Clint Eastwood, 2009
plot synopsis: 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.
I don’t have a good history with “Oscar Bait.” You know, biopics, big stars, legendary directors, late-in-the-year release dates, films like this always seem to have been made for one reason and one reason only; to win Oscars. Frost/Nixon, Ray, Seabiscuit, etc.; there’s nothing wrong with these films. They’re well made, finely acted, but they offer absolutely nothing new to the world of film. I was hoping this wouldn’t be the case with Clint Eastwood’s Invictus; unfortunately, it was.
The film is perfectly sound on the surface; good performances all-around, Eastwood’s direction is sound, the story is uplifting and inspiring. But when you try to go beyond the surface…you can’t. There’s nothing else. I knew everywhere this film was going an hour before it got there. It’s like an amalgam of a bunch of different great movies rolled into one. Aside from Freeman’s performance (which is really great, he truly does embody Mandela, and in a weaker year, would certainly be the frontrunner for Best Actor), I just didn’t care. AT ALL. These films get made, and it seems like people lavish all this praise on them solely because they think they’re SUPPOSED to. Critics seem to think, “Eastwood? Freeman? Damon? 3 1/2 stars, there you go.” The fact is, Invictus is a slow, overlong, straight up boring film that would actually probably work much better as a documentary.
It’s still a lock for a Best Picture nomination. Politics as usual.
Leave a comment