Todd Erwin

Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,971
Location
Hawthorne, NV
Real Name
Todd Erwin
Todd Erwin

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk UHD & 3D Blu-ray Review



Ang Lee's experimental Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk will likely be remembered more for it's use of extreme high frame rate and 3D cinematography more than anything else. The story is not all that engaging, with the technology often removing the viewer rather than immersing them in the plot and lives of the characters. It's an interesting experiment, but one that probably isn't well-suited for the material.

[review]
Read more.
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,592
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I feel like it's impossible to fully experience this film with the choice of it in a higher frame rate in 2D, or a regular frame rate in 3D, rather than both at the same time. For what it's worth, I suspect that no presentation would make you like the movie if you didn't like it already, but I'm not sure that the mood the film creates can be reproduced with just HFR without 3D, or just 3D without HFR.

I saw "The Hobbit" moves in HFR (which was 48fps for those movies), and I hated every second of it. It didn't look natural, and it looked less real to me; every motion had an added jerkiness that I had never felt in 24fps. It was as if every action was slowed down at the beginning, and then sped up at the end, almost the way that a glitching computer might freeze for a moment and then play back at an accelerated speed. It was a not a pleasant experience. Each year, as the latest Hobbit title came out, I would decide to give HFR another chance, thinking that it must have been just me, or the theater I saw it in, and that it couldn't be as bad as I remembered. And each time, it was.

For "Billy Lynn," I had a wholly different experience. I was lucky in that I live near one of the only two theaters in the country that was showing it as Lee intended - in 3D, at 4K resolution, at 120fps. I was curious about the technology, but not terribly interested in the movie itself, so I went with a little bit of trepidation. Everything was better than I expected. I actually enjoyed the movie far more than I had expected. HFR at 120fps had none of the herky-jerky, slowed down and then sped up look at that it did to me at 48fps. The clarity and brightness of the image onscreen was unlike anything I have ever seen before. There were numerous times where I forgot that I was watching a movie, and felt that on some level, I was actually present for the scenes taking place. The only thing that I'd count as a negative was the scene transitions - because I got so wrapped up in each moment and my suspension of disbelief was so total, whenever the film would cut from one scene set at one time and place to one in a different time and location, I found that extremely jarring. It was as if the illusion was so real that the act of cutting away revealed the artifice.

This being a Sony release, I'm sure it looks very good, but I'd be hesitant to judge the look and feel of this specific film based on either of these disc versions, which are incapable of reproducing the film as Lee intended.
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,902
I feel like it's impossible to fully experience this film with the choice of it in a higher frame rate in 2D, or a regular frame rate in 3D, rather than both at the same time. For what it's worth, I suspect that no presentation would make you like the movie if you didn't like it already, but I'm not sure that the mood the film creates can be reproduced with just HFR without 3D, or just 3D without HFR.

I saw "The Hobbit" moves in HFR (which was 48fps for those movies), and I hated every second of it. It didn't look natural, and it looked less real to me; every motion had an added jerkiness that I had never felt in 24fps. It was as if every action was slowed down at the beginning, and then sped up at the end, almost the way that a glitching computer might freeze for a moment and then play back at an accelerated speed. It was a not a pleasant experience. Each year, as the latest Hobbit title came out, I would decide to give HFR another chance, thinking that it must have been just me, or the theater I saw it in, and that it couldn't be as bad as I remembered. And each time, it was.

For "Billy Lynn," I had a wholly different experience. I was lucky in that I live near one of the only two theaters in the country that was showing it as Lee intended - in 3D, at 4K resolution, at 120fps. I was curious about the technology, but not terribly interested in the movie itself, so I went with a little bit of trepidation. Everything was better than I expected. I actually enjoyed the movie far more than I had expected. HFR at 120fps had none of the herky-jerky, slowed down and then sped up look at that it did to me at 48fps. The clarity and brightness of the image onscreen was unlike anything I have ever seen before. There were numerous times where I forgot that I was watching a movie, and felt that on some level, I was actually present for the scenes taking place. The only thing that I'd count as a negative was the scene transitions - because I got so wrapped up in each moment and my suspension of disbelief was so total, whenever the film would cut from one scene set at one time and place to one in a different time and location, I found that extremely jarring. It was as if the illusion was so real that the act of cutting away revealed the artifice.

This being a Sony release, I'm sure it looks very good, but I'd be hesitant to judge the look and feel of this specific film based on either of these disc versions, which are incapable of reproducing the film as Lee intended.
On the other hand, the film "as Lee intended" is the cinematic of a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it. Hardly anyone was able to see if "as intended", so I don't think you can imply only those people who saw it in the "whole hog" version are able to fairly judge it...
 

jauritt

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
124
Location
Warrington, PA
Real Name
Jay Auritt
I purchased Billy Lynn solely on the recommendation of Robert Harris. I knew from reviews that it wasn't going to be a very good movie (or, possibly, it was going to be a bad movie - which it was) but, based on Mr. Harris' review of the technical aspects of the release, I was more than willing to make a blind buy. Luckily, there was a freezing issue on the disc which allowed me to return it for a refund, because I wasn't the least bit impressed by the picture quality, regardless of the 60fps presentation. To my eyes, it simply looked like VIDEO...like I was watching a videotaped presentation of a very bad play on TV. I mean, sure, it was probably the best looking videotaped presentation I've seen, but that ain't saying much. For the first time ever I was happy that there was a defect on the disc, because I could never imagine watching it again.
 

Bob Cashill

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2001
Messages
3,572
You can see Billy Lynn's and The Hateful Eight on Blu-ray--but you can't experience them the way you could in their optimum theatrical presentations. I didn't care for either film, but the experience, limited as it was in scope, was central to their being produced. The discs can't replicate that. (And, indifferent as I was to the movie, the 120 fps Billy Lynn's was something to experience, leaving the Hobbits in the dust.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,592
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
On the other hand, the film "as Lee intended" is the cinematic of a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it. Hardly anyone was able to see if "as intended", so I don't think you can imply only those people who saw it in the "whole hog" version are able to fairly judge it...
Good point, allow me to rephrase. I think anyone seeing any version of the movie can comment fairly on how it is as a movie.

However, what struck me as being slightly unfair was the judgment that it was a failed experiment or an experiment that didn't work for the movie, based on a viewing of the disc - anyone seeing it on disc won't be seeing "the experiment" portion of the movie, so I don't think it's fair to say those aspects didn't work if you're not able to view those aspects. Saying that Lee shooting the movie in 4K 120fps 3D didn't work doesn't seem like a fair comment to make if it's made in reference to a version that's not that.
 

Edwin-S

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
8,424
I have to wonder if this film is getting flack because it portrays average American civilians as self-centred, ignorant, decadent, pleasure-chasing consumers. Meanwhile guys, who would have had no future in their own country, are out "protecting" the "American Way of Life". It makes me think the film is disliked because it may bring up uncomfortable truths and makes people, at some subconscious level, feel like they are looking into a mirror.
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,592
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
That's an interesting idea - I don't know that I had ever considered it. I do like that as a theory, but for this specific movie, I don't know that I buy it. I don't think the film has really gotten a lot of flack - I don't think it's gotten a lot of anything. Sony's release plan essentially guaranteed that very few people would even have the chance to see it, and the promotion for it (at least in my area) was basically non-existent.

I also think the movie has a dumb title. Should it matter? Probably not. But if I hadn't known that this was the Ang Lee movie where Lee was trying out new technologies, I wouldn't have been drawn to the movie by the title or poster alone. I don't think Sony effectively communicated what the movie was going to be about, so I don't think people rejected it based on subject matter - I don't think Sony got it into enough people's minds for it to even count as a rejection. I think most people were unaware of the movie, and those that did at least hear the title probably thought it sounded stupid and never gave it another second's thought.
 

Edwin-S

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
8,424
That is true enough. I never even heard of the film until its release on BD/4K UHD. I think it got low distribution in Canada and zero promotion. With the kind of treatment it got up here, I would have thought it was a Canadian film. :laugh:

The title is weird in that you have to see the film in order to get the context of the title. The title makes sense once a person has viewed the film; however, I agree that it certainly wasn't a very good selling feature of the film. The film, itself, also sort of takes on and reflects the ennui possessing the characters. I suck as a film critic, but the ennui of the main character in this film almost becomes palpable in the actual film making. It is not a very visually striking film. in fact, in a lot of ways, it is pretty pedestrian in shot set-ups which is kind of unusual for Lee. Makes me think that filming at 120fps 3D resulted in some technical limitations on how he could move the camera or arrange shots. The 3D version of this film is also one of the few that caused me to get a headache after awhile, even though the 3D seemed technically well-done.
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,592
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
It is not a very visually striking film. in fact, in a lot of ways, it is pretty pedestrian in shot set-ups which is kind of unusual for Lee.
I think that's the difference between seeing it as Lee shot it, in 120fps at 4K in 3D, and every other format that it's been offered in. When I saw it theatrically with 120fps/4K/3D, it didn't strike me as being pedestrian. Instead, it had a greater illusion of reality than just about anything I had ever seen. What might seem pedestrian or uninspired at a lower frame rate and in 2D seemed like "wow, I'm actually sitting next to these people" when seen as Lee intended. At least, that's how it played for me. The actual scenes were so realistic and lifelike, and I was so drawn into it, that when he'd cut to a different scene, I found those cuts to always be very jarring, just because it shattered the illusion that I was watching something real.
 

Edwin-S

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
8,424
Wow. That sounds pretty amazing. It would be interesting to see the film in that format, but I don't think there is a theatre in Canada that could show it that way. I watched the 4K 60fps version. It certainly looked much different from the 3D version; however, I'm not sure I liked the look of the film at 60fps. It looked too much like the same sort of picture you get when motion interpolation is active on a TV set.
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,592
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Wow. That sounds pretty amazing. It would be interesting to see the film in that format, but I don't think there is a theatre in Canada that could show it that way. I watched the 4K 60fps version. It certainly looked much different from the 3D version; however, I'm not sure I liked the look of the film at 60fps. It looked too much like the same sort of picture you get when motion interpolation is active on a TV set.
I can understand that - I felt that's what The Hobbit at 48fps looked like and I didn't like it. To me, Billy Lynn looked a little better. I think the 4K vs 2K is less important than the frame rate and then having that combined with the 3D. Combine the higher frame rates with the 3D presentation, and together, it's really something. They're no longer motion interpolation soap opera effect looking people - they're just people. I think I liked the look of the HFR/3D combo better during the sequences set at home than the sequences in the war; there was something about having those quiet moments playing out as if they were just real people chatting a few feet away from me that added to the intimacy of the story.

All of that said, I wouldn't want every movie to be made in this format. But I like the idea that filmmakers can have additional options for how to tell their story besides a standard 24fps, 2D, 2K master that most films are limited to nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edwin-S

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,592
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Josh, that's the title of the novel on which the film is based on.
I know - but I still think it was a risk putting the movie out with that title, and one that didn't pay off. There are plenty of movies that discard the original titles of the novels they were based on.

For instance, I think "Arrival" is a much stronger title for that film than "The Story Of Your Life" (which is what that book had been called). The combination of the visual of the vertically-oriented ship floating in a field, along with the word "Arrival", was all it took to sell me on that movie. My appreciation of the title grew after seeing the movie, when it became apparent that the title could have multiple meanings beyond the sudden unexpected appearance of spaceships on Earth.

Meanwhile, there's no combination of the words "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" and the generic soldier standing in front of fireworks imagery on that poster that would have increased my interest in seeing it - the only reason I was drawn to it was because of the HFR 3D technology Lee was using, and I wouldn't have known that from the poster. Heck, the poster I saw doesn't even mention that the movie is available in any kind of 3D. If I hadn't known about the movie already, the title wouldn't have sold me - if anything, as someone who's not really a football fan, I probably would have actively avoided a movie whose title tied it so close to football. But obviously it's not a movie about football and I would have missed out on a good moviegoing experience if I had just gone by the title or poster.
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,902
I have to wonder if this film is getting flack because it portrays average American civilians as self-centred, ignorant, decadent, pleasure-chasing consumers. Meanwhile guys, who would have had no future in their own country, are out "protecting" the "American Way of Life". It makes me think the film is disliked because it may bring up uncomfortable truths and makes people, at some subconscious level, feel like they are looking into a mirror.
No, I think that has nothing to do with it. "WALL-E" is a brutal condemnation of the kind of consumers you mention and it was a huge hit.

Mocking/pointing out the tendencies you discuss isn't new - it's been done many, many times in movies and TV.

I didn't like "Billy Lynn" because it's boring and lacks coherence. It rambles and goes not much of anywhere while it embraces all sorts of cliches...
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,902
Good point, allow me to rephrase. I think anyone seeing any version of the movie can comment fairly on how it is as a movie.

However, what struck me as being slightly unfair was the judgment that it was a failed experiment or an experiment that didn't work for the movie, based on a viewing of the disc - anyone seeing it on disc won't be seeing "the experiment" portion of the movie, so I don't think it's fair to say those aspects didn't work if you're not able to view those aspects. Saying that Lee shooting the movie in 4K 120fps 3D didn't work doesn't seem like a fair comment to make if it's made in reference to a version that's not that.
I agree there. I have no idea what the movie would be like when shown "as Ang Lee intended" - I wish I'd had a theater that exhibited that way closer than 250 miles away!

I find it impossible to believe that the "intended" presentation would've made it a good movie. All the technical innovation in the world ain't improving that movie! :D
 

Dick

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
8,462
Real Name
Rick
I have to wonder if this film is getting flack because it portrays average American civilians as self-centred, ignorant, decadent, pleasure-chasing consumers.
But...aren't we?
 

Dick

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
8,462
Real Name
Rick
That's an interesting idea - I don't know that I had ever considered it. I do like that as a theory, but for this specific movie, I don't know that I buy it. I don't think the film has really gotten a lot of flack - I don't think it's gotten a lot of anything. Sony's release plan essentially guaranteed that very few people would even have the chance to see it, and the promotion for it (at least in my area) was basically non-existent.

I also think the movie has a dumb title. Should it matter? Probably not. But if I hadn't known that this was the Ang Lee movie where Lee was trying out new technologies, I wouldn't have been drawn to the movie by the title or poster alone. I don't think Sony effectively communicated what the movie was going to be about, so I don't think people rejected it based on subject matter - I don't think Sony got it into enough people's minds for it to even count as a rejection. I think most people were unaware of the movie, and those that did at least hear the title probably thought it sounded stupid and never gave it another second's thought.
I agree with these remarks. A) The film has a dumb title that is difficult to memorize (I keep describing it to friends as THE LONG HALFTIME WALK OF BILLY LYNN). B) It wasn't well-promoted. I only heard of it when I saw a listing of upcoming 3D Blu-ray titles, at which time I found this to be an Ang Lee film, and jumped on it. This is by no means a bad movie. I found it entertaining, well-modulated, well-acted, and the 3D was good, although it has no "forward effects," really. But I think I will actually watch it in 2D next time around.
 

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,889
You can see Billy Lynn's and The Hateful Eight on Blu-ray--but you can't experience them the way you could in their optimum theatrical presentations. I didn't care for either film, but the experience, limited as it was in scope, was central to their being produced. The discs can't replicate that. (And, indifferent as I was to the movie, the 120 fps Billy Lynn's was something to experience, leaving the Hobbits in the dust.)
In the case of TH8, the Roadshow experience can be replicated, but for some bizarre reason QT doesn't want the people not fortunate enough to live near a theater that showed it to be able to experience it. I enjoy most of QTs films, but I find him to be a very petulant person.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,136
Messages
4,701,575
Members
141,178
Latest member
July