<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[and, make no mistake, it has one. For that I feel it&#x27;s Kubrick&#x27;s most human film.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Barry Lyndon</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>johcafra-150-658402</strong> — <em>9 years ago(July 04, 2016 12:16 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">and, make no mistake, it has one. For that I feel it's Kubrick's most human film.<br />
When I view it I keep wondering what it would've been like under someone else's direction, given the source novel. Tony Richardson in particular. I see Ken Russell mentioned among the notes. Ken Loach perhaps.<br />
But only Stanley could've done this, and we should be all the more grateful that he did.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/187869/and-make-no-mistake-it-has-one-for-that-i-feel-it-s-kubrick-s-most-human-film</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 16:55:12 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/187869.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 01:15:55 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>