Watch Barry Lyndon For Free

I'll tell you why so serious

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

I can't get over how incredible this film's cinematography is. It's such an easy thing to point out when watching it but what John Alcott, (the cinematographer) has done for this movie is something that really elevates the whole thing to a different level, one that is unparalleled by many films today. The use of Steadicam in Kubrick's The Shining is something I'll always remember so fondly of but that technology wasn't even invented by the 70's. Instead, Barry Lyndon showcases numerous sequences depicting the lush countryside-esque landscape that the story is set in and makes use of natural lighting in both indoor and outdoor scenes. It's important to note the indoor parts as the visuals for the interior scenes also look amazing and detailed. Many of the scenes that take place in a house or some building are lit by candles, which would easily be a detriment to the visuals but works well in this case. Pausing the film during these moments of great cinematography would be the same thing as looking at a painting because they really resembled the looks of an actual piece. The framing, with its double shots and closeups, are also nothing short of perfection, as they keep the focus on the subjects whenever necessary while being mindful of the background.The story of Barry Lyndon is essentially a man's journey from rags to riches. Having this premise also be a period piece can be challenging because it imposes a lot of standards on the audience to believe in to be able to fully enjoy the film. I really liked it though, and this has to do with the presentation. I've said enough about the cinematography but the music and acting are also deserving of the praise they receive. I myself don't have a favorite actor or performance from this film because I felt like all of them kind of blended together and helped with the overall world-building, which is good.Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, this film also has an intermission, which I appreciated. Barry Lyndon is three hours long, and while I very much enjoyed the film in its entirety, I did feel the runtime by the time it was over. This also has to do with how the second part of the movie slows down, as it's in charge of steering the story towards the end. The intermission got me thinking a bit about modern films, especially because ones that are 2.5+ hours long are going to be made for as long as film exists. I definitely wouldn't mind having intermissions for newer movies and I'm curious as to why we don't really see them anymore. It's one thing to absorb everything that's happening on screen in one long sitting but making a film built around segmented parts with an intermission might make for a more easier movie-going experience these days. Having a short pause midway though might help the audience take a minute to reflect on everything that's happened and that's definitely something I did while watching Barry Lyndon which prepared me for the rest of the film.One of Kubrick's best, but The Shining is still my favorite. Thank god for John Alcott.

Possibly the most beautifully shot film ever. A true masterpiece. Underrated as a dark comedy. Somehow not boring for a 3 hour period piece. Watch it now.

A dead movie, like a dead language, can be an aggregate of exquisite details.'Barry Lyndon' is two movies with an intermission: 100 minutes to show the rise of an ambitious Georgian-era social-climbing Irish ruffian; 80 minutes to show his fall. The rise comprises his hard-scrabble youth and treacherous usurpation of aristocratic English privilege, the fall his comeuppance via the revenge of those he wronged.Nobody's sympathetic. Everybody's a scoundrel, a shallow heir or heiress, a toady, a soldier reduced to brutality by brutal treatment.A dead movie, like a dead body, can be exquisitely dressed, painted, and presented.Achingly beautiful images, unbelievable luminescence scene to scene. Life in the 18th century according to Kubrick was endless dullness in lovely landscapes, punctuated by war, duels, births and deaths, financial ruin, sociopolitical intrigue – and the occasional raging outburst. Kubrick breaks it down – every context for every upset of mundane life two hundred years past is painstakingly laid out. Nothing is a surprise. To be fair, Kubrick uses Brechtian title cards for each section, telling us this is what he intends to show us. But even Brecht made us feel for his protagonists, intended audience alienation effect notwithstanding. And Brecht astonished and surprised us. Kubrick gives these people something like a dry, old-school National Geographic anthropologic treatment – no small feat – but is it sustainable as a narrative film? One senses Kubrick was trying to give the audience a mimetic experience – the snail's pace and anti-dramatic structure of the film intended to let us live in the 18th-century for a few hours. It is a noble experiment . . . but it fails. It is impossible to engage with this film for very long.This viewer has not read the source novel by William Makepeace Thackery, but is highly doubtful the characters, or narrative point of view, lack a scintilla of wit – as is the case with Kubrick's film. No bawdy jokes, no farcical situations, no banter or games to see anybody through drudgery and war. Anybody living the life presented here would quickly die of despair or their own hand. I can understand not wanting to replicate, say, the rowdy romp of 'Tom Jones', but it is a mistake to direct actors to confuse a character's shallow exterior for a lack of inner life, or similarly exploit nonactors or actors of little depth -- that cultural pretense leads to amateur acting is hardly an original concept worth three hours beating over the head. No spontaneity here, no idiosyncrasy, no shared ensemble energy as a means to exponential discovery. It's as if Kubrick were trying so hard to avoid acting clichés – or was so cynical about the craft of acting – that he allowed no acting whatsoever; in other words, he attempted to perpetrate a grievous fraud: presenting the supremely titanic artifice of a commercial motion picture sans the artifice of accomplished acting technique.The title character is Ryan O'Neal, a huge American star in 1975 when this film was made. Sexy, earnest, milk-fed boy next door of limited range, used well in light romantic comedies. Kubrick casts O'Neal as something of a cypher, showing little to no emotional stake in the events of his character's life – but capable of great rage when provoked by an attack on his dignity. Otherwise there is no passion in the man.Marissa Berensen as the aristocrat Lyndon targets and snags is a striking fashion model, giving a striking fashion model's performance: the light, the camera love her to death. But a work of art should demystify a character such as hers. This film tells us she barely exists beneath the skin, yet continually thrusts her at us without revealing any information – to the point of annoyance. As with Berensen, Kubrick's use of O'Neil mystifies his character: we must accept that he is the archetypal social climber – and, for lack of much substantial information in the film, define him by preconceptions. Both are like cartoon or sitcom characters who go through dire situations yet barely register their effects. This makes for repetition, frustration, and, ultimately giving up on the film altogether.Kubrick's tight rein on lightweight O'Neal and novice Berensen is palpable, his artistic gun at their head barely outside the frame. The only actors allowed any room to play are Leonard Rossiter as a pompous military officer/jilted suitor, Patrick Magee as a high-stakes con artist all silk brocade and garish make-up over the small pox scars, and Murray Melvin's prissy tutor-priest. Rossiter was Kubrick's wonderfully sketchy Russian Ambassador in '2001: A Space Odyssey', Magee was Alex's obsessive main tormentor in 'A Clockwork Orange'. Melvin here is playing to type: he had a nice career interpreting crypto- and not-so-crypto gays through the 1960s and 70s (see 'The Devils' and 'A Taste of Honey').The movie won numerous awards for design, costumes, cinematography – and rightly so. Breathtaking visuals. Innovative technology allowed illumination of several scenes by candles alone. The early war sequences are consistent with Kubrick's career-long critique of that institution, and provide something of an apologia for a creature like O'Neil's protagonist, who decides marrying great wealth is the only antidote to a soldier's rotten life. That great wealth and its possessors only exist by perpetuating continual war is a strong theme of the film not lost on this viewer.'Barry Lyndon' is a work worth seeing because it is by a master, and it it is an odd creature indeed. It contains genius. But it is auteurism run amok.

In the XVIII century Ireland, Redmond Barry is a young man in love with his cousin, who is promised to an English Captain. Barry challenges him to a pistol duel and wins, being forced to flee to Dublin. On the road, he is robbed and, without further alternative, enlists in the English army to fight in the Seven Years War. When his protector in the army dies, he decides to desert, only to be discovered and forced to join the ranks of the Prussian army, where he saves the life of his captain thus gaining his trust and being assigned to spy on an Irish player. Immediately the two compatriots create a bond of friendship and become associates in the art of the game, embezzling many nobles throughout several courts of Europe. Eventually Barry meets and marries the beautiful and wealthy Lady Lyndon, finally achieving his desired entrance into high society. With his new wealth and name, they move to England where he begins to squander the acquired fortune and thus creating an enemy for life in his stepson. When his son with Lady Lyndon dies at an early age, Barry is devastated, and his stepson sees the perfect opportunity to execute his revenge... through a pistol duel. Barry loses and is forced to renounce his title of Lord, and so the movie ends with the following legend: "It was in the reign of Jorge III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor they are all equal now".This is a masterpiece that encompasses all the arts: it is a book on film accompanied by a classical style soundtrack that complements in unison this beautiful drama about the rise and fall of an ambitious man, accomplished in such a way by the master Stanley Kubrick with primordial cinematography that seems more like pictures or paintings in movement, slowly unfolding for the three hours of its duration, and even though the action is also slow and sparse, so much the better for the viewer to appreciate the fine details of the sceneries, clothing, architecture, the incidence of light in the environment, the mannerisms and contrasts of XVIII century people, and the classical music that so well accompanies the progress of the narrative. A very well done movie like few. Not only is it an excellent cinematographic work, it is also an excellent analysis of the human and social condition.Winner of 4 Oscars: Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction / Decoration, Best Wardrobe and Best Music, including 3 other Nominations.