JasonEvans
12-09-2009, 11:15 PM
How could this be anything less than a great film?
Clint Eastwood directing. The dude has been knocking it out of the park the past few years.
Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela. Is there anyone else on the planet even allowed to play this huge historical figure? We are talking about perfect casting.
Matt Damon was so gung ho for his role as the captain of South Africa's rugby team he completely rebuilt his body. He looks like he's been lifting weights around the clock for months.
And, to top it all off, the plot revolves around 2 remarkable events-- South Africa's move from Aparteid to freedom and the South African rugby team's improbable run in the 1995 World Cup, considered by many observers to be the greatest tournament in Rugby history.
A sure thing, right? No way this could be anything less than a major Oscar contender and a truly enjoyable film.
Sigh.... think again.
I shudder to even say this, but the movie is just painfully slow. It drags. Mandela, while being a tremendously inspiring man, is pretty darn dull. He talks in a slow, measured fashion that is hardly inspiring. We meet his character after he has won the Presidency and, as a result, we don't see him go through any transformations or changes. Who he is at the beginning is who he is at the end, and it just it not all that exciting to spend long periods of time with him. I can't believe I am saying this, because Freeman is a mortal lock to get nominated for an Oscar for this role, but I just was not all that interested in seeing what went on with him after about the first half-hour of the film.
http://blogs.inlandsocal.com/iguide/Morgan%20Freeman%20as%20Nelson%20Mandela%20in%20In victus.jpg
Usually, in sports films, we get treated to a lot of dramatic action on the field to help carry the story along. This movie just does not spend much time on the Rugby. It does not bother to explain the game hardly at all, which will be troublesome for American audiences who know next to nothing about rugby. The matches that are shown are filmed in such tight shots, it is sometimes hard to get a sense of what is going on (even if you do know the sport). I did not find myself getting caught up in the action or drama of the contests. There are moments where some of the characters who do not understand rugby ask other characters what is going on and get simple replies like, "we won." My wife turned to me at one of these moments and said, "I am glad they did that because I have no idea who is winning. And I don't care either."
We spend a lot of time with Mandela's multi-cultural body guards, who are supposed to represent the divide between black and white in South Africa. Believe it or not, these are the best parts of the film. We actually get some drama here and see characters dealing with real emotions. There are some interesting moments with the bodyguards, but not enough to carry the film and it is hard to focus too much on these no names when Freeman and Damon keep popping up on screen.
Speaking of Damon, he does a nice job with the SAfrican accent and he totally transformed his body for this role, which is cool. But he is just not on the screen all that much and his character mostly does exactly what we expect him to do. He does not have any "moments" that are worth recalling and dwelling upon. His character appears to barely play any role at all in the rugby matches too.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/12/07/image5930161.jpg
This is a decent film, technically well done and well acted, but it just drags. It feels, at times, like a documentary. There simply is not enough story here to keep the audience engaged. I yawned a couple times, and that is not good.
Some folks may like it a lot more than I did, but if you go expecting a great sports drama, you will be disappointed. Sorry.
--Jason "I had hoped for much, much more from this flick-- though I do expect it to earn some award buzz because of the people associated with it and critics being afraid to say anything negative" Evans
Clint Eastwood directing. The dude has been knocking it out of the park the past few years.
Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela. Is there anyone else on the planet even allowed to play this huge historical figure? We are talking about perfect casting.
Matt Damon was so gung ho for his role as the captain of South Africa's rugby team he completely rebuilt his body. He looks like he's been lifting weights around the clock for months.
And, to top it all off, the plot revolves around 2 remarkable events-- South Africa's move from Aparteid to freedom and the South African rugby team's improbable run in the 1995 World Cup, considered by many observers to be the greatest tournament in Rugby history.
A sure thing, right? No way this could be anything less than a major Oscar contender and a truly enjoyable film.
Sigh.... think again.
I shudder to even say this, but the movie is just painfully slow. It drags. Mandela, while being a tremendously inspiring man, is pretty darn dull. He talks in a slow, measured fashion that is hardly inspiring. We meet his character after he has won the Presidency and, as a result, we don't see him go through any transformations or changes. Who he is at the beginning is who he is at the end, and it just it not all that exciting to spend long periods of time with him. I can't believe I am saying this, because Freeman is a mortal lock to get nominated for an Oscar for this role, but I just was not all that interested in seeing what went on with him after about the first half-hour of the film.
http://blogs.inlandsocal.com/iguide/Morgan%20Freeman%20as%20Nelson%20Mandela%20in%20In victus.jpg
Usually, in sports films, we get treated to a lot of dramatic action on the field to help carry the story along. This movie just does not spend much time on the Rugby. It does not bother to explain the game hardly at all, which will be troublesome for American audiences who know next to nothing about rugby. The matches that are shown are filmed in such tight shots, it is sometimes hard to get a sense of what is going on (even if you do know the sport). I did not find myself getting caught up in the action or drama of the contests. There are moments where some of the characters who do not understand rugby ask other characters what is going on and get simple replies like, "we won." My wife turned to me at one of these moments and said, "I am glad they did that because I have no idea who is winning. And I don't care either."
We spend a lot of time with Mandela's multi-cultural body guards, who are supposed to represent the divide between black and white in South Africa. Believe it or not, these are the best parts of the film. We actually get some drama here and see characters dealing with real emotions. There are some interesting moments with the bodyguards, but not enough to carry the film and it is hard to focus too much on these no names when Freeman and Damon keep popping up on screen.
Speaking of Damon, he does a nice job with the SAfrican accent and he totally transformed his body for this role, which is cool. But he is just not on the screen all that much and his character mostly does exactly what we expect him to do. He does not have any "moments" that are worth recalling and dwelling upon. His character appears to barely play any role at all in the rugby matches too.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/12/07/image5930161.jpg
This is a decent film, technically well done and well acted, but it just drags. It feels, at times, like a documentary. There simply is not enough story here to keep the audience engaged. I yawned a couple times, and that is not good.
Some folks may like it a lot more than I did, but if you go expecting a great sports drama, you will be disappointed. Sorry.
--Jason "I had hoped for much, much more from this flick-- though I do expect it to earn some award buzz because of the people associated with it and critics being afraid to say anything negative" Evans