point of "Barry Lyndon" is supposed to be, or why it is so highly rated on IMDb.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

i think you would love it. kubrick has a very noticeable style in all of his films so you would appreciate this as much as you liked 2001. though this movie is a bit long, i would say that i did not really got bored and every scene is interesting. definitely recommending it!

Did you ever watch it?
Having an opinion can save your life. Just ask Marvin.

I love most of Kubrick's films, but detest this one. No, you would not necessarily like this film simply because it's Kubrick.

its my favourite kubrick film. visually its the most stunning film ive seen. after watching it a couple of times it gets better and you appreicate the 3 hour length more than the first time. i just watched it and all i want to do is stick it on again lol. its perfection.

It depends. I would say yes, but considering you didn't like 2001 all that much makes me unsure. Barry Lyndon and 2001 are both very deliberately paced with Barry Lyndon probably being a little slower. However, Barry Lyndon is a very different film from 2001. 2001, while visually stunning, I think is primarily concerned with intellectual questions about the future of mankind. To me, Barry Lyndon is primarily a visual film, although there are very interesting questions regarding life (money, social class, etc.) that it presents. If you are willing to be patient and appreciate a film visually, I can think of very few films more rewarding than Barry Lyndon. I don't know if you've seen it, but it's very similar to Visconti's The Leopard in that way.

This^ (
odin45
)
I put off watching 'Barry Lyndon' for nearly forty years simply because Ryan O'Neal is so off-putting. Having now viewed 'BL', I feel Kubrick was right to cast him as Barry, an off-putting, insubstantial, unlikable man of little integrity. It works. A better actor might have made this weasel too sympathetic.

This was my favourite of his films. It reminded me of a Greek tragedy set upon a visually stunning backdrop.
I found it fitting and somewhat satisfying that a flawed actor is portraying such a flawed man. Let me play devil's advocate and say; I suspect the timidness/woodenness of Ryan O'Neal was not lost on Kubric during the casting, if he rings false it's also because Barry Lyndon himself is a fake.

Still a whole lot better than Keir Dullea in 2001, Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut and Nicholson's shamelessly overacted performance in the Shining.

This is probably the weakest of Kubrick's big films because the lead, Ryan O'Neal is weak and not up to the challenge. The film could have been one of his best films if they had gotten a great actor.

well i did, whilst certainly not his best film, it's still great and the film screams kubrick, its slow and long but it pays off, if you like kubrick's style you probably will like it.

This message has been deleted.

I would think so. I avoided this film for a longtime despite being a huge Kubrick fan, but even though I didn't love it the first time I saw it, it has gradually become one of my favorite Kubrick films. It has a story that seems kind of inconsequential and pointless at first, but it has many hidden layers and meanings. It's a very mature film with adult themes. It is as thought-provoking as any of his other films, although it doesn't appear to be at first.
On top of that, the filmmaking craft on display is breathtaking, the use of music and the cinematography are just perfect. It is very much a Kubrick film in that you can tell a lot of attention was paid to detail, and the story is told in his typically detached, ironic way.

Haven't seen this one is sometime; but when in the mood, I find it a very rewarding experience. That said, I like period films and many viewerseven those that claim to be Kubrick fanswould likely dismiss it, due to it's era. Visually and aurally sumptuous and meticulously filmed, with a subtle and dry humorous undercurrent; of Kubrick's 5 films post 2001-68', I would probably rate this as his finest.
O'Neal is not a great actor; but he appears unpretentious and is good. With his boyish handsome looks, he appears perfect for the role of Barry. According to the trivia, Kubrick was under obligation by Warner Bros. to cast a top leading box office star and this left him with 2 choices: Redford or O'Neal. Redford declined, so O'Neal stepped in and got a film experience with Kubrick.

This message has been deleted.

Yes, most definitely yes. Although Full Metal Jacket is quite the contrast but it's definitely Kubrick!

That's a difficult question to answer. What is most remarkable about Kubrick is how different one of his films is to the next, so if you love one of his films, you might hate the next.
Barry Lyndon is a slow period piece, but it's a pretty good slow period piece. Only way to know is to watch it.

This message has been deleted.

What do you think Eyes Wide Shut is a "parody" of, kenny?
"Your mental capacity isn't the only problem. You also have the sensibility of a cow on morphine."

Kathy and others,
Since making my post here last week I thought more about the OP's question. While it is correct to note, as Kathy generally agrees, that Barry Lyndon is as a type of subject matter not at all similar to any other Kubrick film, and in fact the same can be said of the others, there is something perhaps beyond the high level of craft that Kubrick shows in his films.
And that similarity is probably on the thematic level. Take in addition to BL a Kubrick film that on the face of it has as little to do with BL as any, and that would be A Clockwork Orange. How can these two films be seen in any way as similar?
I think the thematic similarity is one where the approach of the individual to his life, his perception of the relation between intent and actions, and his relation to society, differs from what we see "actually" occuring in such relations.
Alex DeLarge goes about his life (until arrested, of course) as a vicious predator, yet one who does so without seeing himself as purposely vicious. Instead he metes out his punishments and even rewards in a complex dynamic where he advances what he sees as his own interests in responding to the opportunities and challenges presented by others and the world around him. This of course hardly makes him exceptional; in fact other than the RESULTS of such dynamic being so violent and damaging, it is essentially true of all of us. In fact this gives him a certain, if tennuous, element of being an Everyman, albeit couched in a very particular obnoxious set of surface qualities and behavior.
Eventually Alex finds his approach to life no longer works. He obviously deserves to be caught and held, eventually imprisoned, for his dispatch of the cat lady. But it is really his misreading of his fellow droogies that specifically leads to his being caught. But, despite the viewer's satisfaction that Alex is no longer pursuing his nefarious ways, what can be said about the end result? Society attempts to deal with him in A Clockwork Orange's singular manner of treatment, which breaks down, rendered ineffectual.
No doubt the champions in that society of the Ludovico Technique were generally sincere in hoping it would succeed. And no doubt we must concede it was aimed at a real and significant problem. But
Before proceeding with that analysis, I think it should be obvious what parallels exist between Alex and Barry, albeit not of the variety that make up the surface veneer of the two characters. For all the singular aspects of his life, his behavior and his actions, Barry like Alex has that Everyman aspect of using his wits to advance his interests and deal with others. Like Alex he succeeds, until he does not. What is it about both that enable them to succeed, but then not see the downfall awaiting them?
I think what unites them is that they in effect overrate their own ability to pursue their interests in the world. Ironically this overrating DOES carry each farther than they otherwise likely would have gone. But then it all comes apart.
The social element in their respective narratives is also critical. Alex's encounter of course is with the law, while Barry's is with high society. Both antagonists are capable enough of destroying our protagonists. But hardly in a productive or suitable way.
I think in fact this is common to both films - the "hero", really an anti-hero (even calling Alex an anti-hero seems a bit much), gets further in the world by pursuing their self interest in a clever enough way, but also in a way that leads to their downfalls. Society grinds them down, almost without any consideration of the relative merits and demerits of the hero. I say almost because concededly the surface level assessment of both is negative, for understandable reasons. But where society proceeds from such assessment, how it exactly goes about grinding them down, is not a pretty picture, either.
In effect Kubrick takes a decidedly pessimistic view of this overall dynamic. That which the protagonist sees as his own merits and virtues leads them to an approach to life that first rewards them and then destroys them, to no overall good end for anyone.
It is not coincidental that these two films were successive works of Kubrick's, either. One can also see at least in part of 2001 a preceding element of pessimism, and after Barry Lyndon Kubrick's focus changed somewhat, first to the isolated and incipiently psychotic Jack Torrance, then the ensemble of dysfunction in Full Metal Jacket. And ultimately Eyes Wide Shut, which I agree with those who see it as a sort of parody.
So in the end I think at least for the later central part of Kubrick's career we can see this similar pessimistic take on how man pursues self intent and interest, and how social forces ultimately respond. And it ain't pretty.

This is my absolute favorite Kubrick film, and one of my all time favorites in general.
It is such a rich movie with music that I could listen to forever. The filming is lush and the story unwinds at a wonderfully leisurely pace, like reading Thackeray.
I don't feel that you can compare it to any of his other films, though. To me it feels more like say "Sense and Sensibility" or "Remains of the Day."
I can't watch "Eyes Wide Shut" without giggling. Surely people realize Kubrick was making a spoof..