What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[Jay 37,374]

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please!

It's true. Did you watch the video?

[Brónach 1,302]

It's interesting to notice that a lot of stuff in these videos is different to the final film or doesn't appear. Also there are shots in the trailers that are different to the equivalent ones in the film (plane crash and the first shot of the Thompsons, I think)

The "Tintin as a reporter" subplot is gone, as well as the attack in the desert.

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please! Only at JWfan do they compare that to real actors and acting. I wonder if anyone of them will be getting the oscar.

Now that you edited your post, I don't really understand what you mean.

I think you just like to look down on Spielberg and now you want to think that if Tintin is good isn't it because of Spielberg.

By the way, ask any of the Pixar guys how many times they remake parts of the films in modern CGI animation. They're anything but set in stone. (Anecdote: Andrew Stanton wanted to make John Carter this way, but he was only allowed one reshoot)

[Jay 37,374]

It's interesting to notice that a lot of stuff in these videos is different to the final film or doesn't appear. Also there are shots in the trailers that are different to the equivalent ones in the film (plane crash and the first shot of the Thompsons, I think)

The "Tintin as a reporter" subplot is gone, as well as the attack in the desert.

I KNOW!!! I SOOOO wish Spielberg put deleted scenes on his dvds/blus, I'd love to see them for this movie! One of my favorite bits of the entire movie is when Thompson and Thomson are twirling around each other with their canes interlocked, I can't BELIEVE that didn't make the final cut!

[A24 4,346]

By the way, ask any of the Pixar guys how many times they remake parts of the films in modern CGI animation. They're anything but set in stone. (Anecdote: Andrew Stanton wanted to make John Carter this way, but he was only allowed one reshoot)

I guess I'm recalling how it once was. Still, it's a long and costly process, isn't it? Or are they now able to change things like it's the umpteenth take in a normal movie?

[Brónach 1,302]

I guess it's not always possible to do that. An stop-motion piece would never be finished if you want to try things differently again and again. So maybe it would be best to be sure that what you're going to do is what you want.

On the Stanton interview I read he said that the major difference he saw between making an animated film and a live action one is that in live action he could see the results of an idea much sooner, and in animation he had to give it more time.

It's said that having to change very few things is sign of a well thought preproduction. Depends of your particular approach at making films I suppose. I never made one.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Some of the best scenes(mixed with some of the most confounding, I won't lie) are in the second half of Prometheus. I wouldn't recommend stopping, but to each his own.

Prometheus' best was in its first hour. After that, everything turns to shit.

Nah. It gets less stable, but I would not say it turns to shit. The surgery scene is pretty great. I think the collision is wonderfully done and beautifully filmed. The awakening of the engineer and the final confrontation in the escape pod were pretty great scenes as well, if edited a bit poorly. They aren't flawless scenes, but I felt more excited watching them in the theater than I have from a film in a long time.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

I guess it's not always possible to do that. An stop-motion piece would never be finished if you want to try things differently again and again. So maybe it would be best to be sure that what you're going to do is what you want.

On the Stanton interview I read he said that the major difference he saw between making an animated film and a live action one is that in live action he could see the results of an idea much sooner, and in animation he had to give it more time.

It's said that having to change very few things is sign of a well thought preproduction. Depends of your particular approach at making films I suppose. I never made one.

When it comes to traditionally animated films, yes, you must have a stellar pre-production. In fact, pre-production is what takes the most time in this kind of films. You need at least one or two complete years for a good pre-production.

But when it comes to CGI movies, not so much. Here, it's the rendering of the characters and the enviroments that takes the most time, not so much regarding the actual animation. So when a certain scene is completely finished and you don't like it or wanna make changes, you can do them very easily. It can be both a blessing and a curse, because producers can take a great scene and completely tear it apart or vice-versa.

That's probably one of the reasons why so few 2D animated films are getting made, sadly. If you want to change things there, you have to start from scratch. And it costs a lot, compared to re-doing something in 3D.

[Delorean90 42]

Some of the best scenes(mixed with some of the most confounding, I won't lie) are in the second half of Prometheus. I wouldn't recommend stopping, but to each his own.

Prometheus' best was in its first hour. After that, everything turns to shit.

Nah. It gets less stable, but I would not say it turns to shit. The surgery scene is pretty great. I think the collision is wonderfully done and beautifully filmed. The awakening of the engineer and the final confrontation in the escape pod were pretty great scenes as well, if edited a bit poorly. They aren't flawless scenes, but I felt more excited watching them in the theater than I have from a film in a long time.

I honestly feel like the surgery scene will go down as classic--even iconic.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Mmmm... No.

[Jay 37,374]

It was a brilliantly executed scene

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Oh the surgery scene is certainly a great highlight (though I wouldn't call it a classic). But that doesn't change the fact that the film fell apart before then. Basically, everything went fine up till the end of the exploration scenes. After the first death/attack, everything just went really downhill with occasional highlights.

The surgery scene won't go down as a classic because the film will only be remembered for its lukewarm reception and Scott's disappointing (key word here) return to science fiction.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please! Only at JWfan do they compare that to real actors and acting. I wonder if anyone of them will be getting the oscar.

So Peter O'Toole in Ratatouille isn't acting? Zoe Saldana in Avatar isn't acting? George Clooney in Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't acting? Johnny Depp in Rango isn't acting? Andy Serkis as Gollum isn't acting? Just because the Academy doesn't recognize it then it must be true? Alex, I'm sorry but you're a fucking idiot.

[Jay 37,374]

Yea, Alex is being especially ignorant about this topic.

[Red 75]

I honestly feel like the surgery scene will go down as classic--even iconic.

It's certainly the best scene in the movie. If anything I think it will be remembered as the standout scene in a movie that otherwise didn't live up to its potential at all.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Looper is getting some solid reviews, 26 out of 27 positive reviews from top critics.

I'm still not sure about it, but we're seeing it tomorrow, I did see a clip with JGL doing a real Bruce Willis quirk. Impressive.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Rian Johnson and JGL are the only reasons I need to see Looper. The trailers are obviously targeting a wider demographic, but expect a very well-written and well-acted film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I expect a larger than normal fall opening with Looper and Hotel Transylvania

[Matt C 455]

Rewatching Marvel's The Avengers on home video. It allows you to really soak in all the little character moments, Whedon's terrific dialogue, and the action scenes are still exciting. I can understand that the film is getting backlash because of its immense popularity (a la Titanic and Avatar), but like I said earlier -- it's a wildly entertaining film and the talent deserves every penny they get. This will get a lot of playback in the future.

Having to wait three more years for Avengers 2 will feel like an eternity, though.

[King Mark 3,631]

Dredd

It was a lot of fun

I didn't get into Avengers at all. To me it was just a moderately entertaining film of the week with no lasting impression. I don't plan on buying or watching the Blu Ray

[A24 4,346]

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please! Only at JWfan do they compare that to real actors and acting. I wonder if anyone of them will be getting the oscar.

So Peter O'Toole in Ratatouille isn't acting? Zoe Saldana in Avatar isn't acting? George Clooney in Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't acting? Johnny Depp in Rango isn't acting? Andy Serkis as Gollum isn't acting? Just because the Academy doesn't recognize it then it must be true? Alex, I'm sorry but you're a fucking idiot.

Says he who compares guys in motion capture suits, erased by animation and voiced by other 'voice actors' to the performance of a real actor standing on a stage doing every aspect of acting himself with no tricks. You just compared Mickey Mouse to Laurence Olivier, Koray. And please, can we speak to each other without reverting to name-calling?

BTW, I only used the Academy for illustration. You are free to replace that name with BAFTA, Film Festival of Cannes, Berlin, Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild, ... Or all they all idiots like me?

I guess it's not always possible to do that. An stop-motion piece would never be finished if you want to try things differently again and again. So maybe it would be best to be sure that what you're going to do is what you want.

On the Stanton interview I read he said that the major difference he saw between making an animated film and a live action one is that in live action he could see the results of an idea much sooner, and in animation he had to give it more time.

It's said that having to change very few things is sign of a well thought preproduction. Depends of your particular approach at making films I suppose. I never made one.

When it comes to traditionally animated films, yes, you must have a stellar pre-production. In fact, pre-production is what takes the most time in this kind of films. You need at least one or two complete years for a good pre-production.

But when it comes to CGI movies, not so much. Here, it's the rendering of the characters and the enviroments that takes the most time, not so much regarding the actual animation. So when a certain scene is completely finished and you don't like it or wanna make changes, you can do them very easily. It can be both a blessing and a curse, because producers can take a great scene and completely tear it apart or vice-versa.

That's probably one of the reasons why so few 2D animated films are getting made, sadly. If you want to change things there, you have to start from scratch. And it costs a lot, compared to re-doing something in 3D.

Yes, my idea of animation is still very much rooted in traditional animation. I didn't realize they could change things whenever they want these days. So with CGI, you can even digitally change whatever real acting that took place?

Yea, Alex is being especially ignorant about this topic.

I admit I don't know much about CGI animation. But why am I generally ignorant? What makes you say that? Can you answer that? You may also PM me.

[Brónach 1,302]

Says he who compares guys in motion capture suits, erased by animation and voiced by other 'voice actors' to the performance of a real actor standing on a stage doing every aspect of acting himself with no tricks.

The voices are by the actors in motion capture suits. All the movements and expressions are also animated by the actors in the motion capture suits, which is why they use them. They are... acting.

[Jay 37,374]

Yes. Did you watch the video Alex?

[A24 4,346]

The voices are by the actors in motion capture suits. All the movements and expressions are also animated by the actors in the motion capture suits. They are... acting.

But clearly animated. It's a cartoon. I don't know who or what did in Tintin but I've seen it many times that the men in the suits are not the ones doing the voices. Even if they did, I still wouldn't compare it. There's a vast difference between Tom Hanks in Cast Away and the same Tom Hanks in Polar Express.

[Brónach 1,302]

Yes. Did you watch the video Alex?

He might have thought it's like the reference actors Disney used for movement.

[Jay 37,374]

He'd rather stay on his high horse and assume he's right and everyone else is wrong, then watch the video and be proven wrong and have to admit it.

[Brónach 1,302]

The voices are by the actors in motion capture suits. All the movements and expressions are also animated by the actors in the motion capture suits. They are... acting.

But clearly animated. It's a cartoon. I don't know who or what did in Tintin but I've seen it many times that the men in the suits are not the ones doing the voices. Even if they did, I still wouldn't compare it. There's a vast difference between Tom Hanks in Cast Away and the same Tom Hanks in Polar Express.

Okay.

a) The technology in Polar Express is both different and extremely primitive.

b) The actors in the suits are the ones doing the voices. That's why they use microphones on stage. You would realize if you saw the behind the scenes videos or saw the film.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please! Only at JWfan do they compare that to real actors and acting. I wonder if anyone of them will be getting the oscar.

So Peter O'Toole in Ratatouille isn't acting? Zoe Saldana in Avatar isn't acting? George Clooney in Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't acting? Johnny Depp in Rango isn't acting? Andy Serkis as Gollum isn't acting? Just because the Academy doesn't recognize it then it must be true? Alex, I'm sorry but you're a fucking idiot.

Says he who compares guys in motion capture suits, erased by animation and voiced by other 'voice actors' to the performance of a real actor standing on a stage doing every aspect of acting himself with no tricks. You just compared Mickey Mouse to Laurence Olivier, Koray. And please, can we speak to each other without reverting to name-calling?

BTW, I only used the Academy for illustration. You are free to replace that name with BAFTA, Film Festival of Cannes, Berlin, Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild, ... Or all they all idiots like me?

I'm not talking purely about digital animation. Take something like Fantastic Mr. Fox, where you have Wes Anderson recording George Clooney rolling around on a farm while performing his lines. Or even something CGI, like Rango, where the voices are captured by the actors actually performing all the motions in the same settings. You think that wasn't Zoe Saldana's face in Avatar? Those weren't her facial expressions? That wasn't her moving around in a motion capture suit? Andy Serkis sat in a booth while recording the voice for Gollum? No, that guy was hunched over running around on all fours.

As you may realize, I typically don't result to insults, but you're so so overly pretentious about this that it boggles my mind. Just the fact that you don't refer to it as "real acting" says it all. And yes, even if you did say BAFTA, SAG, etc. it's the same thing. You're using a ceremony's stupid guidelines for handing out awards as proof that you're right. I guess composers that utilize previously composed music, like Carter Burwell and True Grit, they aren't REAL composers? Please...

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I would argue that that type of acting could be more difficult to pull off. Thinking of Avatar, I can't even imagine how the actors managed to act with all of those motion dots and cameras in their faces.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I would argue that that type of acting could be more difficult to pull off. Thinking of Avatar, I can't even imagine how the actors managed to act with all of those motion dots and cameras in their faces.

How is it any different than an actor under heavy makeup. The line about cameras in their faces is ridiculous. Regardless if it's motion captured or traditional filmmaking the camera is there. They are actors, it's what they do.

Kim Hunter's acting in Planet of the Apes had to be a challege just as difficult as if she had dots on her.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I would argue that that type of acting could be more difficult to pull off. Thinking of Avatar, I can't even imagine how the actors managed to act with all of those motion dots and cameras in their faces.

How is it any different than an actor under heavy makeup. The line about cameras in their faces is ridiculous. Regardless if it's motion captured or traditional filmmaking the camera is there. They are actors, it's what they do.

Kim Hunter's acting in Planet of the Apes had to be a challege just as difficult as if she had dots on her.

Well, I think it would be much harder to get into a role when you are under such constraints. At least when you are in make up, you can visibly see the character you are portraying.

In any case, it certainly 'aint easier.

[Quintus 5,399]

You just compared Mickey Mouse to Laurence Olivier, Koray. And please, can we speak to each other without reverting to name-calling?

Sanctimonious hypocrite unwittingly rendered everything issued from behind his forked tongue beyond this point completely worthless. The first rule of fencing is to mind the foil does not jab its handler!

[A24 4,346]

The voices are by the actors in motion capture suits. All the movements and expressions are also animated by the actors in the motion capture suits. They are... acting.

But clearly animated. It's a cartoon. I don't know who or what did in Tintin but I've seen it many times that the men in the suits are not the ones doing the voices. Even if they did, I still wouldn't compare it. There's a vast difference between Tom Hanks in Cast Away and the same Tom Hanks in Polar Express.

Okay.

a) The technology in Polar Express is both different and extremely primitive.

b) The actors in the suits are the ones doing the voices. That's why they use microphones on stage. You would realize if you saw the behind the scenes videos or saw the film.

A cartoon is a cartoon, hence no awards for the chaps in suits.

[Brónach 1,302]

What do the awards of the industry promoting itself have to do with anything?

[A24 4,346]

It means actors, directors and movie critics don't hand out acting awards to a cartoon.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I would argue that that type of acting could be more difficult to pull off. Thinking of Avatar, I can't even imagine how the actors managed to act with all of those motion dots and cameras in their faces.

How is it any different than an actor under heavy makeup. The line about cameras in their faces is ridiculous. Regardless if it's motion captured or traditional filmmaking the camera is there. They are actors, it's what they do.

Kim Hunter's acting in Planet of the Apes had to be a challege just as difficult as if she had dots on her.

Well, I think it would be much harder to get into a role when you are under such constraints. At least when you are in make up, you can visibly see the character you are portraying.

In any case, it certainly 'aint easier.

only if you look in a mirror, the acting still must come from within. Zoe knew pretty much what her character was going to look like but she still had to interpret. Kim Hunter had to emote through some amazing and yet primitive makeup. Many actors have played tremedous roles as a blind person, Dustin Hoffman was believable as the oldest man in the world. Andy Serkis was praised for his work in LOTR trilogy, King Kong, and as Ceasar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The key component of all these performances was not the makeup, not the motion capture, but the performance itself.

[Brónach 1,302]

It means actors, directors and movie critics don't hand out acting awards to a cartoon.

That has nothing to do with you being wrong on the part of the film having actors acting.

[A24 4,346]

I never said that. The acting for animation is used to give the cartoon more expression. I can't compare that with seeing real actors acting on stage or the screen, especially not if computer artists can mess with it. Some of you don't seem to be able to cope with that. Very strange.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

well there is a very big difference between actors on stage and on screen.

the stage actors seem to give bigger broader performances which is necessary for the medium.

at the same time what about a skilled physical performance, are they not as legit or are they too over the top.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

the stage actors seem to give bigger broader performances which is necessary for the medium.

Depends on the stage actor. Patrick Stewart was clasically trained for the stage but is often best when he puts minute details into his performances. Little subtle things that enrich his acting.

[MSM 126]

Barry Lyndon.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

The Ladykillers (1955)

What an amazing suprise! I loved this dark British comedy from the beggining to end. It's a delight to watch, specially in terms of acting and direction.

All the actors were fantastic on their performances, but Alec Guiness takes the cake in an amazing role as Professor Marcus where he goes all Nosferatu on us! His smile, the curved back, the expression on his eyes, his physical movements... An acting lesson all around! (He even tried to pull the force trick on Katie Johnson - he would probably kill if he would have heard me said that!)

I'm really liking Alexander Mackendrick as a director. He did a fantastic job in A High Wind In Jamaica, too, a movie filled with fantastic performances all around, mainly James Coburn and a very carismatic Anthony Quinn.

I will certainly keep checking out the rest of his filmography.

8/10

[Brónach 1,302]

Ah I have to see A High Wind in Jamaica. I'm don't know about his other films, so noted.

Barry Lyndon.

What did you think?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It means actors, directors and movie critics don't hand out acting awards to a cartoon.

Then why was Up and Toy Story 3 nominated for Best Picture? Why is there even a Best Animated Feature category? Do you think those are based on technical ability? Why wouldn't it be under Best Visual Effects then? You're wrong, this is not a matter of opinion. Stop talking about irrelevant awards ceremonies, you can bring up Rotten Tomatoes if you like this time around since a majority of Pixar's films are above 90% fresh.

You also didn't care to comment on my post that proves why you're wrong. I copied it below for your convenience. I like how you keep comparing it to "real acting."

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please! Only at JWfan do they compare that to real actors and acting. I wonder if anyone of them will be getting the oscar.

So Peter O'Toole in Ratatouille isn't acting? Zoe Saldana in Avatar isn't acting? George Clooney in Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't acting? Johnny Depp in Rango isn't acting? Andy Serkis as Gollum isn't acting? Just because the Academy doesn't recognize it then it must be true? Alex, I'm sorry but you're a fucking idiot.

Says he who compares guys in motion capture suits, erased by animation and voiced by other 'voice actors' to the performance of a real actor standing on a stage doing every aspect of acting himself with no tricks. You just compared Mickey Mouse to Laurence Olivier, Koray. And please, can we speak to each other without reverting to name-calling?

BTW, I only used the Academy for illustration. You are free to replace that name with BAFTA, Film Festival of Cannes, Berlin, Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild, ... Or all they all idiots like me?

I'm not talking purely about digital animation. Take something like Fantastic Mr. Fox, where you have Wes Anderson recording George Clooney rolling around on a farm while performing his lines. Or even something CGI, like Rango, where the voices are captured by the actors actually performing all the motions in the same settings. You think that wasn't Zoe Saldana's face in Avatar? Those weren't her facial expressions? That wasn't her moving around in a motion capture suit? Andy Serkis sat in a booth while recording the voice for Gollum? No, that guy was hunched over running around on all fours.

As you may realize, I typically don't result to insults, but you're so so overly pretentious about this that it boggles my mind. Just the fact that you don't refer to it as "real acting" says it all. And yes, even if you did say BAFTA, SAG, etc. it's the same thing. You're using a ceremony's stupid guidelines for handing out awards as proof that you're right. I guess composers that utilize previously composed music, like Carter Burwell and True Grit, they aren't REAL composers? Please...

Charlie Caplin wasn't a real actor, I guess. Didn't even speak in his films! What a joke, using his body to convey emotions. Fake!

[Wojo 2,453]

I do kinda see Cremers' point, even under all the "I know you're wrong so what am I" pretense.

When an actor performs on stage, the original performance is transmitted directly into the eyes of the audience without undergoing any changes. The performance is as "real" as it can get, and audiences have lived with this for thousands of years.

When an actor performs on a soundstage or in a backlot in front of a camera, the performance is recorded by the camera, stored to film or digital media, and then transmitted to the audience at a later date. Regardless of whatever post-production tricks are done like lighting changes, green-screening the actor onto a fake set, and editing the best takes into a fluid scene, you take it on faith that you're getting the actor's honest to goodness performance. Audiences have accepted this for nearly a century.

But this concept of motion captured performances to translate actors into digital characters is much newer. What began with rotoscoping decades ago -- literally hand-drawing the animated frame directly over top of the original film performance -- has grown into a massive industry of drawing over an actor's movements, gestures, and expressions in a computer. The results are breathtaking -- Tintin, Davy Jones, the Na'vi -- but they force the audience to accept that the computer animators have captured the original performance 100% completely and accurately, without either adding any of their own embellishment or removing any of the actor's humanity. And that is a huge leap of faith to ask an audience to accept, or to ask an Academy member to vote for that digitally rendered person's performance on equal grounding as any actor whose real face ended up on camera.

We do this already. When we talk to deaf people or people who don't speak our language through an interpreter, we talk to them as if we're carrying on the conversation with the actual person, and not the intermediary. We automatically assume that the interpreter is translating our words and their words faithfully, without adding or removing anything for his own gain. In this case, the computer wizards are the new intermediary, the translators that help move these new stories forward.

We have to suspend our disbelief long enough and trust that the enchantingly blue lady is really Zoe Saldana, and not an animated character drawn from scratch using only her voice as guidance. To the people who have accepted this, Zoe Saldana is already on equal footing with the human characters in the movie. To those who don't accept it, then, she may as well be Belle from Beauty and the Beast: beautiful but fake.

This is a brave new world that we're stepping into. Twenty years ago, Roger Rabbit and his lovely wife were a technological feat, a gimmick that had finally broken the barrier and made the real world and artificial world look seamless, even though we "know" that 'toons don't exist in our "real" world. We knew that Jessica Rabbit was simply the voice of Kathleen Turner and not her physique, and so movies like this earned accolades for their artistic and technological merits. Now, the barriers are broken down even more to the point that we can enhance people into movies without resorting to what looks like hand-drawn cartoons, but as fully realized digital beings. And so there may come a time when people would nominate a spectacularly lifelike and flawlessly acted digital character for an acting award alongside a "real" human being.

Is the world ready for Mickey Mouse and Laurence Olivier to compete for Best Actor?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the stage actors seem to give bigger broader performances which is necessary for the medium.

Depends on the stage actor. Patrick Stewart was clasically trained for the stage but is often best when he puts minute details into his performances. Little subtle things that enrich his acting.

you miss the point, on stage including Stewart, the performance is bigger because the audience is in direct front of you. The performance has to reach the back just as it does the front.

GETTING BACK TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD

Saw Looper this afternoon. Intersting film. It doesn't quite succeed. It's very good at times, asks a few daring questions.

The performances range from adequate to outstanding. Levitt and Willis are overshadowed by Emily Blunt who gives an exceptional performance.

The Bruce Willis makeup was a bit unnerving and not entirely successful.

The film has some exciting set pieces, but it's best if the time travel isn't given too much credence, if you think on it too long it will fall apart.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Most time travel stories dont hold up to close scrutiny.

[MSM 126]

Ah I have to see A High Wind in Jamaica. I'm don't know about his other films, so noted.

Barry Lyndon.

What did you think?

Nice sceneries and production design. The story is very straightforward. I didn't like the bad ending. Also there is almost no psychological development of the character, there is no explanation as to why he does certain things or makes certain decisions; this makes it difficult to connect with the character and keeps the viewer at a distance. Of course in the book things are more developed, such as the fact that the Barry's were robbed of their family fortune by the Lyndons. This would justify a sort of revenge of Redmond Barry, like ruining the Lyndons. In the movie this wasn;t explained. It all felt a bit...purposeless. But it was a visual masterpiece.

[A24 4,346]

there is no explanation as to why he does certain things or makes certain decisions

One of Kubrick's finest qualities.

[MSM 126]

there is no explanation as to why he does certain things or makes certain decisions

One of Kubrick's finest qualities.

Well in this case it felt somewhat insatisfactory. Or does it always?