Before I watched Invictus, I'd never seen a bad Clint Eastwood film. And having seen it, I still haven't. But although Invictus is not actually a bad film, I couldn't help but feel that Eastwood dropped the ball slightly here (if you'll pardon the pun). The temptation to make a film about someone as iconic as Nelson Mandela must have been huge, and to tie it in with a rousing story of sporting courage against the odds was likely to be a successful formula. And for the most part, it is.
Morgan Freeman was born to play Nelson Mandela, and he does it here superbly. Freeman has presence of almost mythical stature, like Mandela himself, which is clear on-screen. In fact, you could almost be watching a film about Morgan Freeman – and I mean that in a positive way. Due to the premise of the film, the role of the South African captain, Francois Pienaar, is key and needed to be played by a top actor, which is why Matt Damon was cast. However, Damon's presence inadvertently causes one of the main downsides to the film, which is the actual rugby action. Due to his size, pretty much all the other protagonists are pretty short themselves, making the games look pretty odd. Anyone who has watched international rugby will note that every team has players, barring perhaps two or three, over six feet tall and in a few cases closer to seven feet. This size issue, and the fact that most of the players simply don't look like international sportsmen, takes away from the realism of the rugby scenes.
It is pretty clear that Clint Eastwood was not a rugby fan when he began making this film. The climactic scenes of the World Cup final are actually a bit of a mess and could be confusing to someone not familiar with the game. I guess we have to remember that the majority of people watching this film (i.e. largely Americans) will not know a great deal about the game of rugby and will not notice most of the inaccuracies. But for someone who does know the game, the genuine footage shown of Jonah Lomu tearing through the England defence in the semi-final somewhat shows up the choreographed play elsewhere in the film. Oh, and let's not get started on the frankly ridiculous CGI crowd, which looks no more real than it would in a video game.
Generally, the film has some really good performances. Damon is solid as Pienaar, even if his physical presence (or lack thereof) is distracting. Freeman is excellent, and some of the incidental characters are good also, even if they are somewhat formulaically scripted. The film hits all the notes you would expect it to, which is pleasing to the viewer, but never really challenges or surprises. Ultimately, this film probably unfolds exactly the way you would expect it to. The country is divided, Mandela steps in, the rugby team are victorious and everyone is united. It's nothing particularly unsatisfactory; it's just not very exciting.
In hindsight, I think Freeman may have been better off sticking with his plan for a full Mandela biopic. But either way, we have the performance we hoped for from Freeman in this role, and that's as good a reason as any to give this film a chance. Rugby fans may just have to exercise some suspension of disbelief.
Morgan Freeman was born to play Nelson Mandela, and he does it here superbly. Freeman has presence of almost mythical stature, like Mandela himself, which is clear on-screen. In fact, you could almost be watching a film about Morgan Freeman – and I mean that in a positive way. Due to the premise of the film, the role of the South African captain, Francois Pienaar, is key and needed to be played by a top actor, which is why Matt Damon was cast. However, Damon's presence inadvertently causes one of the main downsides to the film, which is the actual rugby action. Due to his size, pretty much all the other protagonists are pretty short themselves, making the games look pretty odd. Anyone who has watched international rugby will note that every team has players, barring perhaps two or three, over six feet tall and in a few cases closer to seven feet. This size issue, and the fact that most of the players simply don't look like international sportsmen, takes away from the realism of the rugby scenes.
It is pretty clear that Clint Eastwood was not a rugby fan when he began making this film. The climactic scenes of the World Cup final are actually a bit of a mess and could be confusing to someone not familiar with the game. I guess we have to remember that the majority of people watching this film (i.e. largely Americans) will not know a great deal about the game of rugby and will not notice most of the inaccuracies. But for someone who does know the game, the genuine footage shown of Jonah Lomu tearing through the England defence in the semi-final somewhat shows up the choreographed play elsewhere in the film. Oh, and let's not get started on the frankly ridiculous CGI crowd, which looks no more real than it would in a video game.
Generally, the film has some really good performances. Damon is solid as Pienaar, even if his physical presence (or lack thereof) is distracting. Freeman is excellent, and some of the incidental characters are good also, even if they are somewhat formulaically scripted. The film hits all the notes you would expect it to, which is pleasing to the viewer, but never really challenges or surprises. Ultimately, this film probably unfolds exactly the way you would expect it to. The country is divided, Mandela steps in, the rugby team are victorious and everyone is united. It's nothing particularly unsatisfactory; it's just not very exciting.
In hindsight, I think Freeman may have been better off sticking with his plan for a full Mandela biopic. But either way, we have the performance we hoped for from Freeman in this role, and that's as good a reason as any to give this film a chance. Rugby fans may just have to exercise some suspension of disbelief.