"Invictus" Review

Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus,” naively inspirational, annoyingly simplistic, and overly clichéd, details former South African President Nelson Mandela’s attempt to unite his divided country, shortly after the end of the apartheid system of racial segregation. To heal the nation, Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) turns to the South African rugby team in hopes that they will end their losing streak and, in the process, unite and inspire the country.

“Invictus,” much like the country it depicts, is divided into two combating parts. The film starts as an interesting, although somewhat dry, examination of political idealism and how it intertwines with various racial issues. However, as the film progresses, screenwriter Anthony Peckham loses sight of Mandela’s politics, instead opting for cliché sports scenes which trivialize the weighty political issues the film beautifully illustrates in its first half.

Thus, while the film does an admirable job of showing one unconventional way in which Mandela dealt with healing a divided nation, it simply does not go far enough. A game of rugby can put a dent in the nation’s healing, but it does not have the power to solve all the country’s problems unequivocally. A country cannot just cheer its problems away with a rousing rugby game. The issue of race relations, especially after a severe oppression, is much more complex than that.

Anthony Peckham’s script is certainly not aided by Eastwood’s direction, which sentimentalizes and gives into nearly every sport cliché in the book. From constant slow-motion to incessant cheering, Eastwood loads on the cheese to an insufferable degree. During these sports sequences, tedious, trite, sentimental images replace the steady, quiet direction of the film’s first half.

The film’s last half also reduces most of the film’s ensemble to cheering spectators, no longer taking any active action to heal the country. For example, Morgan Freeman, the star of the movie, speaks no more than ten words in the film’s final forty-five minutes. Freeman fares well in the rest of the film, and so does Matt Damon as rugby star Francois Pienaar, but neither seem as emotionally connected to the material as the rest of the cast, which is comprised of mostly South Africans. Adjoa Andoh’s performance as Brenda, Mandela’s secretary, is particularly outstanding. Andoh paints Brenda as a woman who realizes both Mandela’s strengths and weaknesses and is not shy about correcting him when needed.

It’s a wonderfully detailed performance, but, like much of the good things in “Invictus,” it disappears in the film’s second hour.

C

"The Informant!" Review

“The Informant,” a comic thriller directed by Steven Soderbergh, follows Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a high-ranking employee at a food production corporation. When Whitacre realizes that the corporation is involved in price fixing scams, he becomes a whistle blower for the FBI in hopes of putting the corrupt businessmen behind bars. But, is that really his motive? Whitacre is either bipolar, schizophrenic or just a chronic liar. The more he says, the less one can make sense of his situation. At some points, he seems like a dimwitted buffoon, at other times a neurotic genius. Needless to say, watching it all play out makes for a fun, if imperfect, film experience.

“The Informant,” which is based on a true story, succeeds for two main reasons, its lead actor and its directorial panache. Damon, who is quickly joining the likes of George Clooney and Brad Pitt as one of the most iconic movie stars of the new millennium, has the character of Mark Whitacre down to a tee. He manages to capture the character’s unpredictable behavior, as well as his more self-righteous qualities. Melanie Lynskey also puts forth a solid performance as Mark’s wife Ginger Whitacre. While the duo’s actions are certainly dubious, their relationship remains solid and one could even describe their marriage as a strong one.

Also aiding the film is its direction. Soderbergh, whose previous credits include “Traffic” and “Ocean’s Eleven,” takes an interesting risk by presenting the film as a comedy. While the film does not reach the wackiness of a Coen Brothers’ picture, it does boast some pretty odd artistic choices. The film is shot like a 70s action movie with funky title cards and contains a fantastic retro score by Marvin Hamlisch. While some may be bothered by these obscure choices, they really do complement the film’s odd sense of humor.

Unfortunately, “The Informant!” falls apart in its third act. As the plot thickens, twists are thrown right and left and the film begins to lose some of its witty charm. It also devolves into a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, which proves annoying and, at times, just boring. While the film’s ending is rather disappointing, it still succeeds due to its unique visual style and wonderful lead performance. Despite its flaws, “The Informant!” illustrates how easily people, even large corporations and the federal government, can be manipulated in to believing just about anything. While crooks may utter “Trust Me,” as the film’s final music cue ironically suggests, do not believe them. Anyone can be a crook, even that smiling face behind the desk or that cheerful voice over the phone. The only people one can really trust are the artists – oh, and the critics too. (wink, wink)

B

Your thoughts? Race to the comments!