In Invictus, Morgan Freeman doesn't have to act like Nelson Mandela, since he basically *is* Mandela (more God-like in demeanor and in his kindness and reserve than his God in the 'Almighty' franchise). His poise and speech and way of showing immense pain and conflict buried underneath a strong demeanor is perhaps reason enough to see this movie. Seeing him on screen, acting intensely even when sitting calmly in a car with his sunglasses on, is seeing a tremendous actor doing service to a marvel of a human being like Mandela. I just wish this Mandela, who is what he is and is alongside Matt Damon as a likable-tough South African Rugby captain, was in a movie less corny and more political. The story is the tale of the 95 Rugby World Cup, but it's also the story of Mandela in this context, and the balance between the two becomes, shall we say, 'sappy'.
With all due respect to Clint Eastwood, it comes off here like all Nelson Mandela did as president was worry about how South Africa was doing in whatever Rugby game was going on, even when doing President-things like meetings and speeches. It's meant to be a stirring sports movie - how the underdog triumphed against the odds - more-so than a politically-charged screed, which is fine, on paper. But I wish the sports scenes were less corny and we saw more of what Mandela did as President. His tactic is clear, to be sure: get the Rugby team to win the world cup, and unite the nation. This, too, is fine, on paper or in theory. But we only get very slight glimpses of this nation's strife, and people going into the film without knowing the history of the aftermath of apartheid will be getting a story that is half-cooked around the facts and pablum of victory.
It is watchable, don't get one wrong: the scenes where Mandela projects his influence on people is magnetic to see. Mandela in front of a crowd can be just as moving and interesting as in front of one person, be it that sports organization he comes to as a surprise visit ("You chose me as your leader - let me lead"), or his cool rationale for focusing so strongly on Rugby ("It's a ... human calculation"). One wishes for more of that in some part to Freeman's presence and control of the role, but also because the scenes with the Rugby team, frankly, aren't anywhere near as compelling. We've seen this story before and even without knowing the true story know it's outcome minutes before it's presented, like, as they say in sports movies, "destiny".
Again, some of the predictability would still be fine, and is tolerable, but Eastwood also doesn't really do enough to give the Rugby matches real uplift and energy. He does try in the climax, but in, again, a corny aspect - he cuts between the various fans watching in bars and houses and in the sold out arena New Zealand/South Africa are playing in, and then with a little boy who may/may not be getting ready to do something with an object in a bag, only to stop by the awesome power of the game on radio. Perhaps if one is a sucker for such inspiring stories, this will come as the treat of the season. For those wanting something more from its iconic filmmaker, or to see a side of President Mandela outside of being a hardcore Rugby enthusiast, it disappoints. But, at the least, it has that embodiment of a great figure at its center, the best one's seen since the days of Henry Fonda as Lincoln.
With all due respect to Clint Eastwood, it comes off here like all Nelson Mandela did as president was worry about how South Africa was doing in whatever Rugby game was going on, even when doing President-things like meetings and speeches. It's meant to be a stirring sports movie - how the underdog triumphed against the odds - more-so than a politically-charged screed, which is fine, on paper. But I wish the sports scenes were less corny and we saw more of what Mandela did as President. His tactic is clear, to be sure: get the Rugby team to win the world cup, and unite the nation. This, too, is fine, on paper or in theory. But we only get very slight glimpses of this nation's strife, and people going into the film without knowing the history of the aftermath of apartheid will be getting a story that is half-cooked around the facts and pablum of victory.
It is watchable, don't get one wrong: the scenes where Mandela projects his influence on people is magnetic to see. Mandela in front of a crowd can be just as moving and interesting as in front of one person, be it that sports organization he comes to as a surprise visit ("You chose me as your leader - let me lead"), or his cool rationale for focusing so strongly on Rugby ("It's a ... human calculation"). One wishes for more of that in some part to Freeman's presence and control of the role, but also because the scenes with the Rugby team, frankly, aren't anywhere near as compelling. We've seen this story before and even without knowing the true story know it's outcome minutes before it's presented, like, as they say in sports movies, "destiny".
Again, some of the predictability would still be fine, and is tolerable, but Eastwood also doesn't really do enough to give the Rugby matches real uplift and energy. He does try in the climax, but in, again, a corny aspect - he cuts between the various fans watching in bars and houses and in the sold out arena New Zealand/South Africa are playing in, and then with a little boy who may/may not be getting ready to do something with an object in a bag, only to stop by the awesome power of the game on radio. Perhaps if one is a sucker for such inspiring stories, this will come as the treat of the season. For those wanting something more from its iconic filmmaker, or to see a side of President Mandela outside of being a hardcore Rugby enthusiast, it disappoints. But, at the least, it has that embodiment of a great figure at its center, the best one's seen since the days of Henry Fonda as Lincoln.