Many times great movies get lost in the holiday shuffle. A case in point is Clint Eastwood's "Invictus." It had the misfortune of being released near James Cameron's blockbuster "Avatar." It got mostly positive reviews but didn't do much at the box office. But don't let the ticket sales fool you. This is one of the great hidden gems of 2009.
"Invictus" is one part underdog sports movie and one part history lesson. It's the story of Nelson Mandela (played beautifully by Morgan Freeman) came to lead post-Apartheid South Africa and how the country's rugby team played a big part in the country's reconciliation. As the movie opens, Mandela is being released from prison after 27 years. After being elected president, he has to take on the task of bringing black and white South African's together. He decides to use the national rugby team, the Springboks, as the catalyst for reconciliation.
At the beginning of the film there is a vote held where the people want to get rid of the Springboks name and colors because to many it represents Apartheid. Mandela argues the team name and colors should be kept. He argues that the name and colors are part of history, for better or for worse, and the country needs to acknowledge that. Mandela wins that battle, but eventually has many more.
The Springboks still exist in name and with the same colors, but they are mediocre. Mandela decides to meet with the team captain, Francois Pienaar. The meeting set the stage for South Africa's eventual victory in the 1995 rugby world cup.
Is this movie formulaic? Yes, but don't let that keep you away. While it does follow a similar underdog sports team plot line it does it with a lot of style and great acting. While the movie was marketed mostly as a sports film, the story of Mandela overcoming all the obstacles after taking office are equally, if not more so, compelling. Consider the scene at the beginning where Mandela's black body guard is skeptical of the fact that Mandela has hired white body guards. Mandela argues that reconciliation and forgiveness starts in his office. There is also an incredibly moving scene where the rugby team visit's Mandela's prison cell.
The acting here is top notch. Freeman nails Mandela to a T. Matt Damon gives one of the most beautifully understated performances of his career as Pienaar. This movie is further proof that in the Matt Damon/Ben Affleck relationship Matt Damon wears the pants in the family. His performance is not showy but earnest and believable.
This film is an interesting choice for Eastwood to direct. Over the past several years between "Mystic River," "Gran Torino," and "Unforgiven," he has proven himself time and again not just as a superb actor but an extreme gifted director.
It is also worth noting that the soundtrack to this movie is worth a listen, especially the vocals done by the acapella group Overtone. If you want a films that will enthrall and inspire you by all means rent "Invictus."
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Down with Horror Remakes!
It's official: Hollywood has run out of ideas when it comes to horror films. How do I know this? Last weekend a remake of "Nightmare on Elm Street" came out. What's worse, it was the number one movie at the box office. Great, now Hollywood will keep releasing these pale imitations of classic films because they know it will make money. In all fairness, I have not seen the new "Nightmare." I decided that with no Robert Englund it just wasn't worth the money. For me he is and always will be Freddy.
All my opinions about the new "Nightmare" aside, what concerns me more is the sheer volume of remakes appearing at my local multiplex. It seems the horror genre just happens to spawn more remakes than other genres. In the last several years we have had remakes of the following: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Halloween," "Friday the 13th," "The Hills Have Eyes," "Last House on the Left," "Dawn of the Dead," and back in the 1990s there was the disgrace that was the shot-by shot remake of "Psycho." Enough already! Come up with something original and leave the classics alone.
I know what you're thinking; I'm a neurotic purist. I don't deny that. It doesn't just bother me that these classics are being re-made for a new generation of film-goers. It bothers me that these movies are re-made without the imagination or intelligence of the originals (the exception is "Friday the 13th" because it was a bad movie to start with... but I digress).
The worst offender for my money is the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." The original had a gritty documentary-style look to it, it kind of reminded me of "Legend of Boggy Creek" and "The Blair Witch Project" (all three being sort of pseudo-documentaries). It was grizzly, but inventive. It also had lots of imagination, and I thought it was neat to see a horror film shot in the harsh daylight. The re-make just tripled the gore-factor, non-existent acting, and really no characters to care about or real story to tell. Roger Ebert was right when he compared it to a carnival geek show. It was as if the director was daring me to stomach it. Now I am not opposed to violence as evidenced by the fact that I love horror movies. If there is reason for the blood and guts then by all means, bring it on! But don't throw it out there just for shock factor. Back it up with a decent script and good acting. "Scream" was gory as can be, but it had a clever script to go with it. The same can be said of the original "Nightmare on Elm Street."
It should also be noted that while the original "Halloween" from 1978 is considered the movie that invented slasher movies, the blood in it is minimal. Lots of people get killed, but most of it is off-camera. The movie relies more on suspenseful scares than all and out gore. Too this day that movie makes me shiver because of its sheer imagination and ability to scare me with realistic situations.
And another thing: QUIT MAKING THE STUPID "SAW" SEQUELS!" The first one was kind of affective, but the second one went purely for gory scares (exhibit A: the female character who gets shoved into the pool of dirty needles). The first movie should have been called "Saw: a Shameless Knock-off of David Fincher's 'Se7en.''
Thankfully there was one glimmer of hope last year: "Paranormal Activity." I slept with the lights on afterwords, something I never do. The filmmakers didn't even need gratuitous violence to do it.
All my opinions about the new "Nightmare" aside, what concerns me more is the sheer volume of remakes appearing at my local multiplex. It seems the horror genre just happens to spawn more remakes than other genres. In the last several years we have had remakes of the following: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Halloween," "Friday the 13th," "The Hills Have Eyes," "Last House on the Left," "Dawn of the Dead," and back in the 1990s there was the disgrace that was the shot-by shot remake of "Psycho." Enough already! Come up with something original and leave the classics alone.
I know what you're thinking; I'm a neurotic purist. I don't deny that. It doesn't just bother me that these classics are being re-made for a new generation of film-goers. It bothers me that these movies are re-made without the imagination or intelligence of the originals (the exception is "Friday the 13th" because it was a bad movie to start with... but I digress).
The worst offender for my money is the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." The original had a gritty documentary-style look to it, it kind of reminded me of "Legend of Boggy Creek" and "The Blair Witch Project" (all three being sort of pseudo-documentaries). It was grizzly, but inventive. It also had lots of imagination, and I thought it was neat to see a horror film shot in the harsh daylight. The re-make just tripled the gore-factor, non-existent acting, and really no characters to care about or real story to tell. Roger Ebert was right when he compared it to a carnival geek show. It was as if the director was daring me to stomach it. Now I am not opposed to violence as evidenced by the fact that I love horror movies. If there is reason for the blood and guts then by all means, bring it on! But don't throw it out there just for shock factor. Back it up with a decent script and good acting. "Scream" was gory as can be, but it had a clever script to go with it. The same can be said of the original "Nightmare on Elm Street."
It should also be noted that while the original "Halloween" from 1978 is considered the movie that invented slasher movies, the blood in it is minimal. Lots of people get killed, but most of it is off-camera. The movie relies more on suspenseful scares than all and out gore. Too this day that movie makes me shiver because of its sheer imagination and ability to scare me with realistic situations.
And another thing: QUIT MAKING THE STUPID "SAW" SEQUELS!" The first one was kind of affective, but the second one went purely for gory scares (exhibit A: the female character who gets shoved into the pool of dirty needles). The first movie should have been called "Saw: a Shameless Knock-off of David Fincher's 'Se7en.''
Thankfully there was one glimmer of hope last year: "Paranormal Activity." I slept with the lights on afterwords, something I never do. The filmmakers didn't even need gratuitous violence to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
