Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story. Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon know how to portray a character. So, it makes me wonder why I was not overly impressed when the triad of cinema forces came together to create one of my most highly anticipated films of 2009, Invictus.
The film tells the story of Nelson Mandela, a once suspected terrorist who was released from prison to become the newly elected President of South Africa. In an attempt to bring his country together, Mandela centers his attention on the upcoming Rugby World Cup, hoping that it will give both sides of the political regime a reason to stand together and support the same cause. The film begins with a montage that shows his release and rise to power, and then takes in stride his first years in office, leading up to their run at the World Cup Title.
So, in essence, Invitus is a sports drama that integrates a true story, a heavy underdog, and a moral lesson. Nothing special, right? Right.
Now don't get me wrong, the film is not bad. In fact, it is quite good; however it is nothing special, and that is where the true problem lies. Our triad has a reputation that carries with it high expectations. For Invictus, there was individual success, but cohesively speaking, there is just little to write home about.
Granted Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon give astounding performances as President Mandela and Rugby Captain Francois Pienaar respectively - and should receive strong consideration for a potential Oscar nod - but the supporting cast around them fell flat as they were forced to work with an overdone script and extended amount of screen time.
The film runs a near two-and-a-half-hours- much longer than needed- leaving a huge hole in the middle as you sit and await what you know is going to be a worthy finish. I mostly blame Eastwood, who should have recognized the dagger page of the flick and opted to trim the journey from point A to point B by some thirty minutes. Why do we need an immense amount of dialogue? And the ridiculous amount of time spent on the secret service made me expect Mandela's assassination at nearly every turn (I chose not to do research about the characters prior to viewing the film, as I felt most movie goers would approach this film uninformed about the historical events).
By the time the rugby part of the film came around, I had been sitting in my chair for nearly ninety minutes, growing more weary and restless with each passing minute. Thankfully I know and understand the game, so its presence was a refreshing sight. But for those who don't have a clue as to the point system or rules, you will find yourself confused and out of touch with the unexpected course of action that is taken by the small team from South Africa. It doesn't ruin the experience, but rather forces you to pay attention to the actor's reaction - an unfortunate 'must' for any film.
Eastwood is definitely off his game here, and it is unfortunate that it happened with such a stellar leading twosome in Freeman and Damon. His shots seem a bit off, often times forced, and his choice to stress certain, uninteresting aspects of Mandela's political rise to power make me question his sincerity towards the subject. I've never before been disappointed by Eastwood's work, and I hope to never be again.
Overall, Invictus is not a bad film, and I hope that I haven't described it as such here. It was more disappointing than anything, making me question its necessity in terms of a theatrical watch. I am a huge fan of Damon's, and I feel that both he and Freeman will receive Oscar consideration for their work - if anything, that is why you should see it now rather than later. Otherwise, if you aren't an awards season follower, wait for the rental store; you won't be losing much effect.
