Review: Invictus
Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon in Invictus
Also In The News
|
US actors Demi Moore and Miley Cyrus are reportedly considering signing on for a US remake of French drama LOL: Laughing Out Loud. |  |
Monday, 01, Feb 2010 10:23
Directed by Clint Eastwood, out in cinemas February 5th, starring Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Julian Lewis Jones, Adjoa Andoh, running time 133 mins.
What's it all about?
Based on John Carlin's book, Invictus focuses on Nelson Mandela's first year as president of South Africa and his decision to embrace the country's divisive rugby team and plot their success at the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Believing he can bring his people together through the universal language of sport, Mandela (Morgan Freeman) rallies behind the Springboks and in particular their captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), convincing them they can win the competition and unite the country.
What others say
"It's an exciting sports movie, an inspiring tale of prejudice overcome and, above all, a fascinating study of political leadership." – New York Times
"A temperate, even-handed perhaps overly timid film about an intemperate time in South Africa." – Hollywood Reporter
So is it any good?
Whisper it quietly, for this won't make happy reading for his legion of fans, but Clint Eastwood's latest effort behind the camera is a disaster, a piece of work as disappointing as it is frustrating. Unfortunately for the cinematic icon and those now hanging on every piece of work he produces, mindful that it may be his last, it appears Mr Eastwood is best advised to stick with what he knows and leave others to focus on global events seemingly outside of his conscious.
It was always going to be a tall order for an American director and cast to capture the legendary story that was the 1995 Rugby World Cup, yet you thought with Morgan Freeman onboard to play Nelson Mandela, a role he had appeared destined to play, the rest of the pieces would fall into place. Sickeningly for Freeman though, his brilliant portrayal of the former South African president finds itself lost in a film that lacks any hint of depth, and features woeful action sequences and an almost offensive lack of appreciation of its subject matter.
The most grating problem with Invictus is the low-budget feel that permeates the film throughout, giving off the continuing impression that the filmmakers truly didn't give a toss about the underlying story and simply used it as a vehicle to get Freeman on screen playing Mandela. The result frankly is an embarrassment. It is obvious that rugby doesn't particularly lend itself to being portrayed in cinema; the game is too fast-flowing and complicated to the untrained eye to allow it to be depicted in an entertaining and engaging way. What we get in Invictus then are poorly shot and amateurish scenes that jar horribly and in truth look ridiculous. The South African team couldn't look less like an international rugby side if they tried, a bunch of either overweight or weedy individuals they look worse than your local Sunday league team when trying to play rugby and sweet Jesus, they can not act for s**t. There is one truly horrible scene in a gym as the South Africans prepare for their next game that is so poor it will threaten to make your eyes bleed, such is the appalling nature of the acting on display.
Elsewhere on the rugby field, the CGI used to represent rugby stadiums filled with 60,000 people is so crude it looks like a poor computer game, as if the makers of the Sims franchise had released another spin-off – Sims: The Rugby Fan. It is achingly amateurish, and the lack of basic research into the game of rugby and the sport's greatest event, the World Cup, is ridiculous. During the South African match against England for example, the away fans are shown waving Union Jack flags! The inaccuracies are so blatant and disappointing, highlighting the film's underlying problem that good old Clint just isn't interested in the game and wasn't willing to even begin to research it properly.
So the action/rugby scenes are terrible, so what - that can't make the rest of the film awful, can it? Well, yes. It's true Freeman absolutely nails Mandela perfectly and this is exactly the time in his life when he should be taking on the role, but almost everything else is just plain bad. Damon does nothing on screen apart from stare off into the distance, probably still worrying about what a ridiculous decision it was to cast him as a 6ft 3in, 17st rugby player. The rest of the cast are criminally left with nothing to work with as Eastwood fails to give the story any tangible depth.
Criminally, Invictus has ended up being a pretty miserable attempt at depicting one of the greatest sporting stories ever and, but for Freeman, it is a poor film with too many faults to fathom.
4/10
Richard James