‘Invictus’ conveys important message for America (4/5)

Invictus

Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon and Tony Kgoroge
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Rating: PG-13.
Running time: 2 hours, 14 minutes

Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
— William Ernest Henley

From the eloquent directorial mind of Clint Eastwood comes one of the most inspirational films of the past year — “Invictus,” based on the true story of South African President Nelson Mandela’s venture to unite his apartheid-torn land by way of the national rugby team.

The premise itself seems contrary — the notably physical, aggressive game of rugby promoting peace and fellowship. But many sports fans will agree that there’s hardly a more unifying experience than cheering for the same team, especially on the national level (ask any soccer fan how they felt after the U.S. pulled out a narrow tie with England last World Cup, or when Landon Donovan scored the overtime goal that catapulted America into the second round).

“Invictus” begins with the induction of Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) as the first black president of South Africa. He arrives at his office to find all Caucasians packing their things with the assumption that Mandela will hire only black South Africans.

Cue Mandela’s first speech of inspiration, in which he assures the staff that “What’s past is past. We look to the future now.”

But Mandela realizes that he cannot bind a country with what many bitter whites would perceive as empty, lofty words — he must find a way to unite them on their own level. He expresses this in his first meeting with François Pienaar (Matt Damon), the captain of the South African rugby team, the Springboks:

“But how do we get them to be better than they think they can be? That is very difficult, I find. Inspiration, perhaps. How do we inspire ourselves to greatness when nothing less will do? How do we inspire everyone around us? I sometimes think it is by using the work of others.”

Although the Springboks are, frankly, not very good, Mandela sees an opportunity to join South Africa together in cheering for their national team in the 1995 Rugby World Cup hosted by South Africa.

Pienaar is faced with the difficult task of motivating his own team to greatness — personally and professionally. They are assigned to give black village children rugby lessons, a project first viewed with scorn. But when the players see the children and realize the effect they are having, their level of pride in themselves and their country begins to increase.

The rugby team is also given a tour of the prison that Mandela was held in for 27 years, an emotional experience for Pienaar. Mandela had given him a copy of the poem that had kept his heart, soul and mind afloat throughout the dark periods of hard labor and imprisonment — “Invictus,” a Latin word meaning “unconquered,” a poem written by Englishman William Ernest Henley in 1875.

A wonderful subplot in “Invictus” is Mandela adding four white South Africans to his team of black bodyguards. “The Rainbow Nation starts here,” he tells his angered head of security. “Reconciliation starts here.”

This inspirational and highly quotable film is something I believe everyone should watch, if only for the message of putting aside pettiness for the good of the country (something America could take a lesson in, I think).

Freeman does an absolutely incredible job as Nelson Mandela. And, really, who better to play the icon? Freeman looks born to play this role, and it’s said that Mandela himself said that Freeman is the only actor who would be able to properly portray him.

For his part, Damon does well, but his role is fairly limited to the humble captain who “leads by example.”

The rugby matches themselves are all right, but the filmography tends to cheese up a bit during the moments meant to be portrayed as suspenseful or moving — Eastwood did so well allowing the actors and the story to build its own dramatics that I wish they had left the creativity out of the games, a traditionally emotional experience in its own right. It almost seemed that though they understood and accepted the nuances and subtleties of speech, they couldn’t understand the fervor that is naturally built behind a sporting event.

But despite the few weaknesses, “Invictus” is overall a very strong movie that I think everyone, especially our politicians, should watch. I think the feel of the movie is summed up by an early discussion between Mandela and his assistant, Brenda Mazibuko:

Brenda: You’re risking your political capital, you’re risking your future as our leader.
Mandela: The day I am afraid to do that is the day I am no longer fit to lead.

4 of 5 stars

'Robin Hood' misses the mark

"Robin Hood"

Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Rating: PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content.
Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

“Robin Hood” is like the Little Engine that Can’t.

When you’re not struggling to understand the marbles-in-their-mouths accents, you’re wading through endless scenes of swordplay in the hopes that you might find something to connect with.

It tries to be an epic masterpiece. Kind of. I mean, it has all the fixin’s for a truly delectable experience.
So what’s lacking?

Heart, for one. If you’re any sort of a “Braveheart” watcher you’ll know at once what I mean by being moved by and invested in a story.

Characterization, for another. How is it possible to have a 2 1/2 hour movie and only really know about a handful of characters? And even of those handful, little justice is given to any.

It’s simply impossible (for me, anyway) to not compare this movie to “Braveheart.” It’s a medieval piece starring a scruffy vigilante who rebels against authority for the greater good. But where “Braveheart” was a drama first and an action movie second, “Robin Hood” spins the genres around — to its misfortune.

Director Ridley Scott must have been aware that such comparisons would be made by the general audience. And though it’s expected, it is a bit unfair. “Robin Hood” is a perfectly decent movie with an adequate plot and plenty of (albeit not excessively gory) action.

Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard the Lionheart’s army who is caught up in wars of which he wants no part. Robin and some friends (including Little John) sneak away soon after the king’s death on the battlefield in the hopes of returning to normal lives in England, but a promise made to a dying knight sends Robin on a quest that will lead him to Nottingham where he meets the Lady Marion Loxley (a great performance by Cate Blanchett).

And while Robin would like nothing more than to enjoy a quiet life with Marion, death and mayhem come to him in the form of Godfrey (an oh-so-good-at-being-bad Mark Strong), who is threatening all of England with his aggressive methods of tax collection and a subtle threat of French invasion.
The English may have no problem repelling the French if they were united, but Richard the Lionheart’s brother, King John (Oscar Isaac), is a greedy, power-hungry dictator who excels at isolating his angry subjects.

It’s very sad to see this movie not be what it so badly wants to be. Scott should have loosened up on the reins, cut back most of the pointless action sequences and allowed “Robin Hood” to be what it is at its core — a character-driven tale.

The few performances that were actually given a decent amount of screen time were done expertly by the actors. Mark Strong is simply amazing, and Max von Sydow is one of the more stirring as Sir Walter Loxley.

As for Robin Hood’s band of Merry Men, their superficial personas and scant screentime left little the actors could build on. Too, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) is a mere nod to the legend and his character has little involvement in the film — a shame.

Scott tries to throw emotional viewers like me a bone with Robin discovering who is father was with the help of a “rise and rise again until lambs become lions” inscription — but the “revelation” isn’t at all surprising and you never really feel that empathy with Robin because you were never allowed the chance to connect with him.

It’s not a bad movie. But with a high budget, a respected director, a renowned cast and a storyline that just begs to be great, “Robin Hood” just never seems to hit its target.

Send movie suggestions or comments to rcrofut@fltimes.com.

3 of 5 stars

* * *

All good things must come to an end.

And so it is that LOST, the best television show ever (yes, I did just use a sweeping generality that most people won’t agree with), is wrapping up its entire series from 9 to 11:30 p.m. Sunday on ABC.

Personally, I have no idea how they’re going to do it. It seems like too much is left to be answered. And I’m more than a little sad that this is the end, but I’m also very excited to see what J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have thought up.

So check in next week to see my thoughts on the finale and on the series as a whole.

Also, if you’re a humongous LOST fan like me, we’d like you to contact our reporter Amanda Folts at afolts@fltimes.com or 789-3333 ext. 257 to talk about the finale.

Depp ‘amazing’ as Dillinger (3.5/5)

Public Enemies

Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard
Directed by: Michael Mann
Rating: R for gangster violence and some language.
Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

“The only thing that’s important is where somebody’s going.”
“Where are you going?”
“Anywhere I want.”

In times of hardship and struggle, for some, it’s a time of infinite possibilities.

Director Michael Mann reminds us of this in “Public Enemies,” a gangster movie focusing on the life of the infamous John Dillinger.

Mann tosses you in headfirst to the gangster lifestyle of the 1930s, complete with the high (and low) society, routine heists and extraordinary getaways. “Public Enemies” makes you yearn for the days of fedoras, snazzy nicknames and gangster suits.

Johnny Depp stars as Dillinger, and, as expected, does an amazing job. Cavalier and unfettered, Dillinger does what he wants when he wants. Sick of jail? No problem, we’ll just leave.

Just as Dillinger was sensationalized while alive, he may be even more so now decades later, taking on a modern Robin Hood characterization. Mann and Depp capitalize on Dillinger’s charisma, portraying him as an inviting protagonist and not necessarily a dangerous criminal.

The movie picks up in the beginning of the end for Dillinger and pals, including “Pretty Boy” Floyd and “Baby Face” Nelson.

Tired of his hands being tied by state jurisdictions, Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) instructs Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to use whatever means necessary to take down the gangsters and end their reign.

A main focus of “Enemies” is the love affair between Dillinger and “common girl” Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). While their initial reactions are engaging, the swiftness of their relationship caught me off guard. Although Billie is a common piece of furniture in the film, you never really get a sense of who she is and how she feels being a girlfriend to one of the most recognizable and wanted men in America.

There are many, many gangster cronies to keep track of. But, for the most part, if you can familiarize yourself with Dillinger and Nelson and perhaps one or two others, don’t spend the movie wondering who that guy with the pistol is. If they don’t make it clear, you probably don’t need to know on a first watch.

It’s interesting getting a look at the infant FBI, and Bale pulls off a spectacular performance as the agent who hunted down many of the notorious gangsters.

But, for all that it is, “Public Enemies” makes the mistake of changing history to ease storytelling. A tweak here and there could be considered “creative license,” but in reality, many of the notable deaths that the movie portrays did not happen until long after Dillinger’s death. This lack of accuracy in a movie made specifically about a certain real person in a certain real time definitely drops the film down a few points.

“Public Enemies” is about more than just Dillinger and Purvis, however. It’s about the changing landscape of American history and the desire to shed daily responsibilities for a life of drive and impulse.

An interesting aspect of these gangsters that Mann failed to pursue was their youthful ages: At their times of death, Dillinger was 31, Floyd was 30 and Nelson was 25. They lived hard and fast; as Depp’s Dillinger notes, “We’re having too good a time today. We ain’t thinking about tomorrow.”

3 1/2 of 5 stars

Nothing glorious about ‘Basterds’ (.5/5)

Inglourious Basterds

Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Rating: R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
Running time: 2 hours, 23 minutes.

I’m usually known for liking more movies than any one person should.

I try to stay positive and watch movies with an angle of wanting to enjoy it, not wanting to criticize it.

But, I’ll tell you, “Inglourious Basterds” is a horrible, horrible movie.

I am not a Quentin Tarantino fan. I loathed “Kill Bill.” But I am a believer in second chances.

Maybe I shouldn’t be.

I went into “Inglourious Basterds” already a little miffed about the spelling (don’t even get me started on people who encourage bad grammar for no reason ...) but intrigued by what I thought was going to be the premise.

If you’re like me, you might have thought the movie was about a team of Jewish soldiers (the titled Basterds) attempting to kill Hitler.

Well, you’d be half right.

But as for the other half? It drags the interesting part about these soldiers so far down into a muddy hole that they would never be able to climb out.

Most of the torturous 2-and-a-half-hour runtime is spent with people sitting at tables and talking.

And talking.

And talking.

And then you find out that none of their talking really mattered anyway.

In between these excessively pointless and overstretched periods of conversation are sporadic gunfights, scalpings and even more talking.

Amazing, though, that with all this talking, you won’t remember any of the Basterds. You might remember a few key things after thinking about it, but they never get a chance to distinguish themselves. In 2 and a half hours. The only one you’re sure to remember is Brad Pitt as their leader, Lieutenant Aldo Raine, and that’s only because he’s Brad Pitt. Otherwise you would only remember him as that guy with the twang.

Raine and his crew of vengeful Jews seem more like footnotes than the main cast.

The other storyline? Barely worth mentioning even though it takes over half the film to unfold. The only good thing about that part is there are fewer characters to talk.

But the true main character of the movie is Tarantino himself. Rather than letting the movie grow and change organically, he forces it into the dreadfully prolonged exchanges that are there to make you think this paper-thin plot has any real depth.

It doesn’t.

From a director whose last decent work was in 1994 (“Pulp Fiction”), you’d think Tarantino would actually start to care about what he does.

But the fact that a majority of the characters were created for no other reason than to insert Tarantino’s pals makes me think that he doesn’t really care about the end result, he’s just having fun.
And that’s all well and good, but don’t subject us to it.

I am absolutely befuddled as to the high critical ratings. I don’t know what movie they were watching, but don’t be fooled, it wasn’t the same one I saw.

The ONLY reason to watch “Inglourious Basterds” is for the rare appearance of Brad Pitt, and, for fans of “The Office,” B.J. Novak. Otherwise, take this film off your Netflix list while you still have a chance.

.5 of 5 stars

‘War’ food for thought (3.5/5)

Charlie Wilson's War

Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Directed By: Mike Nichols.
Rating: R for strong language, nudity/sexual content and some drug use.
Running time: 1 hours, 42 minutes.

“Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007) tells the remarkably true story of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson who, with the aid of rich Texas socialite Joanne Herring and CIA case officer Gust Avrakotos, managed to seemingly undermine the entire Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 1980s.

The film itself, directed by Mike Nichols (“Closer”), is engaging and witty, full of political insights and sarcasm. Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman fill their roles immaculately. The moderately short running time also keeps things crisp and at a nice pace, but may lose someone not fully paying attention.

While a blind eye is turned to the tribulations facing Afghanistan by the United States government, Herring (Roberts) refuses to sit idly by. Instead, she throws fundraiser after fundraiser in order to “educate” the people and inform them as to the true events, especially those that occur in the refugee camps.

Herring invites the womanizing, party-loving member of the House Appropriations Committee Congressman Wilson (Hanks) to a fundraiser, and through her womanly charms convinces him to visit the Afghan camps themselves. Faced with the horrors of senseless death and mutilated children, Wilson returns with a new desire to aid in any way possible.

Avrakotos (Hoffman), tired of the government’s indifferent attitude and eager to prevent a potential catastrophic situation in Afghanistan, also turns to Wilson in the hopes of raising more appropriated funds for the torn area.

In the midst of this, Wilson is also put under investigation for recreational drug use by none other than Rudy Giuliani. While to many congressmen this would be a devastating political career blow, as Avrakotos tells Wilson: “As long as the press sees sex and drugs behind the left hand, you can park a battle carrier behind the right hand and no one’s gonna ... notice.”

The pair continue to secretly rally a host of Middle Eastern countries while buddying up to American congressmen in order to raise more and more money, eventually supplying the Afghans with enough weaponry to defend their border.

Hoffman’s portrayal of Gust absolutely makes this movie. His brilliant comedic timing coupled with his ability to make you believe that he truly cares about each turn of events makes him the character to watch. Too, Hanks succeeds as the unlikely hero Charlie Wilson.

The film drives home many thought-provoking points:

• Politics as usual — Would Wilson have been able to accomplish what he did if he were from another district, and therefore unsure about re-election? Elected officials face a difficult choice: Toeing the line in an effort to keep as many constituents pleased as possible, or completely crossing the line in an effort to do what may be best but what may also ultimately cost them their career.

• The ethics code — Was this underhanded, covert operation ethical? Should we have given these arms to the Afghans, knowing that if the Soviets found out it could have sparked an immense war? Could these billions of dollars have been better spent elsewhere?

• The role of the press — Is the media truly more concerned about juicy gossip than what’s actually going on in the world? And if so, how do we change this?

“Charlie Wilson’s War” is not only a film to entertain and illuminate one man’s unique life’s path, but is also one that resonates with current events. Watch it, enjoy it and think about it.

3.5 of 5 stars