| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 02:19:00
Ms. Randall liked Clint Eastwood's new one okay, but I was a bit let down. It's 1994 and Nelson Mandela is the newly installed president of South Africa, to the shock and dismay of most whites. SA will be hosting the rugby World Cup in about a year. Wouldn't it be great for national pride and unity if it could win the blamed thing? To anybody for whom I might possibly be spoiling the final New Zealand/South Africa match, all I can suggest is, get your thumb out of your mouth.
Rugby seems to be a simple game, but that's because it's never explained to us. All the rugby sequences look the same, and there are tons of them. On top of that, everybody is doing a wonderful regional accent, including stars Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon [Freeman's r-rolling pronunciation of "rugby" is a repeated pleasure], so it's frequently difficult to understand them. The team supposedly sucked before Mandela had his great idea, but we have no clue what brought them back into contention; they're only in the Cup at all because that's a perk for hosting.
The only poignancy is probably inadvertent. I was struck early on with how similar Mandela's uphill battle is to President Obama's: he's been handed a country in its very worst recent shape, and he's being tripped and held back by a yahoo class which doesn't like the color of his skin. But this current-events echo has to be serendipity, because INVICTUS must have been deep into production well before Election Day.
A rental, if that. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 10:45:38
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
How about this one Sean? Have you seen it aahaa?
I haven't seen it. It's on my list now. Netflix here doesn't have it so I may have to Youtube it... |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 10:08:13
How strange (about the legally). My Hindi's not that good, unfortunately, but maybe one day... |
| aahaa, muahaha |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 10:03:39
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Like aahaa says, Lagaan is by all accounts a really good film (although I haven't seen it myself), so I don't think anyone should rule it out on the basis of its being from Bollywood, especially as Indians care far more about cricket than anyone else. I've seen a couple of other (O.K.) Bollywood cricket films and Lagaan definitely sounds like it is the best.
How about this one Sean? Have you seen it aahaa?
Yep, I have seen Iqbal - it is a nice film and doesn't focus on cricket solely though that is the major theme. Doesn't either trivialise or sensationalise the protagonist's handicap of deaf-dumb. Lagaan, however, is in a class of its own.
By the way, The entire film can be seen on YouTube (legally, if I may add) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsGX3f97Wmo&feature=fvsr (first 3 minutes is advts.). No subtitles though. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 23:31:32
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Like aahaa says, Lagaan is by all accounts a really good film (although I haven't seen it myself), so I don't think anyone should rule it out on the basis of its being from Bollywood, especially as Indians care far more about cricket than anyone else. I've seen a couple of other (O.K.) Bollywood cricket films and Lagaan definitely sounds like it is the best.
How about this one Sean? Have you seen it aahaa? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 14:27:23
I was quite touched by it, but it probably helped that I saw it right after the appalling The Wolfman. Even at the time, though, I felt that it was pulling at the heartstrings a bit too shamelessly.
In terms of explaining the sport, BiggerBoat is totally correct that it is no different to when we watch an American football film. I don't understand the detailed rules but the general idea is not exactly rocket surgery, and the same here. I think it is quite right that the backwards passing is the only thing that is explicitly explained.
Like aahaa says, Lagaan is by all accounts a really good film (although I haven't seen it myself), so I don't think anyone should rule it out on the basis of its being from Bollywood, especially as Indians care far more about cricket than anyone else. I've seen a couple of other (O.K.) Bollywood cricket films and Lagaan definitely sounds like it is the best.
I thought Freeman and Damon's accents were very patchy. It didn't occur to me that they might have been intentionally watered down or that anyone could have been unable to understand them as they are. Mandela's delivery is so distinctive that I really just think that Freeman wasn't able to capture it too well.
I didn't actually know the result, and it wasn't obvious until the pacing towards the end indicated it. So I certainly don't think that the film assumes knowledge of that World Cup.
4/5 |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 18:57:45
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I'll be interested to read your views on the rugby issue, BB. Don't forget to report back when you finally see INVICTUS. You're so right that sporting rules should not intrude upon the flowing narrative, but let's concede that the flowing narrative of this particular film is all about rugby. All we're explicitly told is that a forward pass is not allowed, and that's in a children's clinic held by Matt Damon. How about just two or three more minutes at that same clinic? Rugby is to American football as cricket is to American baseball, but the rules aren't backward/forward compatible, as any fan of any of those four sports knows. The rest of INVICTUS's tech details are so tight that this one jumps out at us Americans. At least this American.
Okay, so I got round to seeing this, or should I say, they got round to releasing it over here. I have to say, I thought the rugby scenes were very well done. The actors were obviously at the least very competent amateurs, if not actual professionals. The choreography was excellent although the one thing that was missing was the bone-shaking intensity you would have got in a real match, which tended to give the action sequences an air of amateurism about them. That said, this was set 16 years ago before the game became as truly professional as it is today, so I can forgive them to a degree.
I can appreciate that you non-rugby watchers wouldn't have necessarily picked up on the nuances of these sequences, but how could you if you don't know the game? The effort and skill required to make a break at international level is incredibly high, but we were shown the attempts which were sucessful, which may give the illusion that it's easy to run around the opposition and score a try. They may have benefitted from showing a few occasions where it wasn't so easy and they were held up, just to give some context.
As for the accents, I felt that they had been toned down a bit. Listen to Mandela and a standard south african accent and you'll find them a lot heavier and more gutteral than those portrayed here. I didn't have a problem understanding, but as I pointed out earlier I have a lot of saffer friends so I'm used to it. It's an interesting point though, how much you should concede in order to boost international sales. I would hope that realism should be the predominant factor but I'm not stupid enough not to realise that films aren't just about the art but the profit - and that means accessability. To subtitle a film that is officially in the language you speak would be to concede that it's too difficult to understand. I'd rather that than a homogenisation of language though, so waddaya gonna do? |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 06:09:55
This is... I dunno, kind of an odd movie. The first half is all politics, the second half all match. I definitely see what BaftaBabe is saying about this not being a rugby movie -- this isn't structured like a sports movie and it doesn't hit any of the same buttons as a sports movie. If it does, it's along the lines of Miracle, which suggested that the 1980 hockey team lifted America out of its '70s malaise, but even there, it doesn't quite fit. It's all about politics really. We don't really learn much about any of the rugby players -- not even Francois Pienaar, Matt Damon's character. There's an amusing scene where a bunch of little South African kids mob the only black player Chester Williams, who comes across like South Africa's Jackie Robinson. But Chester only ever gets in a couple lines and a couple scenes; I feel like we're missing a lot of context. The big plays don't hit like highlights, and we're not ever expected to really follow or understand what happening . I'm really not quite sure what to make of this movie.
The point is not that a bunch of rugby players won a big game, as much as it is that Nelson Mandela carefully and rightfully made the South African team a symbol of post-apartheid unity, and luckily enough, they were good enough to win the game. It's a nice feel-good message that you can't get down on. It's a good message, and I'm sure the parallels between the newly elected Mandela and the newly elected Obama aren't coincidental. But without those usual triggers, the game isn't quite exciting. Maybe it was a foregone conclusion for you Europeans, but I don't know anything about the 1995 World Cup and it would have been nice for the film to treat me like I didn't already know the ending (as indeed Miracle did; believe me, I knew how that game was gonna end). It's kinda sorta a sports movie, kinda sorta a character study of a newly elected leader in a difficult situation, kinda sorta a movie about political maneuvering, it's kinda sorta a lot of things. I'm not sure it adds up to a movie about anything particular. Not a bad movie by any means, but I just don't know what to make of it.
|
| randall |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 18:49:37
If it ain't about rugby, howcome there's so much goddam rugby in it? I could have gone for some more truth & reconciliation... |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 23:17:25
I dunno ,.. all this rugby chit-chat ... Have just seen the film, much of which I watched through tears. Because it ain't about rugby. You did know that, dincha?
I'm not sure how long the feeling of unity lasted in S.A. after Mandela's ploy came good. Eastwood certainly got the whys and wherefors of Mandela's using the sport not only to start the healing process among the disparate peoples of his country, but as a political tool to instantly raise S.A. in the eyes of a world which had been ambivalent for so long.
The film is about two things really, neither of which is rugby. They are truth and reconciliation.
That's it.
PS Eastwood's direction has become so accomplished you can't see any of the joins. At times it plays like a home movie. And I mean that in a good way. 
PPS The acting is terrific.
Truth. Reconciliation.
|
| randall |
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 19:52:34
I note that my favorite cricketers, the Windies, are staring down the Aussies in Adelaide, behind Clobberin' Chris Gayle!
I actually know very little about cricket, but during a tour of Scotland about ten years ago, the Windies were on telly at every inn we visited. The first bowler I ever saw was Curtly Ambrose: a wild man! And Brian Lara is now legend as a batsman. I have very little idea what's actually going on, but I could still watch all day.
EDIT: And the Aussies came back to trounce, making a draw the best the Windies can hope for in this Test... |
| AC |
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 18:14:45
Geez, lighten up, yo. Sean and I have a long-running Australia vs. New Zealand debate going on, and love to bait one another.
All that's of note here is that the choking that New Zealand did as a result of poisoning is nothing compared to the choking they did in '99 (France), '03 (the mighty Wallabies), and '07 (France again). Whether they were poisoned or not is not really of interest to me - I just like revving up Kiwis, and it sounds like you're nice and revved up. Objective achieved. |
| rugbyrhino |
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 02:56:18
quote:
Originally posted by AC
That's because it's BLOODY FICTION, Sean!! (the poisoning story, that is)
You mob were outplayed in the final fair and square - I'm not sure I buy the 'SA were hopeless' thread since there's absolutely no way they would have missed qualifying for RWC 95 regardless of where they played. They'd only been back in world rugby for 4 years and hadn't won anything yet, but they had (and have) a powerhouse provincial competition which guaranteed they'd compete when the Apartheid ban was lifted. That, and the qualificaion process for RWC guarantees spots to all major rugby nations (SA, NZ, Aus, Eng, Ire, Fra, Scot, Italy, Argentina, Wales, even Canada and the US!) and the little guys fight it out for the final few spots. They were alway bound to win a World Cup quickly - doing it in SA was quicker than expected but fair enough if you consider the home ground advantage. As an Australia fan I'm not sure I want to watch Invictus, but I am glad it's exposing more North Americans to the game they play in heaven.
1987, Sean. 1987.
Go you Wallabies!
A reality check on non-fiction for my Australian mate:
There is a book written by Mandela's chief bodyguard who also went on to guard the All Blacks during the 1995 World Cup. Rory Steyn - One Step Behind Mandela. He has a whole chapter titled "The All Blacks and Food Poisoning." That final was epic, but a film should have been made about the epic effort put in by a POISONED All Black side playing at HIGH ALTITUDE and almost winning. Indeed this same All Black side went on to beat this same so-called Invictus Sprinkbok side 6 times out of the next 7 meetings. Please bear in mind, the All Blacks weren't food poisoned in those games, so it was hardly fair on the Springboks.
Rory Steyn writes: the "illness" which had swept through the team had a major impact on the All Blacks' preparation for the final. "I had to endure accusations of complicity in this, from New Zealand officials, and I was very angry that this was allowed to happen in my country - to people in my care," Steyn said. Rory Steyn says the All Blacks were the best team in the competition - "against the Ellis' Park altitude and against food poisoning they ran South Africa close into extra time, so close.
"Laurie Mains(NZ coach), now the highly popular coach of the Cats(in 2000), says that he'll go to his grave wondering what would have happened if the All Blacks had not been sick," Steyn said in the book. Mains employed a private investigator in an attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery. Steyn said the investigator reported back that a Far Eastern betting syndicate had paid a waitress called Suzie at the All Blacks' hotel to put something in their water. "South African rugby fans remained sceptical of this theory and preferred to put it down to sour Kiwi grapes," Steyn said. "To my fellow South Africans I want to say this: Stop all those cheap jokes about Suzie, the food poisoning and whingeing Kiwis. It happened. There is no doubt that the All Blacks were poisoned two days before the final. "The All Black team never whinged about it. If anybody whinged it was their media and boy can they whinge. "In fact the New Zealand team management took a decision not to use the poisoning as an excuse, not to even mention it."
This is an eye witness account from a credible South African. Care to rebut?
Personally I think the Suzie was concocted to throw off the Main's investigation. It is a fact, that for that fateful meal only, the All Blacks were separated from the public. This suggests a more orchestrated operation than some lone waitress. Afterall we are talking about the South African government. Fair play has never been their strong suit.
|
| randall |
Posted - 12/07/2009 : 13:26:37
I'll be interested to read your views on the rugby issue, BB. Don't forget to report back when you finally see INVICTUS. You're so right that sporting rules should not intrude upon the flowing narrative, but let's concede that the flowing narrative of this particular film is all about rugby. All we're explicitly told is that a forward pass is not allowed, and that's in a children's clinic held by Matt Damon. How about just two or three more minutes at that same clinic? Rugby is to American football as cricket is to American baseball, but the rules aren't backward/forward compatible, as any fan of any of those four sports knows. The rest of INVICTUS's tech details are so tight that this one jumps out at us Americans. At least this American. |
| Sean |
Posted - 12/07/2009 : 03:17:53
Picky picky! 
Confession time: I haven't watched a game of rugby for 2-3 years, not even a tiny part of a match. I've lost interest in all sport unless it's cricket. I blame the 10-month rugby season, it's total overkill and caused me to lose interest in all of it. |
| AC |
Posted - 12/07/2009 : 00:44:58
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, I'll remind you that the mighty Wallabies choked their way out of the last world cup before the mighty AB's did! 
An HOUR before - nothing but a matter of scheduling...
At least the team that beat us made the RWC final...! |
|
|
