REVIEW: Now You See Me 2

10 06 2016

Can two rabbits come out of the same metaphorical hat? Or two tricks from the same sleeve? Jon M. Chu’s “Now You See Me 2” does not really attempt such a feat. Rather than make a straightforward sequel to the 2013 magician caper, it goes in a totally new direction – essentially functioning like an “Ocean’s 11” style heist film. This entertains, sure, but it feels like a betrayal of the series’ core conceits.

The more interesting change from predecessor to sequel, however, is the transition of target for the magicians-cum-social crusaders known as the Four Horsemen. In the first film, their Robin Hood act harnessed the populist rage of the Occupy movement and used their cunning to get back at financiers who profited off the recession. Now, they face down a titan of technology with tyrannical aspirations of acquiring a chip that can surveil and sabotage any network on Earth. (On a pedantic note, it’s somewhat disappointing – yet maybe somewhat admirable – that the businessman is played by Daniel Radcliffe and no meta magic jokes are made around his appearance.)

Like “Spectre” last year, “Now You See Me 2” dives headfirst into Snowden-era debates over digital privacy. It only offers real commentary about the freedom from being seen in its conclusion, another predictably drawn-out labyrinthine affair. The film is primarily focused on the thrill; perhaps as it should be. When highly focused, as in an extended sequence showing the slight-of-hand of the disappearing card trick, it rightly claims the descriptor of “magical.”

But more often, it’s a lot of back-and-forth banter between the bickering magicians. The new presence of Lizzy Caplan’s enchantress Lula, a one-note annoying chatterbox with an aggravating infatuation for Dave Franco’s Jack Wilder, makes the interactions chafe a little more than before. Their dynamics feel like a potential deleted storyline from 2009’s “The Proposal,” the only other writing credit from “Now You See Me 2” scripter Pete Chiarelli. His sensibility coexists somewhat uneasily with writer Ed Solomon – the only credited writer returning from the original – whose previous work includes buddy action flicks like “Men in Black” and “Charlie’s Angels.” Their tag team gives the film a little bit of everything, just not a whole lot of consistency. C+ / 2stars





REVIEW: Olympus Has Fallen

3 03 2015

Lest we forget, the sight of the White House, the very icon of the American Presidency, in flames could have been a non-fiction tale (or a Paul Greengrass film). On September 11, 2001, United Flight 93 was likely headed to Washington, D.C. to take out the beloved building. So given that history, a modicum of respect – not even Christopher Nolan levels of seriousness – and reverence seems due for the landmark.

None of this registered with the makers of “Olympus Has Fallen,” however. Director Antoine Fuqua seeks to inspire anger by focusing on the sight of the edifice under siege, yet the film just feels too cartoonish in its destruction for any real emotions to register. (This is a movie where someone gets killed by trauma to the head inflicted by a bust of Abraham Lincoln, after all.)

Furthermore, the trigger-happy festival of gore devalues innocent lives taken by terrorists – NOT a smart move when trying to invoke the legacy of 9/11. As Gerard Butler’s Mike Banning seeks to rescue the prisoners of the North Korean attackers who take over the White House, the stakes feel rather low. In terms of hostage movies, this feels about on the level of a bank robbery.

“Olympus Has Fallen” will not even leave you chanting “USA! USA!” And, keep in mind, this is a movie that stars Morgan Freeman. What a squandered opportunity. C2stars





REVIEW: Transcendence

8 11 2014

As Christopher Nolan’s director of photography, Wally Pfister has lensed some of the most iconic images of recent cinematic history.  Be it the field of lightbulbs in “The Prestige,” the stairwell in “Inception,” or practically any image in “The Dark Knight,” he certainly knows how to captivate with the visual language of film.

Transcendence” finds Pfister behind the camera calling the shots, not merely setting them up, for the first time.  While no ultimate judgment should be rendered on a filmmaker after just one feature, Pfister might not want to give up his day job as Christopher Nolan’s cinematographer just yet.  His debut is a start-to-finish mess, mostly because of its almost incoherently assembled script.

The film begins rather simply and intelligibly with Johnny Depp’s Dr. Will Caster, a scientist attempting to create a fully sentient computer, getting assassinated by a radical anti-technology group R.I.F.T.  But once he dies and his consciousness is uploaded into a computer, “Transcendence” shatters into fragments.  Only Caster’s wife (Rebecca Hall) stays loyal; meanwhile, the rest of the supporting cast spreads out into multiple subplots that divide attention and diminish effectiveness.

Caster’s research companion Max (Paul Bettany) defects to join R.I.F.T. under the leadership of Bree (Kate Mara).  The G-men of the FBI (Cillian Murpy, Morgan Freeman) are also making moves of their own to stop the supercomputer.  Meanwhile, Caster’s digital brain grows stronger by the minute … so be very afraid, because technology is scary!

Pfister is not even able to translate this technophobia into any memorable images to at least portray visually what the story is unable to communicate narratively.  He begins “Transcendence” with a shot of broken cell phones lying around, practically begging to be considered a zeitgeist film.  But of all the sentiments Pfister invokes, not one of them comes even remotely close to resembling the film’s titular sensation.  He certainly knows how to make noise, but hopefully in his next film, Pfister will actually have something interesting to say.  C-1halfstars





REVIEW: The Lego Movie

31 07 2014

Back in 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty” gave audiences a pulse-pounding conclusions as it showed SEAL Team 6’s bold mission to kill Osama bin Laden in stunning detail.  Yet even as gripping as that was, I couldn’t help but chuckle a little bit when I saw who they cast as the finger behind the trigger: Chris Pratt, who I knew and loved as Andy Dwyer (and his FBI alter ego Burt Macklin) on the TV comedy “Parks & Recreation.”

Well, as it turns out, Kathryn Bigelow was as right about Pratt as an action star as she was about Jeremy Renner as a fine dramatic actor.  And now it’s Pratt who’s laughing all the way to the bank.  “The Lego Movie” proves that Pratt doesn’t even have to be present in the flesh to lead a movie towards some very fun adventure.

Pratt is like the world’s oldest 7-year-old, a lovable, innocent kid that you can’t help but root for because he reminds you of all the naive optimism of a simpler state of mind.  When his plastic Lego teddy bear of a character, Emmet Brickowoski, chants the film’s theme “Everything Is Awesome,” it’s hard not to smile a little bit.  He’s not just singing from a place of pure naïveté like Selena Gomez on “Barney,” but also from a position of contagious optimism that makes Emmet quite irresistible.

Thankfully, the writing/directing dynamic duo of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (they who blessed us with the gift of “21 Jump Street“) matches Pratt’s enthusiasm throughout “The Lego Movie.”  They bring a boundless imagination to the project, resembling the kind of creativity that Legos themselves spark in children all over the world.  What they ultimately construct is wild, wacky, and quite inspired. Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Lucy

26 07 2014

Lucy” may well be the most peculiar movie of summer 2014.  Director Luc Besson strangely amalgamates high-brow ambitions with B-movie antics.  It amounts to a simple-minded film about big ideas, something far less than Besson achieved on “The Professional,” but I’d be lying if I didn’t have a decent amount of fun on the ride.

Clearly Besson feels more comfortable in the realm of the non-human, staging vibrantly kinetic car chases and action sequences with flashy visuals.  These sequences have a definite panache to them, which is good given that they largely have to power the entire film.

Besson keeps “Lucy” moving at a swift clip, so brisk that you almost don’t have time to think about how excruciatingly bad his inane dialogue is.  It’s obvious that he views words as means to the ends of expression and plot development, not ends in and of themselves.  Worst of all, these unimaginative lines are delivered by Scarlett Johansson and company with feeling equivalent to rote recitation, rendering the film’s human element unintentionally laughable.

The film’s editing could have used some work, too.  Besson begins the film by heavy-handedly intercutting animals and prey with the events of the story (a clumsy attempt to be artful).  Then, he cross-cuts an intellectual lecture given by a professor played by Morgan Freeman (an obvious ploy to be taken seriously on an intellectual level) between multiple scenes of Lucy.  If you think about it, the edit really makes no sense as it either has no sense of time … or Freeman’s Samuel Norman is giving the world’s longest address!

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Now You See Me

10 06 2013

Now You See MeNo one would ever mistake Louis Letterier’s “Now You See Me” for Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige,” that’s for certain.  But if not living up to the Nolan standard was a crime punishable by death in Hollywood, we’d have corpses lining Sunset Boulevard.

We pretty much know the drill in these magic movies by now and have come to expect the unexpected.  However, even if you know that the rug is going to get pulled out from underneath you, that’s better than watching a mind-numbing formulaic genre pic.  “Now You See Me” at least engages the audience and tries to get them guessing.  Granted, the film is only about as deep as the bag of popcorn.  But at least it’s something!

Leterrier does a half-decent job of playing to the film’s strengths: the off-color comedic stylings of Jesse Eisenberg and Woody Harrelson, the allure of Isla Fisher and Dave Franco, and that singular authority commanded by Morgan Freeman when he comes into the frame.  Less effective is the FBI/Interpol duo of Mark Ruffalo and Melanie Laurent that try to get to the bottom of the magic.  They’re an awkward pairing made worse by their segueing into a dumb and forced romance. (Sorry to semi-spoil, but you’ll see it coming the second they make eye contact.)

The film packs enough twists and turns to stay captivating and interesting even through the duller Ruffalo/Laurent segments.  Leterrier is smart enough not to dwell on the novelty and gimmickry of magic as audiences have been numbed to its power thanks to decades of CGI; his emphasis on the thrill and the audacity is what makes “Now You See Me” such fun.  Though it takes one surprise twist too many, it’s still a highly enjoyable movie that makes for great summer entertainment.  The fact that such a feat is accomplished with little more than a well-imagined story is quite magical indeed.  B2halfstars





REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises

29 07 2012

I don’t force every domestic drama I see to stand up to “American Beauty.”  Nor do I weigh every romantic comedy against “Annie Hall.”  So in a sense, why should I make a superhero movie stand up to “The Dark Knight?”  I consider it every bit as paradigmatic as the two previously mentioned Best Picture winners, so an apples-to-apples comparison is hardly even possible.  It’s more like apples-to-Garden of Eden fruit.

Indeed, a number of directors have tried to make their genre films a little more in the mold of Christopher Nolan’s iconic tale of the Caped Crusader, such as Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man 2” and Matthew Vaughn’s “X-Men: First Class,” to little success.  Yet even “The Dark Knight Rises,” the sequel to the revolutionary film itself, can’t recreate its magic nor cast a comparable spell.  Perhaps its time to declare those heights unattainable to avoid further disappointments.  If Christopher Nolan himself can’t reach them, surely it is time for Hollywood to find its next golden goose.

“The Dark Knight Rises” also has the added disadvantage of being scrutinized as a Nolan film, not merely a post-“Dark Knight” facsimile.  Coming off an incredible decade of filmmaking (five supremely acclaimed films: “Memento,”  “Batman Begins,”  “The Prestige,”  “The Dark Knight,” and “Inception“), it is hardly premature to call him the Millenial equivalent of Steven Spielberg.  His movies are so good that they have merited many a repeat viewing, allowing dedicated fans to really analyze what makes his work so exceptional.  Now, it’s immediately recognizable when his films are not up to the sky-high standard he has set for himself.  For instance, in the opening scene of “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Read the rest of this entry »





Weekend Update – Golden Globes 2011 Live Blog!

15 01 2012

4:00 P.M.  E! has already started their Golden Globe coverage, so I guess it’s time for me to begin as well!  Time for the best of Hollywood (and television) to come out and get rewarded (or robbed).  Predictions will slowly trickle in as the stars grace the red carpet, but I’ll be writing from the arrivals to the awards to Ricky Gervais’ harsh quips.  With recaps, opinions, and insights, make “Marshall and the Movies” your companion for the Golden Globes!

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Red

26 01 2011

There’s more to the fun of “Red” than Helen Mirren firing away like a madman with a machine gun.  It’s an action movie not afraid to flash its AARP card, which makes its rather typical action and plot feel a lot fresher than it probably is.  With Bruce Willis finally embracing his age, rather than doing movie after movie that’s one “yippee-ki-yay” away from complete implausibility, it’s a nice change of pace for the action star that could signal better days ahead.

As Frank Moses, the retired and extremely dangerous (hence the acronym RED) former CIA agent, Willis is having a rough time adjusting to life after his time in black-ops.  He’s trying to do the whole suburban thing, but the only thing that gives him real joy is chatting with Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a federal pension phone customer service representative.  Of course, at 55, main street Americans only wish they could be receiving retirement benefits as opposed to unemployment benefits.

But whatever normalcy he built in suburbia is shattered as he’s drawn back into the bullet-ridden world by an attempt on his life.  Frank discovers that thanks to being part of a Guatemalan mission back in the ’80s, he’s being targeted for death.  Gathering up a gang of other Baby Boomers including the incredibly paranoid conspiracy theorist Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), Frank’s terminally ill mentor Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), and Victoria (Helen Mirren), a former assassin with class and grace.  Yet the best part of all is that Frank brings Sarah, oblivious to the perils of the, along for the ride.

The trigger-happy travelogue through the United States is a wild romp that excites and entertains at surprisingly high octane and high thrills.  At 110 minutes, the premise ages quickly and begins to drag a little bit.  Yet the entertainment is always solid as the bullets fly and bombs explode, even as the trek through the plot gets a little … dare I say it, old.  But it has a plot, and that’s more than I can say for most action movies nowadays.  B





Random Factoid #523

2 01 2011

Still living in 2010 with the factoid column as a report of celebrity death hoaxes hit Entertainment Weekly and caught my eyes.  They said that in the past year, the Internet has carried false death claims for Owen Wilson, Eddie Murphy, Adam Sandler, and Morgan Freeman.

I’m never one to believe these things, largely because I don’t have a Twitter or check it ever, so I’m not exposed to these false claims.  Only when a celebrity actually dies do I notice it on Facebook because suddenly everyone posts statuses.

I’ll never forget when Michael Jackson died and “RIP Michael” flooded Facebook.  If I recall, his death was the biggest spike in Internet traffic ever.  I remember I was on my way to see “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” when I heard he had collapsed, and then I got a text from my mom on my shattered iPhone that he had died.

And I’ll also never forget when Heath Ledger died.  I was having my second driving lesson of Driver’s Ed, and while sitting in the backseat, the radio DJ announced that he had died.  At first I didn’t believe it, but then they kept saying it between songs and I realized it had to be true.  Every high school girl died a little inside that night, and they took to Facebook with their grief.

So go away celebrity death hoaxes.  No one’s ever going to believe them unless they hear it from all angles.





FINCHERFEST: Se7en

25 09 2010

A real review of David Fincher’s work should begin with “Se7en,” the first movie he takes full credit for.  It was a financial success in 1995 and has since become an adored movie by fans on video.  The movie currently sits at #26 on IMDb’s Top 250 movies as voted by users, and in today’s installment of Fincherfest, I will attempt to explain what has made it so endearing over the past 15 years.

I’m a big fan of “Seven,” but I hate to say that I don’t think it’s quite as good as some people think it is.  According to Lisa Schwarzbaum, overrated is a big critical no-no word; however, since this is more a look in retrospect than a review, I don’t feel quite as bad using it.

Fincher does an excellent job directing a very cerebral world of horror, and as his first real directorial effort, it’s quite impressive.  Yet overall, I wasn’t quite as affected by it as I felt I should have been.  When it comes to serial killer movies, I much prefer “The Silence of the Lambs” and “No Country for Old Men.”

Yet I acknowledge that “Seven” has a very different kind of horror.  We aren’t meant to be freaked out by the murderer John Doe (Kevin Spacey).  We never see him committing any crimes, nor does he ever give us any indication that he might flip and kill another person.  He’s just like anyone you could round up off the streets, and that makes him all the more frightening.  John Doe is like Heath Ledger’s The Joker without a makeup and without any sense of humor.  The tacit implication is that all of us have the capability to be John Doe, something quite scary to suggest and not the kind of message you want to walk away from a movie having learned.  We never see the results of the killings, inspiring the audience to imagine the murder for themselves.  Anyone who can do so has the inherent ability to be Doe.

Such a killer is the last person Detective Somerset (Morgan Freeman, pre-God) wants to deal with in his waning hours on the job.  He and his replacement, Detective Mills (Brad Pitt), are drawn into the world of John Doe, who commits murders related to the Seven Deadly Sins.  Catching him requires intellect, and they delve into the classic work of Dante, Thomas Aquinas, and others to figure out his modus operandi.  The dialectic struggle between Somerset about to apathetically walk off the job and Mills eagerly awaiting his future is a fascinating backdrop to the rest of the brutal themes of the movie.

Apparently back in the ’90s, New Line Cinema advertised “Se7en” as a movie that you shouldn’t watch in the dark because that atmosphere would scare anyone to death.  I did just that, and I found the darkness to be nothing more than a fitting complement to the universe Fincher crafts.  It’s always muggy and rainy in the unidentified city where the murders take place, and the world view the movie espouses is bleaker than the weather.  According to Somerset, the world is worth fighting for, but it’s hardly a fine place.

The more you think about it, the more you realize Fincher’s challenge to our assumptions of what is good and what is evil.  The villain is defined … or is it?  Such an idea is a little unsettling to audiences, but that hasn’t kept it from being very well received.  Perhaps its forte isn’t in being a serial killer movie; the strength is in the social critique of the godlessness of society.





2009: Best Actor

5 03 2010

I’m wrapping up the in-depth analysis of this year’s Academy Awards with the Best Actor category. In a perfect world, I would have done the screenplays, director, and picture categories as well. But life happens, and things don’t always work out as planned.

Nevertheless, please enjoy this deeper look at the performances that got these actors here.

Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “The little things that help to turn Bridges into this character aren’t very obvious, yet I never felt like I was watching Jeff Bridges.”

He’s here because … he is an industry veteran with a lot of respect, and his four winless trips to the Oscars simply aren’t enough to honor such a great actor.

George Clooney in “Up in the Air”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “George Clooney remains the best in the business at playing visibly collected while emotionally perturbed beneath the surface.”

He’s here because … he’s an Academy favorite who is as good as he’s ever been in a beautifully nuanced performance.

Colin Firth in “A Single Man”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “Firth keeps the grief bubbling under the surface for most of the movie, and he makes George’s journey even more heart-rending with his subdued misery.”

He’s here because … he is immensely likable, and he finally gives a performance that can turn good feelings into awards attention.

Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “Morgan Freeman is remarkable as Mandela, and it is a performance that reminds us why he has such a revered status among actors.”

He’s here because … it’s Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela – a legend playing a legend.

Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

IN MY OWN WORDS: “Renner gives an absolute tour de force performance as James; he strips James down until he is emotionally raw.”

He’s here because … he’s finally found his breakout role at 39 in the little movie that could; who can resist that?

Marshall’s “Oscars”

I’ve seen all five of the nominees in this category, and I think they did a great job selecting here.  The only change I would make is replacing Morgan Freeman for Peter Sarsgaard in “An Education.”  Freeman did a great job in “Invictus,” but I felt like it was just him going through the motions.  He didn’t wow me.

Sarsgaard, on the other hand, dazzled me.  He was campaigned for Best Supporting Actor, but category fraud doesn’t happen at my awards.  He brings such grace and debonair to his character, the wooer of teenage Jenny, that I didn’t doubt why she fell for his charms.

So, the lineup at my awards would be …

Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney, “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth, “A Single Man”
Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”
Peter Sarsgaard, “An Education”

Predictions

Should win: George Clooney, “Up in the Air”
Could win: Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”
Will win: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”

Bridges has it in the bag, no question about it.  If his wide array of trophies for this performance wasn’t enough, the massive standing ovations he has received collecting them leave no doubt in my mind.





REVIEW: Invictus

10 01 2010

Now that the page has turned for the first decade of the new millennium, it can safely be said that Clint Eastwood was one of its definitive filmmakers. His final directorial venture of the era, “Invictus,” tops off a nearly immaculate resumé. While it doesn’t rank with “Mystic River” or “Changeling,” it is a moving portrait of a country caught at a very crucial stage in its history. Despite what the poster would have you believe, this is not a movie about Nelson Mandela, nor is it about the South African rugby team. It is about the triumph of virtue over hatred, and “Invictus” is a truly spirited and fascinating film because of this focus.

The film mostly follows Mandela (Morgan Freeman), starting from his first day as president of South Africa. He faced large racial divisions and dissent among his countrymen, and his decisions were crucial to bring the nation to unity. Rather than eradicate all vestiges of the hateful Apartheid era, he tries to use them as a rallying point, and this surprises and even alienates certain members of his staff. Included in this plan is the revitalization of the Springboks rugby team, the green and gold previously seen as an emblem of white supremacy, and the winning of the 1995 World Cup being held in South Africa. Mandela takes a particular interest in the team’s captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), a man who believes has the qualities necessary to lead a team to greatness. It’s an inspirational sports movie, so the math to get the final product isn’t hard. Despite the occasional narrative slowdown, Eastwood manages to keep us very absorbed in the story.

A large part of the movie is dedicated to the racial tension among Mandela’s security. Many detractors point this out as a flaw in the movie, but I found the subplot to be a very nice illustration of the themes Eastwood wished to highlight. The whites and the blacks in the detail initially butt heads, yet they find common ground in their desire to protect the man with the power to change the world. It is particularly rousing to see them playing rugby together towards the end of the movie, and little moments like these are what makes Eastwood’s value of the human spirit shine.

Morgan Freeman is remarkable as Mandela, and it is a performance that reminds us why he has such a revered status among actors. It’s tough to play someone who is as well-known as the ex-President, and he pulls it off with endearment. Freeman is always soft and gentle, but we never doubt that he means business. There is no stand-out powerhouse scene for him because Mandela kept his cool at all times, so it is only through slight but powerful shifts in tone that he communicates the feeling. Damon also projects his authority, although a little bit more sternly. No remnants are left of his blubber from the “The Informant!,” and we not only buy him as a rugby player but as a commanding presence on the field. The urgency with which he sets out to transform rugby into something more than just a game for his team is played with an ardent and admirable intensity. From corporate drone to triumphant athlete, 2009 has reminded us that Damon is one of the most versatile working actors, constantly working to improve his craft.

Eastwood handles the rugby fairly well, and he manages to make it compelling even though most Americans (including myself) had no idea what was happening. Although it may not be as exhilarating as watching a climactic football game, we see the significance of the game, which is what really matters. More importantly, we see the game as merely symbolic of the progress made by a country who sought to overcome hatred. “Invictus” is more than a history lesson, it is a depiction of two fine leaders using their example to brighten the future. A- /





Oscar Moment: “Invictus”

10 11 2009

Every year, one movie looks so impressive on paper that it is a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the year that it is not only a slam dunk to be a nominee, but also the assume winner of Best Picture.  I think I speak for most pundits when I say that “Invictus” is that movie from 2009.  When you mix one of the Academy’s favorite directors, Clint Eastwood, with two highly respected actors, Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, not to mention a true inspirational story involving a beloved humanist, Nelson Mandela, it seems like simple math that these add up to Oscar gold.

But let’s look at the movies in a comparable position to “Invictus” from the past few years:

  • “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was nominated for 13 Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Actor, and Screenplay.  However, its three victories came only from its technical merit.
  • “Atonement” was nominated for 7 Oscars, including Best Picture and Screenplay, and those were a surprise due to a fair level of disappointment that met the film upon its release.  It ended up walking away with a statue for Best Score.
  • “Dreamgirls” was nominated for 8 Oscars in 6 categories (3 nominations came from Best Song), but the film surprisingly was omitted from many major categories including Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay.  It ended up with two awards, Best Supporting Actress for Jennifer Hudson and Best Sound Mixing.
  • “Munich” was able to ride its assumed esteem into nominations for Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay, but it did not cash in on any of its nominations.

The only real conclusion that can be drawn from those results is that having sky-high expectations can often yield unfavorable results.  If people expect something amazing, it is all the easier to underwhelm.  So the only question that remains is which awards season path “Invictus” will tread – the extremely disappointing “Dreamgirls,” the mildly rewarding “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” or perhaps it will even capitalize on its status and turn it into Oscar triumph.

It is hard to judge the film on its own merit, though, because no one has seen it.  However, if the trailer is any indication, we are really in for a treat.  “Invictus” seems to be one of those inspirational movies designed to make your heart melt, the type of movie that the Academy hadn’t rewarded in a while until last year when “Slumdog Millionaire” cleaned house.  If “Slumdog” has really ushered in a new era of feel-good, triumphant films taking home the big prizes, “Invictus” seems to be a logical successor.  But then again, I feel like bloggers like myself often create these “movements” much like some suspect English teachers of coming up with “themes.”  Maybe we over think it, and the choice of a body of voters is just based on what movie took their breath away that year.

To bring up the obligatory other face of the coin, Clint Eastwood perhaps isn’t quite as venerated by the Academy as many think.  Neither of his two works gained much attention; “Gran Torino” wound up with a goose egg in the nomination column, not even willing to acknowledge what could be the last time he steps in front of the camera.  The Academy rarely awards more than two Oscars to actors and directors, and maybe the voters think that Eastwood has gotten enough recognition from them.  On a different note, if people are looking for a fairly buoyant movie, they might find “Up in the Air” a more appealing choice.  Critics claim that it truly expresses the zeitgeist of these tough economic times, addressing our problems but infusing the gravity with a bit of levity.

While I could spend all day discussing the awards potential of “Invictus,” I will let the movie speak for itself on December 11.  Then I will be in a much better position to discourse.