Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk

The politics of war are incredibly complex, and the human cost is disturbingly high. There are no wonder why those who give up their lives to fight oversea are honored with great dignity. But the big question in this war drama directed by Oscar Winner Ang Lee is: Are we honoring these soldiers the right way? That is an idea that this film takes a dive in, but not with enough impact. Lee's approach to the absorbing topic is too shallow of emotional touch. The greatest accolade Lee acquires in this picture is allowing it to shine with a unique visual innovation, and that is shooting the film with an unheard-of frame rate of 120 FPS to capture the immense atmosphere of the war sequences. It is a technological achievement that powerfully shows how far Hollywood has advanced in technological. Seeing this movie at a theater with an unusual frame rate that high is an alarmingly tough get as there are only six theaters around the globe that include this, with only two of these theaters planted in the United States. Set in 2004, this follows 19-year old Billy Lynn (played by Joe Alwyn), an Army specialist returning home from active duty in Iraq with his fellow squad members. On the day of a Thanksgiving home game at the Dallas Cowboys stadium, Billy, honored as a hero for his duty, and his squad members are brought together on a victory tour during the halftime show. During the tour, Billy is hit with flashbacks of the tragedies that occurred during the battle in Iraq including the death of his friend Staff Sergeant Shroom (played by Vin Diesel) as opposed to the American citizens fantasized perceptions of what they think happened over there. Along the way, he finds his heroism manipulated by film producers Norm (played by Steve Martin) and Albert (played by Chris Tucker) who are trying to land a movie deal out of the events that squadron's faced.

Based on the novel by Ben Fountain, this drama capitalizes on themes of patriotism and honor, and opens light on social issues that run between the grim realities of war and the distorted views of active combat by citizens back at home. The primary concern here deals with home civilians including the media exploiting the heroism soldiers acquire during active duty overseas, simply for our own personal gain. As disconcerting as it is, one thing this film proves is that unless you have been in active combat, you have little or no idea of what it is realistically feels like being in active combat overseas. Director Ang Lee makes an engaging point out of this concept. But alongside, the film also introduces these contradictions on how soldiers are celebrated by citizens for their active duty, yet people all over America continue to disdain war as an unnecessary bargain; an idea that the story never fully explores. From there on, the story slips into a jumbled mess and offers little emotional touch to the point where viewers are left with no impact. The film's emotional highpoints stand during the flashbacks of the title character and his squad fighting in Iraq which are powerfully shot and executed in authenticity. It's too bad that these scenes only make up a small portion of the near-two- hour runtime, while the majority the picture follows Billy and his squadron walking through the stadium during the halftime show with Destiny's Child performing and fireworks going off. If this manages to wring anything out of the story's framework other than its absorbing ideas, it is the performances, particularly Joe Alwyn as Billy and Kristen Stewart as his older sister, given the opportunity to flex her acting muscles. The rest of the cast offer some good on screen presences, operating with a sense of cynicism and humility. Looking for something Oscar- worthy though, you are probably better off looking elsewhere.

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk is a shallow war drama that fails to arrest viewers with its timely themes and Ang Lee's scattershot approach to an otherwise thoughtful examination of its eponymous character versus America's fantasized perceptions of war. Although the final product is disappointingly forgettable, some may admire Ang Lee's effort on embracing the film with his visual innovation. However, its a technological effort that is too early to introduce in major theaters at this point.

This sees a couple of soldiers back on in the good US of A. But they are in between, because they are supposed to go back to the war zone. One in particular is praised as a hero, for what he did on the battlefield. And while he is not highest in rank, he is the one most are concentrating on. The story too, with his struggle and his flashbacks to the day that made him "famous".

There are quite a few stars in this, some in really small roles (like Vin Diesel or Kristen Stewart), but what is important, is that everyone involved gives their best and it shows on screen. You may know where this is going, but it still is a very fine watch. A tough movie to watch, with obvious stabs at many thins (media attention, praise but also false heroism and much more) ... it really is like a mirror showing a couple of bad sides of society. Then again, is there a chance to change?

In terms of visuals Billy Lynn's was very impressive, however I would ask, is this the right genre of film to showcase such technical cinematography? Obviously such stunning shots could only be a plus to the film but for a film that is really more about one's internal struggles rather than exterior conflicts I do find it quite an odd decision to make this film in such a way. I did go in expecting an all out war movie since I have heard of all of these things that Ang Lee is doing in this film, in terms of visuals. Which did leave be surprised but also disappointed at how few those scenes are. Essentially this film takes place within a time span of one day and all takes place at this football game? What?

Obviously there were flashback scenes and all but there were quite few and every time we jump back to the present time it just leaves be craving for the next flashback scene. I can understand this message that the film was trying to send about being considered a 'war hero', about all the costs and sacrifices that soldiers are making each day and the way they are treated. How decorated war heroes are just a sort of title, people will show you and tell you how much they appreciate your services and what not but when it comes to actually giving anything we never seem to be so eager to. It is a film that showcases this idea of being crowned a 'hero' and what it really means, and sure that was quite an interesting theme to look at.

But perhaps to make this whole story more impactful instead of having flashbacks tell us the story overseas we get a whole first half of the film showing it to us, before all of the victory tour stuff. It just makes it very hard for audiences to understand the implications and the sacrifices that they have made if this sort of flashback storytelling is used. It is often hard to make a good war movie that isn't based on a true story, this is likely because when audiences know that it is fictitious the stakes wouldn't be so high, and it won't really touch people's hearts so to speak. So both these elements combine to create the war's lack of importance which is a very bad thing to have happen.

In conclusion, I liked what they were trying to say, the underlying idea and theme of the film came indefinitely of a good place. However poor storytelling and lack of story in general really made this film suffer quite a bit.

This is a good movie. All the discussion about it surrounds the technology used in making it, and that's necessary, but it's not the whole story -- nor is it NOT the story as others would have you believe. The simple fact is that this is a well-acted and at times completely engrossing anti-war picture, one that is more often than not, yes, let down by some of the failings of trying to show off the tech. Some scenes come across as incredibly "stage-y" for lack of a better word, and the lighting can be overlit fluorescent too often (like a docudrama).

However, that being said, I did have the pleasure of actually being able to see this on 3D bluray and I must say it's absolutely the most stunning 3D I think I've ever seen. There's an incredible amount of depth to so many scenes -- sometimes it's showy, but sometimes it's in service of the story like when Billy comes home and the entrance hallway seems to stretch on forever out in front of him, inviting him in to its embrace but also providing a dark trap. The essential conundrum, the doublethink, at the center of his inner workings.

Greetings again from the darkness. "Thank you for your service." For those of us who have never served in the military, we say the words because we don't know how else to show our appreciation. Do the words ring hollow to those in uniform? Maybe. Probably. But how else can we honor these brave souls? What if we have them share a stage with a pop singing group during halftime of a football game? It's this line between honor and propaganda that takes up much of the new movie from two-time Oscar winning director Ang Lee (Life of Pi, Brokeback Mountain).

The story is based on Ben Fountain's 2012 novel, and revolves around soldier Billy Lynn's and his fellow "Bravo" squad members as they make the rounds back home (in 2004) for publicity after their intense battle sequence is caught on camera. There is much at play here: how the soldiers interact with each other, how they are treated by the general public, how they are used by the team's owner and the Army for self-serving reasons, and how Billy juggles the stress of war, the spotlight of heroism, and the demands from his family.

Director Lee opted to experiment with the ultra-realism of the new 120 frames per second in 4k 3D, rather than the standard 24 fps. Though this may seem like a minor detail that shouldn't be addressed in a review of the movie, it's impossible to ignore this impact. Technical advancements in film and digital have resulted in some exciting new effects for movies, but this high speed approach creates a soap opera look and feel that will likely be disorienting to many viewers. Although the full effect will only be available in New York and Los Angeles (due to shortage of projectors), the clarity on the close-ups is distracting, while leaving the background quite fuzzy and out of focus. Many will find this new look to be "not right" for a movie, and prefer the traditional look. Others may embrace the heightened sense of reality … of being right there with the characters. Of course, this is Ang Lee's film, so there is no shortage of stunning visuals and expert shots.

Beyond the technical aspects, this movie is simply a bit clunky to watch, not very well written (screenplay by Jean-Christophe Castelli), not very well acted, and has an overall awkward and unfinished feel to it. Kristen Stewart plays Billy's sister, and her limited screen time is the best part of the movie. Newcomer Joe Alwyn makes a decent reluctant (and lucky) hero in playing Billy, but he doesn't have the chops to overcome the script weakness and the burden of carrying so many scenes. This is especially obvious in his unrealistic bonding scenes with cheerleader Faison (played by Makenzie Leigh). Their scenes together are nearly unwatchable.

Supporting work comes from Vin Diesel as Billy's philosophical officer in recurring flashbacks to the war, Garret Hedlund as the current squad leader, a miscast Steve Martin as team owner Norm Oglesby (a Jerry Jones type), and Chris Tucker as the incessantly yammering agent/producer trying to put a movie deal together for the soldiers. Other minor contributors include Tim Blake Nelson, Bruce McKinnon (in horrible make-up), Ismael Cruz Cordova, Deidre Lovejoy, and a couple of All-Pro players in Richard Sherman and JJ Watt.

Since there are some interesting and important elements to the story, the assumption here is that most effort went towards the experimental technical aspects. More attention to scene detail could have more effectively contrasted the soldier's take on war versus the never-ending inclination of Americans to turn most anything into more and bigger entertainment … even Destiny's Child isn't enough. The questionable filmmaking decisions leave us with the shell of a good story, and too many sappy close-ups of actors emoting directly to the camera lens. The soldier vs hero debate deserves better, and the propaganda aspect deserves a more critical eye.