Quad Blogs

Random Musings from the Entertainment Desk

Stars shine in ”Invictus” while story falters 

            Clint Eastwood’s latest effort, “Invictus” tells the true story of life in South Africa immediately after the fall of the apartheid system as new president Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) attempts to forge healing in the racially divided country with some help from a fairly unlikely source— the country’s rugby team, the Springbok, lead by captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) as they compete for the 1995 World Cup.

            Or maybe the Springbok were actually the perfect place to begin healing. For years they were seen as a symbol for apartheid, so much so that black South Africans would root for whoever the Springbok were playing against just to see the team and their predominantly white fan base be disappointed. Mandela ignored his advisors who thought that he was crazy, not only for associating himself with a symbol of the old ways, but because the country had much bigger issues to contend with then with then a sports team.

            The film, based on the book “Playing the Enemy” by John Carlin, opens with a shot of apartheid in action. On one side of a road a group of black children dressed in rags play soccer on a dusty and barren plot of land, while directly across the street a team of white kids are practicing rugby on a beautifully manicured field, all dressed to the nines in flashy uniforms.

            In Eastwood and Freeman’s hands, Mandela is treated as a human being rather then a deity. He is a “man with man’s problems” as one character says in the film. He works too hard, he can be single minded, but he is still a great man because great men, like all of us have their faults.

            For Freeman, this is the role that he was born to play, which is nothing to shake a stick at considering the shear volume of unforgettable parts he’s played throughout his career. Going further then just appearances or recreating a voice, Freeman manages to exude the grace and dignity of the man he portrays.

            Damon holds his own opposite Freeman, as a man caught up in something much larger then himself. Each actor immerses themselves in their respective characters to the point where it becomes easy to forget that you are watching two of the biggest performers in Hollywood.   

            With each movie that he makes, Damon is becoming more and more of a chameleon. For last year’s role in “The Informant!” he packed on the pounds and grew a sweet moustache. For “Invictus” he lost the belly and the ‘stache and replaced them with a whole lot of muscle and an even sweeter South African accent. The trade-off is more then acceptable.

            The only downside to the film? Well at the end of the day, “Invictus” is a sports movie and if you’ve seen one sports movie, you’ve basically seen them all. Underdog team up against the world. In this case that last part is actually true, not the cliché that so many athletes are fond of throwing around. I mean, it is called the “World Cup,” after all.   At times it seems that the only things keeping “Invictus” from turning into “Any Given Rugby Match” are the top notch performances by Freeman and Damon and Eastwood’s fantastic directorial eye. 

            Another problem is the matches themselves. Now, I know nothing of rugby, so I won’t even pretend to try and criticize the film’s depiction of the game. As far as I can tell, it is essentially football with a bigger ball, no pads and a sprinkling of “American Gladiators.”

            My grudge with the matches is the crowd. Yeah, that’s right here comes the nitpicking. Now I’m not new. I know that Eastwood and company aren’t going to hire 60,000 extras to fill up the arena, but did they have to crib their crowd graphics straight from “FIFA 10?” Every time the stands were shown, I instinctively groped for the start button on my imaginary controller to move things along and get back to the action. I’m sure that Clint Eastwood doesn’t spend a ton of his free time dabbling in sports videogames, but for those of us who do, the crowd shots are absolutely painful.

            “Invictus” runs a comparatively brisk 134 minutes but somehow still manages to drag in certain places. This is especially true during the last act when the genre clichés are on full display.

            If you see one movie about apartheid this year, make it “District 9,” Neill Blomkamp’s stellar sci-fi blockbuster about segregated aliens. If you are in the mood for a more history book friendly approach to the topic— as if somehow aliens aren’t historically accurate— then “Invictus” is the movie for you. Outstanding performances and an iconic director almost manage to fully make up for a slow and at times generic storyline.

            And of course the shoddy FX.

Verdict: B