Invictus Review

One of the greatest directors of the decade is back with one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. Invictus, from director/producer Clint Eastwood, is a valiant effort from the auteur on an uplifting true story about a…rugby team? The film follows the story of the 1995 South African rugby team on their quest to win the World Cup, led by their team captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) and extra motivation from President Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman). The President, in his first term at this point, uses the team as a motivator to unite the long divided country. Think of it as Remember the Titans meets Gandhi (sort of), but on a countrywide scale, and you get the idea.
While the true story behind the story in Invictus is powerful, moving, and motivational, the film does a poor job of bringing these emotions to the screen as much as it could have. There’s no denying the inspirational story of the rugby team and their struggle, or the story of Nelson Mandela himself. His rise from prison to become the most powerful man in his country, and uniting a people through grace and good will is something that is sorely lacking in many parts of the world today. However, Eastwood tries to bring too much story into the film, leaving us with a plethora of information, but not enough emotional depth. What the film needed above all else was a split. Invictus would have worked much better in two parts, because there seem to be two different films working here. There is the film about President Mandela, his struggles in prison, his rise to power, his place in history. Then there is the story of the South African rugby team: their struggles with keeping their name in an ever-changing country, their impact on the youth of South Africa, and simply their underdog sports story. What Clint Eastwood would have been better off doing, was to create a film concentrating solely on Mandela’s struggles as the President, with flashbacks and parallels to his time in prison, with the rugby scenes taking a background. Then creating a second film, where rugby is at the forefront, and Mandela is in the background, seen as a symbol of inspiration for the team.

However, despite the films disappointing structure, it benefits from two terrific performances from its lead actors. Matt Damon is simply stunning as the Rugby captain, and Morgan Freeman basically transforms himself into the President. Their parallels onscreen are uncanny, and their brief scenes together are the highlights of the film. But where these two actors shine lights on the project, the rest of the cast create a shadow too unbearable to overcome.
Eastwood is slowly turning into a director who will settle for second-rate, B-movie style reactions and acting from his supporting cast, seen first in last year’s lukewarm Gran Torino. Although the gritty look and idea of Gran Torino saved it from being a disaster, Eastwood’s point-and-shoot style with the camera in Invictus is a bit disappointing, remembering this is the same person who has brought us brilliant films like Unforgiven, Mystic River, and Letters from Iwo Jima. I would have preferred to see the gritty style of these films in Invictus, as I think it would have been an interesting touch to the story, and given it more of a gloomy feel.
But we cannot always get what we want, and despite the terrific performances from Freeman and Damon (both very deserving of their Golden Globe nominations in my opinion), I have no doubt that in the next several years Invictus will be looked at a disappointment in an otherwise terrific decade of films for director Eastwood.
Grade: C+