Jon and I got to see "Invictus" while he was here for Christmas. It was a solid film, with a great performance by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. I have been very impressed by most of Clint Eastwood's films. "Letters from Iwo Jima" was amazing. "Gran Torino" was a lot of fun, and "Changeling" was an excellent drama. I think "Invictus" was a very good film, but doesn't stand out like the others I mentioned. It's weakness I believe was in the story. Freeman plays such a intricate Mandela, that the film should have been his. The Matt Damon/rugby storyline wasn't as interesting, and the rugby stuff felt like filler instead of being truly important to the film. "Hoosiers" is about basketball players. It's about the players (and coaches) first and foremost. Because basketball is what they all have in common, it totally makes sense for the film to be about basketball too. "Invictus" is about unity. It's about forgiveness. It is also about the use of political maneuvers to bring about positive change. Sure, Mandela used rugby as a tool early in his presidential term, but the argument to make a rugby movie just isn't strong enough for me. The other complaint I have with th film is Eastwood's music. He forces his own style (and music he wrote) into a film that needs something different. Eastwood's music has worked well in other Eastwood films, but he should recognize that his true talent is film making and his music isn't always right.
That being said, it was a very strong film in it's individual elements. The message was positive and timeless. Damon did good for what his role required. The rugby stuff, although unnecessary was interesting in that it's a sport I'm unfamiliar with. And once again, Freeman's performance was worth the price of admission, and I would recommend a viewing based solely on him. Perhaps he will make a more detailed bio-pic later.
Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Sherlock Holmes? Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Guy Ritchie? "Sherlock Holmes" was an entertaining movie, but the answer to both previous question unfortunately is 'no'. There are hints of he real Holmes in this movie, but too few and far between. Just think of the characteristics you know to be true of Holmes. Not that those may be mentioned or used somewhat in this movie, but more as a device than as character. For example, Holme's skill of deduction is his primary resource for solving crimes. Here we are shown that he has that tool in his arsenal, yet it's kinda used randomly and it seems sorta weak at times and it doesn't always work. Is Holmes really fallible? Secondly, I thought Guy Ritchie was required to give us that 30 second sequence in which the main characters are introduced with quick-cutting flashbacks along with titles like; "Sherlock... Master Crime Rock-n-Rolla". I was lost for the first half-hour... who are these people onscreen? You mean I have to pay attention to what the characters are saying? Not all the information I need will be visually fed to me? Sure there were some pretty sweet, slo-mo, quick-edit effects that reminded me of Ritchie. Personally though, I would have preferred a true Ritchie film. It's like this new "Avatar the Last Airbender" movie that Shyamalan is working on, I want a Shyamalan movie, not him taking on some adaptation of anime. On the other hand, have you seen the new trailer for Iron Man 2 (I think Matt has a link to it)? This trailer is even sweeter than the first. Pop some popcorn and watch the new trailer, it's awesome!
No comments:
Post a Comment