Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
Apparently unfazed by embargos, Newsweek’s David Ansen has posted a short, mixed-to-positive review of “Invictus,” the meat of which is here:
Invictus is not a biopic; nor does it take us deep inside any of its characters—Eastwood views Mandela from a respectful middle distance. It’s about strategic inspiration. We witness a politician at the top of his game: Freeman’s wily Mandela is a master of charm and soft-spoken gravitas. Anthony Peckham’s sturdy, functional screenplay, based on John Carlin’s book Playing the Enemy, can be a bit on the nose (and the message songs Eastwood adds are overkill). Yet the lapses fade in the face of such a soul-stirring story—one that would be hard to believe if it were fiction. The wonder of Invictus is that it actually went down this way.
So far, the early word I’ve sourced on this one is all over the place. I’m still struggling to get excited. Are you?
30 responses so far
1 11-26-2009 at 11:19 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Embargo jumpers make the world go round. I imagine this may trigger other reviews, but I’ll still hold off until Monday. In the way of a one-off, I guess I’ll just say that it’s extremely flat and a snooze from beginning to end. Maybe Eastwood’s least interesting film since Blood Work, and that’s saying a lot, given the potential inherent in the subject matter.
I don’t imagine too many critics will agree, since there are legions of Eastwood apologists out there. He’s carefully cultivated the critical fraternity. But this thing is painfully unremarkable.
2 11-26-2009 at 11:33 am
Silencio said...
I’ve stopped struggling.
3 11-26-2009 at 11:34 am
Mr. Gittes said...
The Hollywood Reporter gathered six screenwriters for a roundtable discussion, and one of them was Invictus writer, Anthony Peckam. First of all, Peckam admitted that truthfully he doesn’t have any ideas…Jesus, Tony.
But here’s what Peckam said about Invictus:
THR: Tony, what was it like working with Clint Eastwood, who is known for sticking to the script?
Peckham: The truth is, I didn’t work with him. I tried to. We tried to bring in some notes. We wanted to add a little more, and he listened politely, and said, “I kind of like the script the way it is.” So, I didn’t work with him. I did two drafts and that was that. Done.
I know I’m putting a lot of weight on the screenplay here, but how in the heck did Eastwood like Peckam’s second draft? Unremarkable is right.
4 11-26-2009 at 11:37 am
James D. said...
Glen Kenny put it on his top seventy of the decade. Then again, he liked Gran Torino.
5 11-26-2009 at 11:38 am
ninja said...
So this and Bones are not going to upset the Up In the Air, Precious and The Hurt Locker trifecta of possible winners? How about Nine? It has been recently screened. And when the word on Avatar is expected to get out?
6 11-26-2009 at 11:45 am
davidraider88 said...
Kris, can you give us a similar mini review for Nine like you did here with Invictus? Im anxious to hear some more about it.
7 11-26-2009 at 11:57 am
Guy Lodge said...
Mr Gittes: I agree completely. The script is a pretty limp thing.
8 11-26-2009 at 12:23 pm
Murtada said...
I never for Eastwood movies. They are mostly well done and efficient but lack passion. Gran Torino was the worst ever. Not excited about this one at all. I’d rather see The Lovely Bones, even if it’s a failure I know that thought and passion were put into it. Eastwood seems like he churnes ‘em out thoughtlessly.
9 11-26-2009 at 12:29 pm
Kevin said...
I think it will be pretty good, but I imagine it will be the the weaker of the big four. Avatar and Nine look to be the big ones, with Lovely Bones likely to make a big splash when more people see it. I think Invictus will be good, but not great. It’ll be the feel-good movie of December, and will more than likely be a bit elevated by the performances. Eastwood has made some masterpieces (Unforgiven, Letters from Iwo Jima), some middle-ground, good movies with great performances (Mystic River, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby), and some real flops (Changeling, Flags of our Fathers, Space Cowboys, etc). I expect I will like Invictus and leave the theatre with a smile and a good, warm feeling in my heart, but I don’t think it will be the big player everyone expected it to be. I’m honestly struggling to see a Best Picture or Director nomination anymore, with Damon and Freeman being the only big contenders in the film. Bring on Avatar, Nine, and The Lovely Bones
10 11-26-2009 at 12:31 pm
Brian said...
I haven’t heard a single “this is great!” notice or comment yet, from critics or people who have seen screenings. Seems thoroughly down the middle.
11 11-26-2009 at 12:37 pm
Loyal said...
Once I saw that Kenny put Gran Torino in his top 70 of the 00s (a so bad its kinda almost sorta good film), I knew his thoughts on Invictus were grain of salt quality.
It really is looking like Precious vs Up in the Air. I hope that Avatar shakes things up but I know it’ll take a perfect storm (box office, reviews, guilds) for that to happen.
Oh and Precious makes Crash look highfalutin. What an awful, ugly, piece of crap posing as an uplifting success story. If it wins, dear god.
12 11-26-2009 at 1:00 pm
Ripley said...
As an abashed Eastwood fan I am really looking forward to this as “Gran Torino” was in my top 5 of last year and all I’ve seen makes me think “Invictus” is as good. I have zero interest in “Precious”, I just won’t see that type of violence and abuse on screen (I hated “Sin City” for that reason) . I think I’ll love “Up in the Air” so that’s who’ll I’ll be rooting for as the BP winner but hopeful that “A Single Man” and “Avatar” are nominees too.
13 11-26-2009 at 1:49 pm
The Other James D. said...
^I trust your judgement since you go from “Gran Torino” to “A Single Man”, highlighting your variety of interests. Still, Top 5, really now? Entertainment-wise, I can see Top 20. It’s definitely in my Bottom 10 though–around 9th worst.
@Kevin: I actually would rather watch “Space Cowboys” again than GT, just saying. At least most of that cast can actually act.
Happy Indian Slaughter Day to all!
14 11-26-2009 at 1:51 pm
Patryk said...
Everything about this film looks deadeningly dull. A homework assignment. What is the running time anyway?
15 11-26-2009 at 2:35 pm
Maxim said...
Interesting, Tom Stern really brought a change to the look of Eastwood’s movies that cannot be denied.
Also, this is completely of topic but this interview with the master Rick Carter might be of interest too:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/11/jim-cameron-vs-robert-zemeckis-the-inside-scoop-on-the-rivalry.html
16 11-26-2009 at 6:03 pm
Danny K. said...
I’ve been skeptical about this film ever since the trailer. It just didn’t seem like a powerful set-up and I just don’t think it’s a film audiences will connect with on a consistent basis.
17 11-26-2009 at 7:35 pm
tony rock said...
how can people not enjoy Gran Torino? sure, it doesnt relly work as a drama, but i’ll be damned if it isn’t hysterical.
18 11-26-2009 at 7:56 pm
Maxim said...
“What an awful, ugly, piece of crap posing as an uplifting success story. If it wins, dear god.”
Funny, because that’s exactly how I felt about Slumdog Millionaire.
19 11-27-2009 at 12:13 am
The Other James D. said...
@tony rock: It did crack me up several times. But the script is a writing travesty. It lacks subtlety, nuance; it’s completely contrived, and almost every other piece of dialogue seems completely forced for shock value. It’s amateurish dreck, and the NBR look like retards for awarding it a win.
20 11-27-2009 at 12:17 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
Clint ain’t doing anything that special anymore. His movies are just extremely well made, but nothing to get really extcited over anymore. I’m simply looking forward to them everytime because they’re always good films at least.
21 11-27-2009 at 3:08 am
Rogers said...
Has anyone seen Brothers? I thought it looked pretty bad but then I saw Portman on the Late Show and Letterman raved about it, saying it was probably the best movie of the last 12-20 years. Though I think he also said that he was friends with some of the people involved with the movies.
22 11-27-2009 at 3:22 am
The Other James D. said...
@Rogers: If you’ve ever heard a Letterman joke, the irrelevance should’ve been crystal clear. Although, at least it wasn’t a Leno joke. I still have no clue why people pay him. Smite them both and give us double or triple Conan/Craig Ferguson, please!
23 11-27-2009 at 7:32 am
aspect ratio said...
Variety and Hollywood Reporter have posted their reviews. Both seem to think it’s a good movie, but neither review is a rave. HR called it “temperate, evenhanded but timid” and Variety called it “a very good story very well told”.
24 11-27-2009 at 8:07 am
Ivan said...
Academy loves “themes” in their nominations
in 2004 the Biopics dominated (The Aviator, Ray, Neverland, Rwanda, Kinsey, etc.)
in 2005 was the gay issue (Brokeback, Capote, Transamerica, etc.)
in 2006 the mexican invasion (Salma presenting nominees, Iñarritu´s Babel, Del Toro´s Labyrinth and Cuaron´s Children
in 2007 Badass guys (Bardem, Depp, Day Lewis, Mortensen and Affleck)
Last year the woman power (Kate, Anne, Meryl, Angelina and Penelope)
Maybe this year will be South Africa.
Invictus seems to be a strong player.
District 9 will be in almost everything top ten list
and my dark horse is DISGRACE, a well done film by Steve Jacobs with a tour de force performance by John Malcovich.
25 11-27-2009 at 9:20 am
The Other James D. said...
Kudos for thinking outside the box, Ivan, but I think this season is more “films directed by women”, don’t you? With “The Hurt Locker” and “An Education” as major players, “Bright Star” as a tech category contender, and even the failure of “Amelia” as a possible nominee in sound. That’s not even including the other films that will miss, such as “Humpday”, “35 Shots of Rum”, and so forth.
There’s also the potential for this to be the year of sci-fi, with “Star Trek”, “District 9″, and “Avatar”; and, if Sam Rockwell sneaks in, “Moon” as well.
26 11-27-2009 at 9:53 am
Ivan said...
Good point Other James D. on the Sci fi Factor
District 9
Star Trek
Avatar
The Road !!!
Moon
27 11-27-2009 at 3:47 pm
Jonathan Spuij said...
told ya:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=15456
28 11-27-2009 at 7:05 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Told us what, Jonathan? Not sure what you’re saying to us with that link.
29 11-28-2009 at 1:51 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
That it’s simply a very fine film and all the nay-sayers should just focus on liking it instead of wanting it to fail at the Oscars and therefore not being a good film.
30 11-28-2009 at 2:25 am
The Other James D. said...
First of all, Sasha only highlights the positive.
Secondly, just because a few say it’s good doesn’t mean we’re all required to think so. Kris certainly doesn’t, as he briefly mentioned above. We should view it objectively and determine our appreciation or lack thereof. We should never, and will not, “focus on liking it” if we think otherwise, just to get your fanboy rocks off.
P.S. They are not always good films, as last year alone proved. His flawed directing style was at its most vulnerable last year with two horrendous screenplays.