Invictus (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / December 11, 2009

“Invictus” is a film your ninth-grade Social Studies teacher would show in class. You know, the kind of movie you wouldn’t watch on your own, but since it was displacing a lecture, you gave it your attention. In other words, it’s not overly entertaining.

Even though this movie’s high-concept premise seems like it would make a good motion picture property, it’s too shallow a concept to yield rich storytelling — not shallow in principle but in narrative depth.

Adapted from the John Carlin book and based on actual events, “Invictus” is about a political leader who seeks to unify his divided country through a sports victory.

That political leader is South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, an anti-Apartheid convict who was freed and became a benevolent president of the people who had imprisoned him for nearly three decades.

According to the film, during the 1990s Mandela stepped into office when South Africa was on the verge of civil war. In an attempt to rally his people together by cultivating national pride, Mandela commissioned Francois Pienaar, the captain of South Africa’s Springboks rugby team, to win the World Cup.

Morgan Freeman gives us a saintly, sagely depiction of Mandela, while Matt Damon muscles through masculine moments as Pienaar, the patriotic rugby captain. Both actors inhabit their characters with formidable screen presence.

“Invictus” is a film comprised of an odd pairing: a sports movie and a political film. Sports movies are often constructed in such a way that their final, big game is always so much more than just a game: Winning constitutes a dual victory in athleticism and whatever predominant theme pervades the movie.

To cite two examples, in “Remember the Titans,” the team’s victory also signifies their capacity to transform racism into tolerance into teamwork and mutual respect. And “We Are Marshall” depicts a team whose success demonstrates its ability to overcome tragedy and grief as an act of commemorating their fallen teammates.

“Invictus” pairs its athletic accomplishment with fusing a nation, which might seem unlikely in reality until you consider the nationalism that the Olympic games stir.

Though he is most commonly celebrated for his acting roles, Clint Eastwood is a fine director whose films unfold with clarity. His “Invictus” is a decently crafted motion picture, to be sure, but as far as its general power to entertain, it’s merely OK, much like his “Flags of Our Fathers.”

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Morgan Freeman / Matt Damon

Drama 134 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for brief strong language)

Brothers (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / December 4, 2009

Art often is a natural reflex to turmoil. The world’s major wars have spawned several cinematic reverberations of artists’ sentiments toward those conflicts. While some films respond specifically to the wars that inspired them, “Brothers” addresses a topic that is relevant to every war: the mentally wounded soldier.

The previews suggest merely a precarious love story: A widow becomes intimately close with her brother-in-law after her husband is reportedly killed at war. But when the not-so-deceased husband returns home many months later, familial complications ensue.

We saw a similar story line in 2001 with Michael Bay’s much lesser movie, “Pearl Harbor.” But the updated version that is “Brothers” is based on a 2004 Danish film called “Brodre.” And if memory serves me, the mistakenly deceased lovers’ triangle conundrum seems faintly Shakespearean. In any case, it’s an old, familiar story that’s reliable for rousing dramatic conflict once again in “Brothers.”

In October 2007 Capt. Sam Cahill, a tough-as-nails Marine, is deployed yet again to fight in Afghanistan. Tobey Maguire is cast as the hometown hero — and believe me — this fierce-eyed actor is no Peter Parker here. He and his wife, Grace (Natalie Portman), are the parents of two young girls. Portman possesses her usual rigidity, but she triumphs at conveying tearful sorrow. Jake Gyllenhaal steals the show as Tommy, the family disappointment and a “Cain” in contrast to his able brother.

There’s more to “Brothers” than just its romantic entanglements, and its primary conflict isn’t what you’d expect. As prefaced above, Cahill returns as only a shell-of-a-man who’s haunted by the demons of war.

I won’t describe his shocking ordeal, but as we watch the film, we know the horrors in his head while the other characters do not. This generates effective suspense.

In addition to being a distressing family drama with the tensest 6-year-old’s birthday party you’ll ever witness, “Brothers” aims to depict how the effects of war can break a person, and how sometimes the biggest battle for troops can be readjusting to civilian life.

This movie’s story seems a peculiar cruelty to me, potentially, in that it could derail a widowed spouse’s grieving process and inspire hope in a hopeless homecoming. On the other hand, some families may have no knowledge of their loved one’s whereabouts and may conversely find “Brothers” to be beneficially hopeful.

Directed by Jim Sheridan

Tobey Maguire / Jake Gyllenhaal / Natalie Portman

Drama 110 min.

MPAA: R (for language and some disturbing violent content)