MovieChat Forums > Invictus (2009) Discussion > An embarrassment for all involved

An embarrassment for all involved

posted 12 years ago by irotas78
15 replies | jump to latest

I have nothing against anyone involved in making this movie - they've all been excellent in former roles. However, Invictus is an abysmal movie - laughable even if I didn't feel insulted. This movie is more like a high school film project than a professional work.

What do I think is so bad about it? Here's a few things that come to mind:

1) The acting was atrocious - not a single character was well developed enough to care anything about them

2) The 'security' sub-plot was pointless

3) The soundtrack was probably the most embarrassing of all - what were they thinking??!

4) The accents were horrible and distracted from the movie

5) Nothing was really developed in this movie. Several items were introduced but not developed further. For example, the racism of the parents, the relationship with the girlfriend, Mandela's relationship with his own family, Chester's iconic status on the team, what apartheid really meant to South Africa (which American audiences don't really know), etc.

6) Cheesy cheesy cheesy! The scene where the black and white security guards were all playing rugby together, the scene where they invite the black housekeeper to the game, the scene where the plane flies over the stadium, etc.

... and so on.

Overall, the best part of this movie was the little kid that refused the Springbok jersey, then sat on the police car to listen to the game. That kid was actually likable and funny!

I feel like Clint Eastwood, as a director, is all about the "gimmicks" to win awards. He's had a fine acting career, but these movies he's directing are too formulaic and insulting.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 12 years ago

Well, I showed this film for the 2nd time to my film group and it was certainly no embarrassment to me. In fact, it got applauded. But then our group is primarily 62 years and upwards...in cases, way upwards, and we have a different viewpoint from those of the much younger average age of IMDbers.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] truekiwijoker 12 years ago

I agree, Hollywood and Eastwood should steer clear of complicated issues like Apartheid.

[–] nephihaha 12 years ago

"I agree, Hollywood and Eastwood should steer clear of complicated issues like Apartheid."

I agree that it is much more complicated than the film allows for. (That said is a commercial film, and none of them ever deal with such matters properly, let alone historical detail.)

International rugby *didn't* steer clear of apartheid for years, that's the problem.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] Traianus 12 years ago

I agree that it is much more complicated than the film allows for.

But then the same could be said of virtually any film based on a historical situation.

[–] dogstar-12 12 years ago

I liked the movie myself, but the only part of your post I want to comment on is that I didn't really see any racism on the part of Pienaar's parents in this movie. Given what had happened in other parts of Africa when blacks took power, they would have probably thought that their concerns about Mandela were very reasonable and pragmatic.

And sure, they didn't seem like the type of people who would normally socialize with their black maid, but how many people throughout the world socialize with their servants of any race?

[–] squatdog_nz 12 years ago

the scene where the plane flies over the stadium

This actually happened in real life.

(without all the ridiculous Sept.11th innuendo and bad acting)

[–] mb-697-759578 12 years ago

Yes, well as a dedicated Rugby fan (England and Saracens) I could not disagree with you more.

As for the security Guards playing Rugby with each other, or the Piennar's servant attending the game with them, I cannot comment as I don't have the evidence. The plane flyover is 100% true however and is also featured on the official RFU footage of the 1995 world Cup. A colleague of mine was present at the actual game and witnessed this as well. The flypast was, however, pre-arranged.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.

[–] Android 12 years ago

i agree this film started interestingly but ended up being pretty bad.

2) The 'security' sub-plot was pointless

yes! totally pointless.

eastwood makes 'old fashioned' films...ie: trite, obvious, cliche, predictable, phoney.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

I thought it was a wonderful film; inspirational and uplifting...all the more so because the major events depicted in the film were true.

"This movie is more like a high school film project than a professional work."

Excellent production values with the South African locations only enhancing the film's authenticity.

"The acting was atrocious - not a single character was well developed enough to care anything about them"

You must be joking! I thought Morgan Freeman was magnificent as Mandela. He lived the part. And Matt Damon as Pienaar, just continues to impress with his range, in a fine understated performance that complemented Freeman perfectly.

I don't understand your comment about lack of character development. The film was telling the story of a President's struggle to unify a country which had only just emerged from decades and decades of being enveloped in the dead hand of apartheid...and you want more of Pienaar's girlfriend's back story among other heady demands??

"The 'security' sub-plot was pointless"

It highlighted the nature of the dismantling of apartheid. "Special Branch" personnel who were once feared by ANC activists, were now being asked by the President in the spirit of reconciliation, to assist in areas of security, such as with his personal bodyguard unit and in doing so work alongside some of those activists whom they used to no doubt, pursue.It was all about the trust required by both blacks and whites.

"The soundtrack was probably the most embarrassing of all - what were they thinking??!"

I thought it was non - intrusive whilst enhancing the action being depicted.

"The accents were horrible and distracted from the movie"

Wow this was a big call on your part irotas! I know quite a few South Africans and let me tell you the accents were authentic (especially considering there was substantial South African undercasting. What did you want pray tell...American English being spoken? Subtitles?

"Cheesy etc" Other posters have commented about the fact that some of the things you call cheesy actually occurred. Forget the cheese and start smelling the roses irotas!

..."Clint Eastwood, as a director, is all about the "gimmicks" to win awards. ... these movies he's directing are too formulaic and insulting."

I have no idea what you mean by gimmicks.

The thing that continues to impress me with Clint Eastwood's work is the breadth and variety of his portfolio and the consistency and quality that he achieves, even IMO when I don't think the film is an overall success (E.G.Hoover and Hereafter). This is a guy who is an octogenarian multi - academy award winner. He doesn't need gimmicks; he's got integrity in spades (though I did think the talk to the chair was rather odd...but I'm happy to cut the old guy some slack).

Invictus is a terrific achievment and this comes from someone who didn't barrack for South Africa in the 1995 World Cup!

[–] xxmyloveuxx 11 years ago

I have nothing against irotas78 for making this thread - s/he has had some excellent threads before. However, this is an abysmal thread - laughable even if I didn't feel insulted. This thread is more like a high school comprehension practice than any meaningful review of a movie.

What do I think is so bad about it? Here's a few things that come to mind:

1) The entire argument was so atrocious - not a single point was well made enough for me to care about it.

2) The entire post was pointless/ only good for highlighting his/her ignorance.

3)The complete lack of "IMHO" is the most embarrassing of all - what was s/he thinking?

4) The points made were horrible and far from reality.

5) Nothing was really developed in this post. Several items were introduced but not developed further. For example, the depiction of racism of parents was a total failure as there was NO racism on their part, the highlighting of Mandela's family relation being another one, because inspite of being underdeveloped, it actually served as an emotional albeit fleeting juncture in the movie where the audiences could identify with Mandela as a mere man - one of their own, the claw at Chester iconic status was another underdeveloped point of fail, which actually didn't need development in the movie because it was as easy as putting two and two together to figure out, and the moronic dig at the central theme of apartheid which the movie not being a documentary and all, actually didn't need to go out of its way to explain to some lazy sods, etc.

6) Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy! The points raised in the post proving his/her own ignorance plus the cliche run-of-the-mill arguments of a person who clearly wasn't paying enough attention while watching etc.

.......and so on.

Overall, the best part of the post was the point were he admitted to actually having payed attention to one particular storyline. That part was actually likeable and funny and shows that there's hope for the OP yet.

I feel irotas78, as a poster on imdb, is all about the "gimmicks" to win attention. S/he's had a fine posting career, but these threads s/he's been posting lately are too formulaic and insulting.

[–] daveroy 11 years ago

What about the point that the movie is centered on a former terrorist (Mandella). It amazes me how history can so easily be rewritten. If I order the bombing of a school bus, can I be treated as a hero? (just asking.)