Invictus (Movie Review)

Movie Review
Invictus
2009
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon
Directed by: Clint Eastwood

It would be hard to criticize Clint Eastwood for making a film that lacked philosophical direction but Invictus makes it an easy argument. Despite an excellent performance from Morgan Freeman playing the role of Nelson Mandela, there is little about the movie worth praising. When it comes down to it, the film can’t decide whether it wants to be about politics or if it wants to be about sport. If the intention was to be about the both of them, Eastwood didn’t do a good job balancing between the two.

The story is about the end of the Apartheid in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela (Freeman. Concerned about racial tensions and the realization that cooler heads may not prevail, Mandela begins work on a project to unite blacks and whites; rugby. While rugby is the national pastime of the nation’s whites, the blacks prefer soccer. With South Africa hosting the 1995 World Cup of Rugby, Mandela feels that a strong showing at the international event would be a way to instil national pride across the racial divide. The only problem is that the team hasn’t been performing well as of late and there are concerns by those close to Mandela that he’s wasting too much time with an idea that will most likely fall flat on its face.

It’s frustrating to watch this movie because it’s a hard movie not to enjoy. Freeman is amazing playing Nelson Mandela and was incredibly charismatic. The story is interesting even if it was formulaic (underdog sports team needs to win big). But there were major issues with this film. The first half of the movie feels like it’s about politics and whether or not blacks and whites could co-exist in post-Apartheid South Africa. The second half of the movie becomes very sports heavy. The fact that it feels like two movies in one is not a problem but the way that it’s executed makes it feel like the film is desperately trying to please more than one audience. It doesn’t work all that well.

On the politics side of things there are several things that are alluded to and, at times, become a focal point of the movie but are later dropped and forgotten about. The personal security of Mandela is a major part in the movie as they are constantly concerned about assassination attempts. While it’s really interesting how the black and white security members interact with each other (and later on, it helps to show how racial relations are improving), the whole element of this part of Mandela’s life is irrelevant to the story. At no time is there any threat shown to Mandela outside of the few times his security agents approach someone that appears to be dangerous but in actuality is harmless. In fact, later towards the end of the movie, they show someone who looks very mysterious in a couple of shots but he’s completely inconsequential to the film’s story. He’s used more than anything to throw off the viewer then add anything to the narrative. It’s a cheap ploy and Eastwood is a better director than that to have needed to use it.

The rugby aspect was poorly executed. Eastwood would have been best served had he tried to copy any of the number of sports movies that have been released the last couple of decades. Even copying elements from the Mighty Ducks, a kids movie, would have been acceptable. Instead, he doesn’t do a good job telling a story about the South African rugby team. At the beginning of the film, they’re passed off as a team that’s only in the World Cup because it’s the host city. However, by the middle of the movie, it’s established that the team is strong enough to challenge to win it all. Normal thinking would be that you downplay the strength of the team and have them play the underdog all the way through. However, after their first match, they steamroll through the competition until the finals which seems unnatural for a team that’s supposed to be as weak as the South African squad is initially portrayed.

Which brings us to the final match against New Zealand. Eastwood did a good job telling a story with the match. It’s paced well and keeps the audience interested through to the end. The problem is that the New Zealand All Blacks haka (war dance) is hastily thought up shortly before the match as if it’s a huge thing for the South African team to overcome. In fact, in reality, the All Blacks haka is very impressive to watch and it has been known to throw off entire teams due to its ferocity. Although you wouldn’t know it much from how it was filmed in the movie. It isn’t sold well as a fearsome thing to begin with so the audience doesn’t really know what to expect when seeing it for the first time. It also doesn’t help that the South African players either look like they’re not afraid of what they’re seeing or don’t care about it at all. Another thing about it is that the dance involves the whole part of the body. This includes the legs which are seldom shot throughout the entire scene. While much of the motions of the dance are made with the upper body, there’s no need for that close a shot of only the players from the waist up.

Despite these critical errors, Invictus is enjoyable. The performance of Freeman is incredible and, in a way, saves the film. The film needed saving because while it was a really interesting story, it felt like there were pacing issues and a general lack of direction. Clint Eastwood isn’t a new director and should have done a better job. Even though the film has its issues, it is still a very interesting movie to watch.

☆☆☆