Billy Lynn: Un giorno da eroe

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.

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.

The moment the audience saw the first shot of Billy Lynn reaching for his phone, the audience gasped. Ang Lee's ambitious choice of filming at a frame rate of 120fps in a 4K and 3D format is beyond words. We become immersed into Billy Lynn's world, seeing the little details that we normally would not see in a film (imagine what Emmanuel Lubezki did in 'The Revenant' and times it by 5). The person I went with to see the film described it best, it was a very sensual experience not just from the cinematography, but also the interesting soundscape and phenomenal editing. There are small moments when what would be a mundane action becomes a trigger for Billy Lynn and his squad. Lee does not hold back in making the audience feel the PTSD of those soldiers which at times is beautiful done as well as a bit too much for those of us who have never experienced it. Now I could go on about how brilliant the film is technically and it's sure to get some Oscar recognition in that aspect, but all films revolve around a story.

What could have been an amazing film merely becomes an OK film because of the story's weakness. I read an article where the critic trashed Ang Lee, but to be honest it's not Lee who's to blame but whoever wrote the script. The script is so dull and because of that the audience never got the full immersion we were hoping to get. The only person we connect to by the end of the film is Kristen Stewart's character, yet that isn't even delved into. The relationships between the characters aren't developed very much except for one relationship that is developed WAY too fast and in the most unrealistic way possible. You can get a sense of a strong bond between Lynn and his squad, but just barely.

As for the acting, Kristen Stewart was definitely the standout. Joe Alwyn did a great job, too, but not the memorable debut performance I was hoping to see. Vin Diesel and Steve Martin are truly miscast (this may just be me being picky, but every time they came on screen I felt very uncomfortable).

To sum this up, I'm giving this movie a 7 out of 10 because of the technical brilliance and the experience of watching a film in this frame rate, though be warned that the story is very weak. Some people are going to find the 120fps very strange, but for the cinephiles who have an open mind, you'll be blown away.

The subject of Ang Lee's "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" isn't the war in Iraq but in how America reacts to its heroes and its soldiers and it's a theme that can be traced back through two World Wars. Indeed for almost as long as movies have existed the cinema has concerned itself with the relationship between the military and the world at large, how it performs and how it is perceived. The most famous example of this is probably the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima and the subsequent 'tour' back home immortalised in such films as "The Outsider" with Tony Curtis as Ira Hayes and Clint Eastwood's "Flags of Our Fathers" and Oliver Stone's Vietnam film "Born on the Fourth of July" so it was only a matter of time before someone would do something similiar with one of the current wars.

Moving back and forth in time between the events in Iraq and the tour to celebrate the 'heroes' Lee's film is a complex and surprisingly satirical picture that doesn't go down the obvious route of 'what really happened and how the media constructs events' and, being an Ang Lee film, is very skillfully made. As Billy Lynn, the soldier chosen to be the poster boy for the military, newcomer Joe Alwyn is excellent and it's a film that ultimately confounds our expectations. The chest-thumping of "Born on the Fourth of July" is conspicuously absent and if the film seems to lack a big dramatic pay-off it's still a moving depiction of ordinary people caught up in extraordinary events.

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.