MovieChat Forums > Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016) Discussion > So does the movie state that the invasio...

So does the movie state that the invasion was a big fat lie?


To readers of the novel and those who have already seen it. Cheers.

reply

The book is very anti-war and the movie will be as well. Dumb post.

reply

I just think it's the most important question that most people don't like to talk about.

reply

only the dimmest of wits know that it was, in fact, a big fat lie - but it's a MOVIE, not a political documentary.

reply

If you're anti-war, you're an idiot, plain and simple.

Your nation will eventually be taken over by someone who is pro-war. It is a certainty. It's absolutely, the biggest idiocy I've ever seen, propagated likely by women who are out of touch with reality.

reply

This is the dumbest comment I've ever seen on imdb.

reply

@thebricks

No,dear---you're an idiot NOT to question the real reasons we go to war. Especially after Vietnam and the Iraq War (which could have been avoided, but only happened because Bush and his cronies wanted to get their hands on Iraq's oil,that's all.) I mean, think about it---did we really need to destroy nearly half a country to hunt down one main terrorist and his men? Hell,no, we didn't. You're the one out of touch with reality for thinking we should swallow and accept everything that we are told about wars and why they are conducted int the first place. You sound like the kind of fool that voted for trumpf because you believe all his bull**** lies about what he was going to do---none of which he's going to be able to do without going through Congress. That's what he needs to get through his thick-a** orange head.

reply

@thebricks: To summarize what you've written: "I'm scared. Let's go to war."

reply

I've been on IMDb for years and years and I agree with the previous poster who said that this is the dumbest comment I've ever read on IMDb.

__________________________________________
"In your opinion?"
"Um, yes your honor, in my opinion."

reply

Imdb comments are going to be all deleted this month.

In deleting your comment, the internet will become a less stupid place.

For this comment alone, I'm totally behind deleting comments on imbd.

All the moronic comments like this, lost forever, like idiot's tears in rain.

reply

Ang Lee is an inteligent and wise man. I would be dissapointed if he would make the same patriotic bullsh*t like Clint Eastwood or Michael Bay.

reply

Reading the wiki plot, it isn't.

But I found it poignant since the soldiers from Billy's unit are used for propoganda by the very same elites who know very well the invasion was based on a lie.

reply

>Implying Clint Eastwood movies are bad for being patriotic

reply

With Eastwood, his Iwo Jima films are clearly anti-War and not patriotic, and you can argue American Sniper is anti-war as well (Eastwood has said he thinks it is anti-War).

Anyway, while it isn't a major theme of the movie, there are a few lines which imply that the Iraq war was not a good choice, and the film does harshly criticize exploiting soldiers to build patriotism (in contrast that is one of the biggest themes of the movie).

reply

Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima are excellent movies you fool.

reply

no. he is working at abu ghraib and enjoys interrogating prisoners for intel. not everyone has the stomach to shock the testicles but once you do, it doesn't phase you at all just like billy. I hope they show the part where where he drills that guy's hand who is tied to that chair. you see that drill go right through his hand in 120 fps. Ang went for realism. he got actual death row prisoners for the tortures scenes and killed them for this movie. It gave it that realism.

reply

Uh, yeah, I'm sure he did.

:: eye roll ::

reply

That may be the single stupidest thing I've ever read in IMDB.


The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.-Oscar Wilde

reply

If...Mr.Lee presents both sides of reality...then yes...the lies will be put forward...and lives would have been wasted for a few nasty old men...plus one real religious knucklehead...Mr.Blair...

if not...then Bush...Cheney and Co. ...will buy tickets for the premier.

...bar is closed people stagger out
the pretty, the crippled, and the proud.

reply

If we hadn't invaded you'd be speaking Arabic now.

reply

Based on what exactly?

reply

fool

reply

If we hadn't invaded you'd be speaking Arabic now.


LMFAO that's a good one. Not many people can detect sarcasm in text, but I can and you are truly a genuine sarcasm genius.

reply

The book isn't "very anti-war," unless you think any critique of mindless patriotic display is "anti-war." The soldiers in it are heroic, and we know they've performed heroic deeds. What the book implicitly criticizes it their being used for propagandic purposes. The book isn't explicitly pro- or anti-Iraq War. It just shows how some soldiers were used to deliver a gung-ho message that allowed people not to question anything about the policies behind war, at least in its early going. It's not anti-military (or even anti-war) to question the decisions that lead soldiers into battle, as we always should. We shouldn't just rubber-stamp it with "Well they must know best."

reply

The book isn't "very anti-war," unless you think any critique of mindless patriotic display is "anti-war." The soldiers in it are heroic, and we know they've performed heroic deeds. What the book implicitly criticizes it their being used for propagandic purposes. The book isn't explicitly pro- or anti-Iraq War. It just shows how some soldiers were used to deliver a gung-ho message that allowed people not to question anything about the policies behind war, at least in its early going. It's not anti-military (or even anti-war) to question the decisions that lead soldiers into battle, as we always should. We shouldn't just rubber-stamp it with "Well they must know best."


^^ Correct

My real name is Jeff

reply

@ofumalow

Co-sign on everything you said.

reply

Sorry to see you get dissed by imdb members. Your question is legit.
I plan on watching this movie when it's available at the local library because I've been so let down at the theaters by mediocre movies.
BTW, most everything we are told is a lie.

reply

I haven't red the novel, but I did see the movie.

It's not anti-war per-se.

The movie is depicting the difference between the minds of young soldiers, fresh from the battleground and the circus that is USA.

The difference between being depicted as a hero, by people who know nothing about war, and loosing a friend in battle after trying to save him.

The contrast between the closed-group of men, bonded trough baptism of fire, and the society asking completely ridiculous questions, which will yield answers they will not really understand.

If it's political, it's more in the sense that it shows that normal people, are taken out of normal families and that innocent boys, change into young,controlled killers and the only ones who see the change, are the people closes to you. The rest of America see you as a halftime-event and patriotic-masturbation.

I find the ending to be very good (albeit probably too complicated for the average defensive idiot, already dead-set that this film is anti-American). The film shows very nicely that Billy realize that the only 'loved ones' he has, that understands where he is coming from, are his brothers in arms, with the Vin Diesel father-figure passing on the brotherly love between the soldiers.

You can like or dislike the film, but it's not anti-war or anti-American. Even though there are characters in the film who are critical to the war and politics (Billy's sister), it's lashing-out against policy-makers because they took her brother away and that they may even take his life. She is powerless to stop this and thus lash out very verbally against the war.

The film makes a point of the fact that Billy signed up to the military to help his sister pay her medical-bills. This is political and critical to how and why people are sent off to war, but it is a good one, since there are way too many young people signing up because there are no jobs, there is hardship all around and that the requiting-system paint the service as a career-choice.

Also, in the end-conversation where they smoke some weed with the civilian who tell them about his thoughts about signing up, the film makes a point that the bonus has gone up. He is promised more bonus than they were, this indicate that it's getting harder to recruit fresh meat these days and that the military takes step to ensure a steady flow to the ranks.

reply