Invictus

It's been around five weeks since I saw Invictus so I've had some time to think about what I wanted to say. My mind hasn't really changed though and my thoughts can be be summarised in the word:

mmmeeeeaauughh

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter referred to as OED) mmmeeeeaauughh is an adjective used to describe something when one's opinion of it is somewhere between average and indifferent.

Morgan Freeman has been on the cusp of playing the part of Nelson Mandela for as long as I have been interested in films, and now that the time is here, I have to say it was a little undercooked. Some effort has gone into making him look like Mandela, although the resemblance was already quite striking, but beyond that little care seems to have been taken by actor or creative team. The accent slips and he doesn't speak with the same conviction as the former South African leader. It's just lack lustre.

In contrast to that is Matt Damon's performance. While not as pivotal to the plot, Damon's turn as Francois Pienaar is strong and shows he can do more than destroy a grown man with a bathroom sink. It's not quite strong enough to make up for Freeman's failings, but an excellent effort worth note.

The film itself is confused. Seemingly unsure about what it is trying to be, is oscillates between rugby-historic and Mandela biopic, doing neither any real justice. I wondered about the title of the film while watching it. Why Invictus? They never really cohesively link it to the poem. But you couldn't call it Mandela because it isn't really about him either. Rugby World Cup not about that either. The Uniting of a Nation? I really didn't get that sense, though the film does suggest, foolishly, that that the events it depicts brought the country together.

It seems to me that Freeman will never play Mandela again and it's sad that this was the film he chose to do that on.

A lot of effort seems to have gone into making some historical elements of the rugby matches correct (right numbers on the field at the right time etc), but the play itself is dreadful. Any rugby enthusiast is not going to enjoy watching the players mime a game.

Despite its failings, it's compelling viewing at times. I've always liked Clint Eastwood's direction and I couldn't help but get caught up in the film even while yawning a little.

So in summary: Freeman meh, Damon good, rugby poor, politics lacking, Eastwood let himself down, never even brought up OED again. Just a bit disappointed. That's all.

__________

1 1/2 from me!