Barry Lyndon - Blu-ray release!

[Doctorossi]

the 1080p resolution will be a game-changer for Lyndon

Indeed! With C'era Una Volta Il West going Blu on the same day, my head may explode.

[Josh Z]

Barry Lyndon and Lolita only have their trailers for extras. Clockwork Orange has the old features plus a couple of new featurettes and the Life in Pictures documentary (in SD). Clockwork Orange is the same transfer as the old Blu-ray.

Lolita and Clockwork Orange are pillarboxed to 1.66:1. Barry Lyndon is 1.78:1. It looks fine at that ratio, but this is the movie that Kubrick famously required all movie theaters in North America to install 1.66:1 matte boxes in order to display the movie in his intended framing.

The Barry Lyndon picture is soft. Really SOFT. A lot of that has to do with the lenses that Kubrick chose to shoot the movie with in order to film in natural light, but it's still kind of hard on the eyes.

Despite being a big Kubrick fan, I'd actually never seen Barry Lyndon before. This is the one Kubrick movie that managed to do what no other Kubrick movie ever has: bore me to tears. Geezus, that movie is dull!

[Sim_Mat]

Must say on the only occasion I've tried to watch Barry Lyndon I had to bail out about 45 minutes into it. And I'm used to the sometimes slow pacing of Kubrick films. This one was just glacially paced. The incredibly soft nature of the film makes me wonder if the blu ray's PQ advantage would make it more watchable or not.

[Josh Z]

Must say on the only occasion I've tried to watch Barry Lyndon I had to bail out about 45 minutes into it. And I'm used to the sometimes slow pacing of Kubrick films. This one was just glacially paced.

I forced myself to sit through the whole thing (had to review it for another publication), but honestly, I realized within 5 minutes that it was going to be a slog. It isn't just the pacing that's a problem. The story and characters just aren't interesting. At all.

This movie was thrown together when Kubrick's Napoleon project fell apart, and he felt like he needed an outlet for all of the research on the time period that he did. This seems to be a case where he got lost in the details. The production design, costumes, and photography are all lovely, but there's just nothing going on in terms of story.

I don't know anything about the Thackery novel that it's based on, but the movie ends with an almost hilariously indifferent shrug. The voiceover says something to the effect of: "Then Barry left, and we lost track of him after that. We don't know what happened to him, so I guess that's the end. Bye." (Not an actual quote, but that's the gist of it.) I sat through three hours for that?!

[Sim_Mat]

I much prefer The Duelists to Lyndon - similar time period, but its tighter, pacier, and in my opinion, even more beautiful looking. And while the story is somewhat thin and the characters somewhat shallow, it seems to be more meaningful as a story. Now they need to hurry up and release it on BD.

[VincentVinyl]

It is interesting how opinions can be different:

I think Barry Lyndon is a masterpiece and I love the pacing that takes it time to show the life of Redmond Barry. The book has him tell everying from his own perspective, while for the movie Kubrick chose to make a neutral narrator tell everything from a distance, which is also fitting.

I guess it depends if you like the main character who in my opinion is not a jerk like Alexander DeLarge but a troubled man whose weaknesses outweigh his strengths because all the outer circumstances of his life bring out the worst in him. Yet you can´t completely dislike him as he shows honest feelings for his son or in the fantastic duel scene at the end spares the love of his stepson.

For me Barry Lyndon is a forgotten classic that is on par with Kubricks classics like 2001 or Clockwork Orange.

The cropped aspect ratio bothers me a lot more than Josh: Kubrick is a perfectionist when it comes to scene compositions and many scenes now look much too tight. It is a shame Warner did that and confusing, since they left Lolita, which is coming out now, too, alone at its ration of 1,66:1. Why they chose to alter Barry Lyndon and not Lolita...I can not understand.

[DBK]

I forced myself to sit through the whole thing (had to review it for another publication), but honestly, I realized within 5 minutes that it was going to be a slog. It isn't just the pacing that's a problem. The story and characters just aren't interesting. At all.

This movie was thrown together when Kubrick's Napoleon project fell apart, and he felt like he needed an outlet for all of the research on the time period that he did. This seems to be a case where he got lost in the details. The production design, costumes, and photography are all lovely, but there's just nothing going on in terms of story.

I don't know anything about the Thackery novel that it's based on, but the movie ends with an almost hilariously indifferent shrug. The voiceover says something to the effect of: "Then Barry left, and we lost track of him after that. We don't know what happened to him, so I guess that's the end. Bye." (Not an actual quote, but that's the gist of it.) I sat through three hours for that?!

I think Barry Lyndon is similar to 2001 in many ways. In both films, Kubrick concentrated so much on creating/recreating the worlds in which the films are set that the story takes a back seat. I remember reading a review a long time ago that Barry's life in the movie is a metaphor for the folly of the European countries in the 18th century. Whatever. Both films subordinate story and character for the sake of visual splendor and selling us on the reality of their worlds.

Just as we totally accept the sci-fi version of the 21st century in 2001, the 18th century of Barry Lyndon seems to really be the 18th century and not just a story set in the 18th century. Barry Lyndon does end somewhat abruptly; but what else would one expect for the rest of the life of a loser like Barry? I much prefer it to the end of 2001. I realize that Kubrick was going for a Nietschean/evolutionary/man & superman thing; but the image of the fetus floating in space has always struck me as kind of silly.

[Doctorossi]

I think Barry Lyndon is similar to 2001 in many ways. In both films, Kubrick concentrated so much on creating/recreating the worlds in which the films are set that the story takes a back seat. I remember reading a review a long time ago that Barry's life in the movie is a metaphor for the folly of the European countries in the 18th century. Whatever. Both films subordinate story and character for the sake of visual splendor and selling us on the reality of their worlds.

I utterly disagree with that assessment of 2001.

[DBK]

I much prefer The Duelists to Lyndon - similar time period, but its tighter, pacier, and in my opinion, even more beautiful looking. And while the story is somewhat thin and the characters somewhat shallow, it seems to be more meaningful as a story. Now they need to hurry up and release it on BD.

I do not prefer The Duellists to Barry Lyndon, but I dearly love the film. Both are in my 5 favorites list. I admire the way Ridley Scott managed to do so much with such a low budget.

I did not like The Duellists when I first saw it. I didn't like the American leads in a film largely populated with British actors; and I thought the story was light. However, it grew on me over the years to become a favorite. It could be awesome on Blu.

[DBK]

I utterly disagree with that assessment of 2001.

You think 2001 is a story and character driven film?

[Sim_Mat]

2001 simply *is* - no component is there at the expense of any other because all components exist in precisely the right amounts in that film in a way that works only in that film. Personally I find every second of it riveting.

[Kid Banana]

I don't know anything about the Thackery novel that it's based on, but the movie ends with an almost hilariously indifferent shrug. The voiceover says something to the effect of: "Then Barry left, and we lost track of him after that. We don't know what happened to him, so I guess that's the end. Bye." (Not an actual quote, but that's the gist of it.) I sat through three hours for that?!

He's a broken man at the end of the film, he's lost everything. After a string of fortunate events that allow him to rise from a an penniless Irishman, he ends up with almost nothing and loses all the people most important to him (not to mention a leg). There really is no more story to tell, his life is over.

[VincentVinyl]

@ KidBanana

Exactly, I found the end pretty fitting and absolute. He is "finished" at the end and his story is over.

In the book Barry tells everything from his own perspective (he himself is the narrator) and if I remember it correctly he is imprisoned and rotting in a cell, still dreaming of becoming rich again but without much hope.

[project-blu]

Yeah, I can see that. But considering the way that the movie drags on for so long, the way it stops on a dime at the end just feels stilted.

I suppose Lolita has a similarly abrupt ending, but that movie's supposed to be a black comedy, and its blunt ending ("Epilogue: Humbert died of Thrombosis in prison. THE END.") is pretty hilarious.

SPOILERS!!!!

j/k. too old to count.

so Barry Lyndon is in the incorrect AR, then. was the DVD in the proper AR or no?

[Josh Z]

He's a broken man at the end of the film, he's lost everything. After a string of fortunate events that allow him to rise from a an penniless Irishman, he ends up with almost nothing and loses all the people most important to him (not to mention a leg). There really is no more story to tell, his life is over.

Yeah, I can see that. But considering the way that the movie drags on for so long, the way it stops on a dime at the end just feels stilted.

I suppose Lolita has a similarly abrupt ending, but that movie's supposed to be a black comedy, and its blunt ending ("Epilogue: Humbert died of Thrombosis in prison. THE END.") is pretty hilarious.