jump to navigation

Movie Review: Hereafter (2010) February 14, 2011

Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews, Paranormal, Reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Sure, Invictus was just okay, but it seems to me old Clint Eastwood can do no wrong these days.  There is a quiet confidence in his approach, a lovely subtlety in his pacing and pauses.  And no matter what, he manages to evoke powerful, genuine emotional responses from his audiences (I mean, come on — Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Torino…).

Eastwood’s latest effort, Hereafter, is no different.  It’s a dangerous project because, as the title suggests, the film is about death and what comes after, which makes it prone to soppy melodrama and manipulation.  And of course, the afterlife is a topic often subject to ridicule and parody, so there’s the additional hurdle of keeping the film serious without tipping it over the edge.

Somehow, some way, Eastwood delivers.  Pound-for-pound, Hereafter is perhaps not one of Eastwood’s greatest films, but it’s certainly one of his better ones — and it holds great potential to be one of his most popular films.

It tells three separate stories about three different characters — Marie (Cecile de France), a well-known French television journalist; George (Matt Damon), an American factory worker who just gave up on his old job; and Marcus (Frankie McLaren), a British boy with an older twin brother and a crackhead mother.  I won’t say much more than that except that each of their lives is touched by death and what lies beyond.

Perhaps it’s just my fascination with the film’s themes and/or my appreciation for Eastwood’s direction, but I was totally engrossed by Hereafter from start to finish.  Sceptics might have a natural bias against the film because it lays quite a lot out on the table (similar to say atheists towards The Passion of the Christ or fundamentalist Christians towards The Da Vinci Code — even though it’s fiction), but those who keep an open mind will find it hard not to be moved by at least one of the three stories in the film.  It’s a shame that many people will simply scoff at this film because of its subject matter and try to discredit it on other grounds.  I’m just glad religion played an almost non-existent role in all of this.

Anyway, I loved it.  Eastwood butchered the ending in my opinion with a pointless sequence but apart from that I found it beautiful, absorbing, poignant, and ultimately very satisfying.

4.5 stars out of 5

Advertisements

Movie Review: Invictus (2009) March 20, 2010

Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

I decided a while ago that Clint Eastwood doesn’t make bad movies.  Some are exceptional, of course, but none fall below “very good”.  Invictus, his latest film starring Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela (who else?) and Matt Damon as François Pienaar, captain of South African rugby team, is one of Eastwood’s weaker films.  But it is still, well, very good.

Invictus is a rather formulaic story about two men – one a politician, the other a sports star – who attempt to unite a nation through the 1995 Rugby World Cup.  There’s the set up, the journey, and the climax – all the elements of an inspirational sports movie are there.

But the thing is, Invictus is a true story.  From the history to the main characters to the events that changed the world, almost all of the film is true. That’s what makes Invictus so amazing.  There’s no artificial manipulation injected to make you feel inspired.  Knowing that the things depicted actually happened is more than enough to give you goosebumps.  Even if you know what happens from start to finish, Invictus is still a worthwhile experience.  If you don’t know anything about what happened, even better.

However, I had a couple of problems with the film.

First, though I usually enjoy Clint’s imagery, some of the stuff in Invictus felt a little heavy handed.  When you can tell immediately what the director is trying to achieve with a shot or a sequence of shots, regardless of how well-intentioned it is, you get the feeling that you’re being manipulated.  That happens a few times in Invictus.

Second, the depiction of rugby wasn’t very satisfying.  Part of this is because the film is confined to what happened in real life, though it wouldn’t have hurt to make the games a little more exciting.  People who have never watched the sport won’t have much of a clue what is going on, and frankly, will probably think it is a boring, brutish game where all points are scored on penalty kicks.  It would have made things more riveting had they at least tried to show some of the sublime running and passing the game is known for, rather than simply tackles and scrums which make the sport appear like a constant mass orgy.

As for the performances, both Freeman and Damon are very good, although I wouldn’t have handed either Oscar nominations.  There was never any question that Freeman is the perfect actor to play Nelson Mandela, and Damon’s stocky physique (despite his height) makes him a believable rugby player.  Maybe it’s because the two actors fit the roles so well physically that their performances don’t stand out as much.

So, I found Invictus to be a very good film that fell a couple of notches short of great.  In my opinion, it’s one of those movies where you marvel at the true story and the real-life people depicted in it more than the quality of the film itself.

3.5 stars out of 5

%d bloggers like this: