>>214051390
"Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's best" is the clearest pseud-marker in existence.
>IT'S LIKE A LE PAINTING
No it isn't. It looks like any washed-out '70s period flick. The only part that resembles a painting is the fact that there are lots of long shots with high headroom, everything else is blocked in a sterile and flat way that is vastly different from the paintings he is supposedly imitating
>BUT THE EPIC NASA LENS
Is this supposed to be evidence of quality? David Lean had a whole lens built from scratch for a single shot in Lawrence and I've never once seen anyone fellate him for it, because that film actually stands on its own merits
Anyways, even aside from the overhyping of the film's technical aspects, Barry Lyndon is worthless. It's peak cinema for people who have seen less than 10 films made before 1950