I didn’t expect this. Every review I’ve read for Clint Eastwood‘ Nelson Mandela movie Invictus, barring one, has bored me to the point of nearly throwing in the towel. Well almost, kind of, nearly.
Don’t start with the negative responses. Please hold your tongue and don’t call me a lame 15 year-old-journalist/blogger or complain about how good this site used to be in the good old days. I’m just saying, the reviews are in and they don’t quite live up to the Eastwood/Freeman/Damon/Mandela/December Oscar knockout we were expecting.
Invictus is on limited U.S. release from Dec. 11th, and doesn't play in the U.K. till Feb. 5th.
It’s just from the sounds of things, it’s the un-sutble Eastwood again and whose prints are more obvious than they used to be. I didn’t hate Gran Torino but I didn’t like some aspects of how Eastwood shot it, and of course that awful ending. Flags of Our Fathers or Million Dollar Baby were ok but there was a straight forwardness to his direction, and an unsubtly about them that I couldn’t agree with, or digest properly.
The bizarre thing about this whole situation is that the handful of all the reviews posted so far are positive, at least in the Rotten Tomatoes sense of the word, it’s just they are written in such a formulaic, by the numbers, deflated manner, where most of the meat and bones time is taken up concerning the film’s plot, or the historical significance of the story. That really doesn’t bode well for the actual picture itself.
Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, captain of the South African World Cup Rugby Team of 1994.
Todd McCarthy begins his review with the most ludicrous not going out on a limb opening line I’ve ever read… “Invictus is a very good story very well told.” Well we know it’s a good story, we are well aware of the history but “well told?”
Is that as good as a pan for an Eastwood movie?
“Inspirational on the face of it, Clint Eastwood’s film has a predictable trajectory, but every scene brims with surprising details that accumulate into a rich fabric of history, cultural impressions and emotion.” …
And with that McCarthy, whose reviews I always look forward to and trust, just kills it there. Is he telling me there’s nothing to see here except a plain re-telling of history?
I expect more from my Eastwood.
Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter’s bottom line calls it “A temperate, evenhanded perhaps overly timid film about an intemperate time in South Africa”.
Yikes! This, along with Nine (likewise but for other reasons), was always seen as the top Best Picture Oscar contender because of it’s pedigree, both in terms of historical significance and cast, gets a bottom line like that?
Isn’t the Best Picture contender a movie to shout to the rafters about, the way critics did for The Hurt Locker, Up in The Air and Up. Invictus doesn’t stand a chance outside of a throw-a-way nomination at this point.
He goes on…
The film, based upon the book “Playing the Enemy” by John Carlin, has an understandably narrow focus of 1995 South Africa. Mandela is seen only in the context of a sudden rugby convert. He signs papers and greets international delegations between matches. Francois is glimpsed with a family and wife –or girlfriend, even this is unclear — but he exists solely to play his sport.
The film enters neither of their lives. It’s a film about a nation’s psyche, not its individuals. Where you would love a vigorous portrayal of two larger-than-life personalities, the film tiptoes through polite scenes where everyone speaks and acts with political correctness.
Likewise, the actors stick close to the surface. Freeman gives you a folksy yet sagacious leader. He ambles rather than walks and peers at people with sly wisdom gleaming in his eyes. He doesn’t try to plumb the depths of a one-time rebel or a man struggling to keep both his nation and family together….
…Damon has taken the flabby dough-boy body from “The Informant!” and chiseled it into pure muscle. He looks like a rugby player. What he thinks about apartheid or Mandela or anything else you never learn. He certainly respects the nation’s president but their relationship is largely ceremonial.
Jeff Wells’ review at Hollywood Elsewhere is by far the best written, most enjoyable review on the web and I would encourage all of you guys to read it. He particularly pays attention to Morgan Freeman, and predicts the Best Actor statue is his…
Freeman’s performance is not a deep-mine thing or a dazzling revisiting of a still living-legend whose face and manner are well remembered by millions. But it’s really quite satisfying — soothing — to watch Freeman, nearly a dead ringer, adopt a slight accent and step into Mandela’s shoes and walk around with a slight stoop and a faint grin and radiate that serene wise-man thing.
There’s no question Freeman will end up as one of the five Best Actor nominees, and I’m betting right now that he’ll win.
On the movie itself…
Invictus does remind us of what a centered and wise and very cool guy Mandela was — it gives off a contact high in this respect. But it’s all exposition, exposition, exposition and more exposition. And there’s almost no “story” in the sense that there are no character turns, no twists, no nothing in the way of surprises or intensifications. A good amount of it — most of it, really — is about South African government employees watching rugby games or standing around offices or sitting on buses or in the backs of cars or watching TV. (TV screens get a major workout in this film.) Or about athletes jogging and playing rugby and working out.
Invictus is about an “important” subject — one we should think about and perhaps learn from — but it mainly just ambles along. It kinda gets off the ground at the end, but rousing sports-movie finales don’t travel like they used to because we’ve seen them so damn often. You can’t just have the good-guy team win and show everybody cheering. That’s not enough any more.
Pamela Ezell at The Huffington Post was presumably so disinterested in the movie that she spends most of her review talking about the proposed linkage you can do with President Obama and Nelson Mandela (never let her play the Kevin Bacon game) and finally reviews the movie with…
“Invictus isn’t a great movie but it’s got great moments”, and then once again wonders if President Obama is going to see it.
Invictus is not a biopic; nor does it take us deep inside any of its characters—Eastwood views Mandela from a respectful middle distance. It’s about strategic inspiration. We witness a politician at the top of his game: Freeman’s wily Mandela is a master of charm and soft-spoken gravitas. Anthony Peckham’s sturdy, functional screenplay, based on John Carlin’s book Playing the Enemy, can be a bit on the nose (and the message songs Eastwood adds are overkill). Yet the lapses fade in the face of such a soul-stirring story—one that would be hard to believe if it were fiction. The wonder of Invictus is that it actually went down this way.
22 Comments
As much as I love the country South Africa, the sport of Rugby and the hope Mandela’s release gave us all I am dreading having to see this movie.
Having survived the the struggle against the apartheid regime, I was one of the masses who took to the streets after the game in a celebration that was as close as we in South Africa have ever come to a spontaneous,all embracing and joyous carnival of freedom, unity and triumph.
It would be a miracle if Mr Eastwood could convey the magnificence of a fraction of this on screen when so much of what happened took place in the imaginations and souls of millions of Saffers here and around the world.
Should the film manage not to banalise this national epiphany it would be an achievement of some stature. If it manages to capture its essence it would be a miracle.
But hey, we dreaded the thought of Kiwi win on THAT DAY and look what happened then!!!!!!!!
Go amaBokoBoko
BTW the Boks are the present Rugby World Champions. For the 2nd time. No flash in the pan then.
You guys are weird. Get over it. It is a movie that is trying to capture a significant moment in human history. So it is not perfect. You are? Who is? Jeez – appreciate the fact that someone (I do not care if it is Eastwood or Westwood) is trying to communicate the idea that people are people. That is all. Jeez……not rocket science…..
I’m a hummungous Eastwood fan, have been for as long as i care to remember but i dont really fancy this film at all.
Clint’s pretty much at that point in his film carrear where he can do whatever he likes and…he does whatever he likes. That’s fine,just dont expect any more Great Westerns or Dirty Harry films.
the whole point of the story is what happened to the the mood of the country as a whole. While a character focus is a general requirement in most movies this would miss the point of what happened on that famous day. As an earlier commentator has noted it would be quite an achievement to capture all the emotion that was released. The real story was what happend to collective consciousness of south africans, who went from a civil war footing to a reconciliation footing, almost overnight. This could mean one of two things: the reviewers are too fixated on the character angle or the movie doesn’t adequately convey the real story.
ps I was at the game.
I for one am absolutely psyched to see this movie!!! I rarely trust reviewers these days, or even who and what are nominated for and/or win awards. It’s all political anyways!! All the reviews say that Blind Side was terrible. True, it wasn’t this colossus of a movie, but it’s story was captivating, and the acting was excellent, and I very much enjoyed watching it. Let the critics say what they want. At the end of the day, it’s what the individual thinks of a movie. If you don’t think you’ll like it, don’t see it. To me, Morgan Freeman + Matt Damon + South Africa + Rugby = Epic. Even if it isn’t the most amazing movie I will ever see, I am sure I will cry when I see is and love it no matter what, and that it will be on my DVD shelf as soon as possible. Right next to The Power of One and Catch a Fire and Tsotsi and Yesterday… and the list goes on and on…..
Bruce and Marco got it right: It is a movie about South Africans and a crucial moment in their history. In this case the time, place and moment are the main character, with the Mandela and Francois being the very important supporting actors. It is a story of the collective ( human spirit) not just a few individuals. Critics don’t get this, which is short sighted. They do not see the big picture that this moment created common ground and started the reconciliation of an entire country. Again this is the story. Many of us in North America (most negative critics from US/Can) cannot appreciate this as we have never had to deal with our country being torn apart by war and sanctions. Durbangirl also got it right. I am also totally pysched to see this movie and the book and dvd will be on my shelves. It will be an inspirational movie to watch time and again.
Great sounds track to boot as well.
I am also very much looking forward to this film. Only South Africans that were there and happy about change will get what Bokfan means. For us it may be more special than others, but I hope for a great movie for all!
On lighter note. I was just looking at some of the still photos released from the film. The famous on field handshake between Madiba and Francoise (Damon) is one of them. Mandela is taller than Francoise in the photo. Bear in mind Francoise is a 6foot 3inch flanker.
I watched the movie on the weekend and i must say it didnt exactly blow me away , but it wasnt a crap movie either the only problem i found with it was that it was to projectable, this could be cause i’m a South African. But besides that its defenatly worth a watch and i’m just glad that a heavyweight like Clint Eastwood acctually took some interest in our country and made the movie using 2 A-listers in the cast. It also reminded me what a magic guy Mandela was, it will truelly be a sad when that man dies.I’m sure freeman will be up for an oscar nominee and i’m pretty confident he’ll win it aswell.
As a South African who was at “the game ” I watched this movie and believed it captured the knife edge that South Africa was on in mid 1994 through to this “game”.The negativity and distrust between the Afrikaners who had lost political power after 46 years and the newly empowered Blacks was a smouldering powderkeg and either faction could have set it off.This “game” was one of the first unifying acts of reconciliation and the beginning of the forging of a new South Africa.I believe that this movie’s subplot amongst the Presidential Security Detail embodied Mandela’s reconciliation success.I saw it at a movie house in one of South Africa’s wealthiest suburbs and at the movie’s conclusion it received a solid round of applause which is unheard of.In over 45 years of movie going I have never heard applause before.Freeman was sublime but Damon was ineffectual.
Matt Holmes, I am so glad you spoke up and criticized this movie and the insipid, sycophantic, Encyclopedia-Britannica-recap reviews that laud it. I had high expectations for this movie, for every reason, and I was tremendously disappointed. Nothing that was “banked,” emotionally, was “spent.” Any storyteller worth his or her salt would have looked at the script and said, “Hmm, there are no plot twists, no character surprises, no DEPTH – let’s take 10 minutes and make this SLIGHTLY MORE EXCITING.” It was slow, predictable, and boring. There was no DRAMA, and it could have had so much. I’m not asking the story to be “Hollywoodized,” I’m just asking for another moment in the movie like the one at the beginning – where we think he’s going to get attacked, and instead the newspapers were delivered. Matt Damon started at A, and went to B, when he could have started at A, gone to Z, and then gone back to G. That’s what a character does – it develops – it has a journey. Every reviewer, understandably, focuses on the “moment in time” and the “story of Mandela.” But this was a MOVIE, goddamnit. It needed to have a PULSE.
To be honest I really did not enjoy Invictus, I am a South African and I was 11 years old when we won the 1995 World Cup and it was a great three weeks in South African history but there’s absolutely no way that an American or a pommie can understand or even relate in any sense to the event.
In the same sense it would be impossible for myself to relate to the importance of the Swedish Ice hockey team’s victory in the 2000 Olympics when the country went through a shortage of Cod and how the victory made the pleasant Swedes forget about theyre desire for good Cod (Im trying to get my point over here, don’t know who won the Gold in Ice Hockey in the 2000 olympics neither do I think its possible for Sweden to ever run out of Cod/hake/snoek) and just as I have no knowledge on Ice Hockey as an international sport (the sun actually enjoys shining in South Africa and we like to be outside) neither do most of the outside world know much about Rugby.
And the rugby scenes in the movie was awful and done by a bunch of amateur actors with no ball-sense. All NFL based Hollywood movies really glamaroused the football scenes in movies such as ” Any Given Sunday” and really how difficult can it be to do the same to the game of rugby?
Hopefully this will not be the defining movie on Madiba’s life, that would be a real Oscar winner, I did enjoy Morgan’s depiction of “The Man” himself though.
The movie did nothing for me and it should have been an all South African cast with a South African director made for South Africans.
Detail, detail, detail…….I dont believe that Eastwood had a lot of attention to it!
In every game the South Africans played we had a fight, there really was only one big fight and that was in the light interrupted match against Canada which we won 20-0 in PE if I am not mistaken, James Dalton…..might have some input here!
There was a Hyandai Getz in the movie in one of the scenes in Cape Town, that car was only released in SA in 97/98 and for a car enthusiast as Eastwood he should have done his homework.
I know I’m getting a bit anal here, but its as if Eastwood just didn’t focus on these things and normally he’s very good at these things.
And when the hell where the Springboks ever useles has-beens with little chance of qualifying for a World Cup, yes everybody there was a line in the movie that stated ” we can be glad we are hosting the event, else we would have struggled “. Absolute rubbish and very inaccurate, the Springboks have been a super power in rugby since it started playing the game in the late 1900’s so making out as if it was a impossible task to win a World Cup is just nonsense.
Chester Williams’ face never appeared on a SAA airplane and the guy that portrayed him was pathetic and an insult to Chester Williams character.
The Springboks are the closest thing to celebrities that South Africa have, but in the movie one could swear they are a bunch of loser nobodies that are paid really badly. Why did Matt Damons wife/girlfriend/something on the side (Marguerite Wheatley – still remember her nude scene in “Poena is Koning”) had to drive him in a Toyota Tazz to the Union buildings? Surely the man can drive himself and he’s chosen vehicle would be something a bit more suited to the captain of the springboks. Commercialism in sport had already started back then and Im sure he drove some sponsored car with his name on the side.
I can go on and on and on….the more I think about this movie the more negative I get….
This movie does not deserve any awards, the storyline does, but the portrayel was awful.
And another thing:
Why does South Africa look like some post-apocolyptic landscape in all international movies? I understand it in District 9, it’s a Sci-fi movie and never meant to show the true Johannesburg which, by the way, is the largest Man-made forest in the world with over ten million trees.
Is it because of the type of film we use to shoot our movies or the production or what?
We make brilliant foreign films not mainstream rubbish and this movie just aint real, the people in our country speak xhosa, sotho, afrikaans and a very unique english, that is what makes this place what it is so subtitles would have been a better approach.
Eastwood, never again do this to our Country, enjoy the wine, the beautiful scenery and the interesting people but never again make a movie about our history, you are raping it!!
That would be the last of it from my side…
Goodnight and God bless…..
You springbok bastards food poisened us !
For another view of this movie check out the review on http://www.neocritic.com/?p=214
i think is one of the best film to be made in s.a i am pround to be a filmmaker but i am sad because people from over sea are telling our stroies.anyway they did a great job telling it.
You are all missing the point. The movie is about leadership, mutual respect, avoiding conflict and the dream for national unity. The characters are well portrayed. The movie brought tears to my eyes as I recalled the events of that time. No-one can ever reproduce the emotions of the day. Stop nitpicking !
This movie didn’t do our country or our victory in the world cup any justice, the movie started very bad as well, they didn’t capture the emotion of a nation and tried too hard to copy the accents of the south-african instead of feeling the characters. The graphics was bad and the final we had to watch in slow-motion when they scrummed it sounded like they were playing American football. I couldn’t wait for it to finish so I could go …
To ABz – love your comment – But per you hero Fitzy it was the fwds who were sick – not the backs and it was Lomu who you were relying on to win you the cup! Joost and Japie tackled him just fine, unlike Catt and co.
Love you Kiwis – you are the best Rugby nation! – now dont blow it in 2011 (again) and maybe they will make a movie about you to !
I see Madiba’s hand and strong influence in this movie – he is old but not cold. Attempting to unite South Africans again. Clint Eastwood was not allowed poetic licence. The movie has a clear message. You will appreciate it – if you are South African.