Rated PG-13
(brief strong language)
2 hours 8 minutes
Storyline:
Nelson Mandela, in his first term as the South African President, initiates a unique venture to unite the apartheid-torn land: enlist the national rugby team on a mission to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Starring:
Morgan Freeman
Matt Damon
Critics Grade:
B-
(Consensus: Delivered with typically stately precision from director Clint Eastwood, Invictus may not be rousing enough for some viewers, but Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman inhabit their real-life characters with admirable conviction.)
My Grade:
B-
To all of you who are probably confused by the title of this film, like I was before seeing it, let me tell you what it means so you can stop wondering. First, the word invictus is Latin for "invincible" but also, and more so for the purpose of this film, Invictus is the title of an 1875 poem by William Ernest Henley. Nelson Mandela read this poem many times while in prison and the character quotes in the film. So...there you go! Now onto the film. This movie basically follows the life of South African President, Nelson Mandela in his first time as President. He had spent 26 years in prison, for reasons I won't go into on a movie review blog. He was released in 1990 and some years later was elected President. Well the movie tells the tale of his attempts to unite his divided nation by using the sport of rugby to influence peace and bring South Africa together.
The first half of the movie was a tad slow for my liking, and believe me I like slow movies. But for some reason I was just having a really difficult time getting into the story. There w
as no emotional pull or power in the first half of the film. And this is the story of a great man, but I wasn't really feeling that at first. It all tended to drag and I thought it was never going to pick up any kind of pace. They didn't delve deeply into the heart and mind of Nelson Mandela, I feel like the movie only briefly scratched the surface of what he represented at that time. Now this is not in any way knocking Oscar winner Morgan Freeman's (Million Dollar Baby, Shawshank Redemption) performance as Mandela, only the pacing his story was told. Oscar winner Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino)did a great job at bringing this world to life in his direction, he's always been a reliable film maker. So I think the problem rests in the hand of the screenwriter. I just wasn't connecting to the story or the character.
Then the second half started, which was very rugby oriented. I think the story slowly took it's attention off of Mandela himself and focused mainly on what he was trying to accomplish through Rugby and through Francois Pienaar, played by Oscar winner Matt Damon (screenwriting Oscar win and acting nomination for Good Will Hunting). For me, that's when this movie kicked into high gear and really became something amazing. I don't know much of anything about rugby, and I don't think I really learned much about it after watching the film. But damn that sport looks intense and kind of weird. Both teams crash into each other in a strange huddle and grunt at each other, then there's elements of American football, some soccer, I just have no idea what the game is about. However, the second half of the film where all the rugby scenes dominated the story was just darn intense and awesome. I really got into the movie at that point. Eastwood did a masterful job at directing these matches and created this tense atmosphere and at some points puts you on the edge of your seat. Brilliant camerawork, beautiful scoring, the works. I wish the first half of the film had that much energy and heart.
Matt Damon has always been hit and miss with me personally. I don't think he's a bad actor, I just never have found him to be an astonishing performer. I never got into the Bourne movies either, the first one just bored me. For me, this was one of my favorite performances of Damon. It wasn't anything remarkable, but it was damn believable. That second half was his to lose, and he showed some great energy on screen and nailed his performance. His acting was very subtle overall, but he had spurts of charisma that really showcased him in a film dominated by a brilliant performance from Morgan Freeman. Freeman is a genius on screen in Invictus. We sea a lot of films where actors have to portray real life people. Some do a very good job at acting like these people, but it's rare when these actors become these real life people. That is exactly what Morgan Freeman does here with his portrayal of Mandela. He strips away all we know of Morgan Freeman the actor and just IS Nelson Mandela in this film. Easily one of the best performances of 2009, Morgan Freeman is a powerhouse in this film and deserves some serious award attention.
So overall I would say I generally liked this film. This is a very good movie that was dragged down by a slightly dull first half but was elevated with a powerful and engaging second half. For me, I would say this film deserves a best picture nomination based off the second half of the film, but I could also see it not getting nominated. At this point, it is teetering between the top ten and top fifteen or so on my end of the best movies of the year. I guess you will find out when my award nominations come out. Hehe. But yeah, I would definitely recommend this film because it is overall, a good flick. Keep in my mind, this is a slow, dramatic film for the most part so it's not going to appeal to a lot of today's movie going audience...which is just sad. A lot of today's audiences just don't appreciate these types of movies. But I'll shut up now. Just go see it if you want, I did...and I liked it!
The first half of the movie was a tad slow for my liking, and believe me I like slow movies. But for some reason I was just having a really difficult time getting into the story. There w
as no emotional pull or power in the first half of the film. And this is the story of a great man, but I wasn't really feeling that at first. It all tended to drag and I thought it was never going to pick up any kind of pace. They didn't delve deeply into the heart and mind of Nelson Mandela, I feel like the movie only briefly scratched the surface of what he represented at that time. Now this is not in any way knocking Oscar winner Morgan Freeman's (Million Dollar Baby, Shawshank Redemption) performance as Mandela, only the pacing his story was told. Oscar winner Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino)did a great job at bringing this world to life in his direction, he's always been a reliable film maker. So I think the problem rests in the hand of the screenwriter. I just wasn't connecting to the story or the character.Then the second half started, which was very rugby oriented. I think the story slowly took it's attention off of Mandela himself and focused mainly on what he was trying to accomplish through Rugby and through Francois Pienaar, played by Oscar winner Matt Damon (screenwriting Oscar win and acting nomination for Good Will Hunting). For me, that's when this movie kicked into high gear and really became something amazing. I don't know much of anything about rugby, and I don't think I really learned much about it after watching the film. But damn that sport looks intense and kind of weird. Both teams crash into each other in a strange huddle and grunt at each other, then there's elements of American football, some soccer, I just have no idea what the game is about. However, the second half of the film where all the rugby scenes dominated the story was just darn intense and awesome. I really got into the movie at that point. Eastwood did a masterful job at directing these matches and created this tense atmosphere and at some points puts you on the edge of your seat. Brilliant camerawork, beautiful scoring, the works. I wish the first half of the film had that much energy and heart.
Matt Damon has always been hit and miss with me personally. I don't think he's a bad actor, I just never have found him to be an astonishing performer. I never got into the Bourne movies either, the first one just bored me. For me, this was one of my favorite performances of Damon. It wasn't anything remarkable, but it was damn believable. That second half was his to lose, and he showed some great energy on screen and nailed his performance. His acting was very subtle overall, but he had spurts of charisma that really showcased him in a film dominated by a brilliant performance from Morgan Freeman. Freeman is a genius on screen in Invictus. We sea a lot of films where actors have to portray real life people. Some do a very good job at acting like these people, but it's rare when these actors become these real life people. That is exactly what Morgan Freeman does here with his portrayal of Mandela. He strips away all we know of Morgan Freeman the actor and just IS Nelson Mandela in this film. Easily one of the best performances of 2009, Morgan Freeman is a powerhouse in this film and deserves some serious award attention.
So overall I would say I generally liked this film. This is a very good movie that was dragged down by a slightly dull first half but was elevated with a powerful and engaging second half. For me, I would say this film deserves a best picture nomination based off the second half of the film, but I could also see it not getting nominated. At this point, it is teetering between the top ten and top fifteen or so on my end of the best movies of the year. I guess you will find out when my award nominations come out. Hehe. But yeah, I would definitely recommend this film because it is overall, a good flick. Keep in my mind, this is a slow, dramatic film for the most part so it's not going to appeal to a lot of today's movie going audience...which is just sad. A lot of today's audiences just don't appreciate these types of movies. But I'll shut up now. Just go see it if you want, I did...and I liked it!
No comments:
Post a Comment