First of all, I have to say: this film as a whole still disappoints me.
The reason is: it is obvious that Morgan Freeman's black South African president is merciful, and his thoughts have long gone beyond the narrow scope of personal emotions. He is kind and amiable, loves the South African people in his heart, and is superior in wisdom. He will be stubborn for many years. The unresolved black and white gap was perfectly eliminated through a football game, but after watching the film, it gave me an understatement and a natural feeling.
The inevitable ups and downs and obstacles are not shown in the film with strong contradictions and conflicts. In particular, because of the president's high expectations and kind care, the teams with extremely poor results before, a visit to a prison and an interaction with black children can turn corruption into magic at the moment of the World Cup? ! Since they have always been a very hard rugby team, can the technical problems be solved completely with the support of thousands of South African fathers? I really have a question mark.
But we all know that this film is true. Isn't the reason why it is called "turning corruption into magic" in the history of South Africa and even the history of world sports because it sounds magic at first glance? But the film does not give a solid account of how this miracle was brought about.
Speaking of acting: Morgan Freeman's performance is down-to-earth. I don't know if the real Mandela behaved like that, but what I saw in Freeman was more of an old-fashioned and undisguised exhaustion. He spoke slowly, with a slight hunchback. But apart from the reappearance of the 30-year prison life scene, there is no other particularly moving material. Perhaps it is precisely because the film is full of materials that the director thinks can be "moving people's hearts", but it makes every strength lessened. Many, such as his care for each subordinate. I think if a president is like this, he is really great, but a character in a movie with such a style may not have the same effect on the audience's mind. So this may be the reason why such biographies of characters whose inner worlds have become immortals and become Buddhas are difficult to shoot. With the addition of the director's personal artistic treatment, they will be criticized by history lovers as "arbitrarily distorting history", which is completely restored without any treatment. Due to the limitation of space, it can only be spread evenly, and it will be called "a cup of unconvincing boiled water" by fans. After all, the extremely important 30-year prison life that forged him can only be enhanced by Damon's locked eyes. How can a mortal let go of the damage caused by his skin color and hatred after he is released from prison, forgive him and send him People who are in prison and love everyone on this land even more. We cannot get the answer from this film. What is shown before our eyes is already a great and tenacious soul full of wisdom and compassion.
Matt Damon is one of my all-time favorite American actors. His performance is characterized by being infinitely close to the character's soul. Of course, that is a harsh statement. Basically, he can become every character he plays. So his performance is always believable, there is no trace of performance, we never see Matt Damon, but the character in the film. It is a pity that there is not much room for him to develop his acting skills in this film, and his lines are also very limited. In this film, Francis, the captain of the South African national rugby team, is justified because he is heavy. He is the core of the team. How to fully implement this to the entire team after comprehending the president's thoughts, and successfully improve the team's strength in a short period of time? It's one of the highlights of the film. But it's a pity, at least I haven't seen much worthwhile plot account. Only in the last game, his two sentences "We have to keep an eye on XXX, no matter where he gets the ball, our people have to keep up immediately" and "We have to defend in the last 7 minutes, defending, defending and defending". It played a key role and laid a key foundation for the final victory of the game, but still, are these two sentences enough to improve the technical level of the team? He has always been the captain, and under the premise that techniques and tactics are under his control, and the level of the team members is constant, it shouldn't be because everyone has a genetic mutation, right?
So, for me, only the last game is the highlight of the film. The rugby game that is complete and real to the breath is very exciting to watch and has a strong sense of presence. In addition, the small details of many people watching the game throughout the show are quite brilliant. The little black boy was scolded by the white policeman on the street and finally sat in the car and listened to the game with three people. After the game was won, he tried his best to restrain his impulses, just clenched his hands, and the black bodyguard hugged by the emotional white audience, the subtle change in his facial expression, the kind of heartfelt happiness finally broke through the anger towards the previous white people, Blooming on the face... All these details make the shadow of Clint Eastwood visible.
But other people generally rate the film highly, so I can't help but wonder if I'm missing something in the viewing process? Or is there another reason? This is unknown.
View more about Invictus reviews
