Click Here For Our Interview with Matt Damon
Click Here For Our Interview with Morgan Freeman

There’s something about underdog films that really resonate with us. We like to see them win. We want to root for them. It’s gone back as far as the grand daddy of all title bouts, David v. Goliath, and as recently as… Well, Under Dog. I was pretty excited to see what Clint Eastwood could do with the model in this most recent installment of this classic tale, Invictus.

There is a common theme in Clint Eastwood‘s earlier works. They all have this indescribable sense of resonance that makes the audience believe that this is true life on screen. Which makes it all the more ironic that this, being a true story, felt flawed. Which was odd. Morgan Freeman does a stellar impersonation of Nelson Mandela, so much so that Madiba (as former President Mandela was affectionately known as) himself was impressed. Freeman is able to straddle a fine dramatic line and the performance never comes off as anything but believable and realistic. Most importantly, depicting a character as important as President Mandela, Freeman never feels like a caricature, showing prowess at impersonating gestures, mannerisms and accents but never overstating or over dramatizing them. The same goes with Matt Damon, wonderfully portraying under-fire Springboks Captain Francois Pienaar with an effusive grace that was convincing and near perfect. Only on rare instances did he slip in the accent and the entire time exuded an aura of leadership and humility that was only outdone by Freeman‘s performance.

There was an issue with Damon‘s role in that it was a little shallow and he was never portrayed as anything other than the inspiring captain. He never really showed much struggle, either emotionally or physically, able to switch the opinions of the entire rugby team with a one-liner in the weight room. It felt a little easy for him and it was disappointing to have seen him excel without much resistance.

Eastwood has shown his directing prowess time and time again and there were certainly moments where they were exhibited. However, there were some flaws that were hard to overlook. The most obvious was the medium in which he wove his tale around: rugby. Any audience member who has no experience with rugby would be baffled by the events taking place on the pitch, thereby taking away much of the tension during the crucial matches. There is a scene where the rugby team explains some of the rules to the children in a shantytown, which, if extended, would have benefitted the audience, immensely.

That, however, is a minor cinematic detail compared to the major storytelling flaw of the film: the lack of resonance. Eastwood fails, in a way, to deliver just how much of a victory this was for the country. The end

of the film feels too convenient, too easy. Throughout the film, there was never a moment where there was a sense where all that much was on the line and the characters never really sacrificed too much to earn the ending. This maybe partially attributed to the fact that it is a true story but I was missing the bittersweet nature of the ending.

In the majority of Eastwood’s previous outings, there is a true sense that sacrifices were made for character’s to achieve what they wanted by the end of the film. Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby and even Mystic River achieved this. Invictus , somehow, does not. There is an absence of sacrifice that makes this ending a little too fairytale. I wanted to see perhaps Mandela achieving this great victory with his nation but unable to reconcile with his family; Or Pienaar losing the Captaincy after the World Cup. Both of those things really happened and would further amplify the notion of what it cost to achieve this incredible victory.

The movies does a stellar job of recreating the events of what happened in South Africa in 1995 but where it lacks is that storytelling edge that truly transcends it from something real to something extraordinary. There is no doubt that the film did a wonderful job at showing the true-life nature of the past but some of that true heart unfortunately did not become realized on screen.

The standard package of director’s commentary and behind-the-scenes are both present here and both are moderately entertaining. Eastwood‘s insight is always well received and appreciated although pretty standard in the commentary. The behind-the-scenes featurettes were a little more interesting as it showed both Freeman and Damon meeting their respective “characters” to fine tune their nuances and eccentricities for the screen. There is also a music video which was added as if to say “This ISN’T what’s usually in the extras!” Interesting but eventually, feeble.