By Jecker
December 19th 2009 @ 2:17am
Loading ...The hits and misses of the rugby movie Invictus
Being an Aussie who cheers for the Wallabies and admires the All Blacks, I never thought I’d be rooting for the Boks over either team, but I certainly did while watching Invictus.
It’s a good movie about a great man, and Morgan Freeman gives an Oscar-worthy performance as Nelson Mandela.
Matt Damon, in the flick for marquee value, does a good job, although if you thought he was athletic from watching him play Jason Bourne, you’re in for disappointment.
There’s just one shot of him running – in training – and he’s a little uncoordinated.
There’s no footage, in the first-release print I saw, of him actually playing rugby apart from tight shots of him hanging off the scrum and looking bruised and worried.
The pro-South African actors are okay, the amateurs aren’t. But the movie scores in illuminating a bright, witty and humane Mandela and how he saw that a victory in the 1995 RWC would ease the transition within the country.
The first two reels are excellent, the uncomfortable interplay between Mandela’s black and white bodyguards in particular, but the movie breaks down into cliche when we get to the Big Game.
But before we reach that point, we see the real semi as viewed by Mandela on TV. Poor Mike Katt – Jonah runs over him yet again.
Confusion reigns in the rugby-ignorant US audience when the final game is to be played against the All Blacks, who aren’t sufficiently identified as being from New Zealand until we get a visual of the scoreboard in the Big Game.
Watching the All Blacks beat the Wallabies – most of it in long shot although that could be a lookalike Noddy going over for a score – the Boks decide that they have to stop Jonah, who’s played by Samoan and former Bath back rower Zak Feaunati.
Zak is no Jonah, at least not the way the rugby is shot and cut.
It looks more like league, with everybody barging into one another, and Zak lumbers whereas Jonah sprinted. But then the rugby is played at half pace, most of it consisting of halfback passes and just about all the running being inside passes.
This is, no doubt, because it’s easier to shoot action on a big field if it’s contained.
The sound in the scrums resembles feeding time at the zoo, and the hits are designed for your surround system. I was surprised that Clint, a first rate director, went for the slo-mo, will-it-or-won’t-it go over on Shansky’s droppie.
Surprised he went for Damon walking down the empty tunnel and seeing the enormous crowd. But those crowd scenes are terrific. Clint may not have captured the rugby, but he sure got the rugby folk.
As for the reproduced All Blacks, I’ll leave it to you Kiwis to fill in the players’ names.
The Boks team – I think one of them is supposed to be Ollie – is rather too plump to convince. The arial shot of Capetown will brings sobs from homesick Saffers, and the 747 flyover is pretty dramatic.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(57)
Jerry said | December 19th 2009 @ 4:19am | Report comment
Well I’ve not seen it, but there’s a couple of things that stand out for me –
1 – AB’s beating the Wallabies? Can’t remember that happening at the 95 WC (or any WC, dammit)
2 – The central conceit of Mandela identifying the WC as a unifying force prior to the tournament isn’t accurate according to some sources I’ve read. He only got involved late in the tournament apparently.
3 – Who plays Suzie?
Frank O'Keeffe said | December 19th 2009 @ 4:27am | Report comment
I actually had the thought a few years ago that if there was one story in rugby that would make a good move, it was the 1995 World Cup.
What I can’t stand in movies is extra gloss and trying to make things more dramatic than they are. For example, in the Ron Howard movie ‘Cinderella Man’, Howard portrays Max Baer in a horrible light, making it seem as if he was a womanizing brute of a person. In fact Baer was known to be a kind loving family man in real life. But that’s not Hollywood I guess.
I haven’t seen Invictus, but the things that would annoy me are things such as making Jonah seem like a bigger threat than he was.
If I were directing the movie I’d:
1. Make reference to the All Blacks food poisoning. It takes a bit of gloss off the victory, but it happened and to not mention it just gives the move that extra ‘gloss’ I hate.
2. I’d make reference to Benazzi’s try. In fact I’d tell the story of how Benazzi said he didn’t score the try (when he knew he did), but said he didn’t because he knew what making the final meant to South Africa.
3. I’d include Louis Luyte’s after-match speech (kidding).
I’m hoping for a move that properly reflects what happened, not a movie that’s just another Cinderella story. South Africa winning the 1995 World Cup was a beautiful moment. If the movie simply portrays that correctly, then it’ll come out as a beautiful story on the screen.
Oh and I hope Eastwood makes reference to Pienaar signing away players to WRC while the tournament is going on…
Kurt said | December 19th 2009 @ 4:38am | Report comment
Frank, it’s a Hollywood movie made to appeal to a primarily American audience, not a documentary. If I were a rugby fan I’d be very chuffed that so distinguished a director had chosen to make a movie about my sport, and would be looking to every opportunity to leverage that ‘extra-gloss’ to raise the profile of the sport in the US.
Frank O'Keeffe said | December 19th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Kurt,
I guess I’d prefer to see a movie that’s good than a movie that is bad but raises the profile of rugby. I wouldn’t think there’s much of a market for rugby in the US.
Jerry said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:30am | Report comment
Actually I’d be stunned if they don’t include the Benazzi non try – you could really make some dramatic tension out it. Have him shoving inches away from the line in ultra slo-mo followed by a long moment when the entire stadium and all the players wait on the ref’s call as to whether he made it or not (close ups of the players faces waiting in helpless expectation, the stadium deathly quiet). It’d show just how close the tournament was.
katzilla said | December 19th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
From your description it doesn’t sound like he went Hollywood enough.
If it were me the All Blacks would have been an evil force of Segregation loving racists, all the same size and speed of Jonah. They would have all been on Roids too.
The Rainbow Warrior would have been bombed whilst sitting at port in Capetown by the French, Pienaar of course was on it barely moments before it explodes and barely makes it off alive.
The Springboks would be out in a field tackling zebras for training because they couldn’t afford any gears, all this in bare feet of course.
Cue tear forming scene where previous apartheid pro white guy shows up to training and gives Chester his first pair of boots! They hug! South Africa is united! Chester smashes Jonah in a huge tackle and gives his new white friend a fist pump on the side lines.
CLint! CALL ME!
Bay35Pablo said | December 19th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Gold, katzilla, gold. Admit it, you’re really Jerry Bruckheimer ….
Seiran said | December 19th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
lol, I’d buy that for a dollar!
Blackballs said | January 29th 2010 @ 10:52am | Report comment
I would add a scene where the All Blacks were out two nights before the game reaping havoc on the town.
Shahsan said | December 19th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Anything by Clint Eastwood has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Hugely overrated director who uses a sledgehammer when a little mallet would suffice. I haven’t watched Invictus but I just know what I’m going to get, if Gran Torino, Changeling, and Million-Dollar baby are any guide.
Gladstone said | December 19th 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
France hardly features in the movie at all, and Thierry Lacroix scored more points than anybody else in the tourney. I imagine Clint Eastwood couldn’t cover the disputed try because he had to save the breathless stuff for the final.
He’s made some masterful movies, and he certainly knows the Western literature, so I was surprised he didn’t feature ‘Jonah’ arriving at Ellis Park like Frank Miller getting off the train in High Noon or Wilson riding into town in Shane. Instead, he settles for having one of the Boks eyeing Jonah as they stand in the tunnel ready to run out. And he screwed up shooting the Haka. Just locking off the camera in front of the team would have done it, but the way the editor chose to start the Haka is risible.
Still, it’s a movie about Mandela, and as such it works very well, and Freeman is excellent.
Coming out of the movie the comments I heard were very positive re the game of rugby, and I read in the trades that it’s raised the profile of the game around the US, but anybody who’s never seen a rugby game – most Americans – will have little idea of how the game is played from watching Invictus.
Gladstone said | December 19th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Re. the cast of Invictus: Eastwood’s son plays one of the Boks and the rest are played by actors of various levels of acting talent. One of the producers, Mace Neufeld, made the Tom Clancy movies among others, and Roger Birnbaum made the Rush Hour movies among others.
Here are the Boks: Grant Roberts, Scott Eastwood, Mark Bown-Davies, Dale Stephen Dunn, Graham Lindemann, Andries Le Grange, Clive Richard Samuel, Richard Abrahamse, Sean Pypers, Riaan Wolmarans, Ryan Scott, Daniel Deon Wessels, Vaughn Thompson, Charl Engelbrecht, Rolf E. Fitschen, Andrew Nel, Rudi Zanberg, Abraham Vlok.
I’d be interested in having the AB team identified. Was that an Ian Jones lookalike? They could’ve got somebody beefier to play Fitzie but whoever played Mehrts was close.
jus de couchon said | December 19th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Perhaps the storyline could have justified a bit more artiistic license. Mandela [as portrayed by a blacked up Tom Cruise] shooting down a pursuing helicopter full of diamond smugglers on the way to the Stadium where he just makes it to see the finnal dramatic dropgoal. Suzy[as portrayed by a blacked up Nicole Kidman] is the love interest torn between Jonah and Pienar , who poisons the All Blacks so that she can end racism. Cut !
King of the Gorganites said | December 19th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
i think the movie is going to be great for rugby. it will be instrumental in getting word about the game out there. maybe the movie doesnt show the game itself to well, but it shows the concept and beauty that rugby can bring -on and off the fielld. i think particaption numbers will spike in the US and Canada due to this.
Sam Taulelei said | December 19th 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Pity Spielberg didn’t direct then he would manufacture a happy ending for the All Blacks (sigh) or the Wachowski Brothers then we could all wake up at the end and realise it was just another construct in The Matrix and didn’t really happen. With the release of the doves before the final it would have been right in John Woo’s element and we could have had some sweeping slow motion shots of Matt Damon smashing Lomu tackle after tackle from multiple angles in bone breaking clarity.
Does it show footage of the black South African women sweeping water off the pitch? That would be a nice dramatic juxtaposition of the hopes and dreams of the rainbow nation and the reality faced by the majority of its black population who look to Mandela for deliverance.
Isaac Feaunati is a friend of mine from Wellington who played for the Marist St Pats club and was on the fringe of rep selection for the Wellington Lions and would be the first to admit he’s no Jonah but he passes some physical resemblance. The only other guy I could think of to play him would be the Australian Gladiator Vulcan who actually replaced Lomu in the James Bond flick “The World is Not Enough”.
ohtani's jacket said | December 19th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Clint Eastwood isn’t a great director, but this is the type of film the Academy love. I can easily see this getting nominated on the basis of Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela.
Springs said | December 19th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Says you. Two oscars and many great movies say you are wrong.
stash said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Eastwood is a superb director and a great actor – (he excels as the menacing guy). For someone who spent a huge amount of time in Hollywood- I think his movies are quite removed from typical hollywood fodder. Unforgiven…great movie… The outlaw Josey Wales (which he took over as director) Iwo Jima. He redefined the Western and the cop movie and has been taking on social issues for a while now.
His directing style is quite applauded and he tends to use the same DOP and cinematographers. He’s renowned for shooting movies at double time (occasionally sets will let him down, unable to keep up with his pace) yet he always catches the appropriate mood he wants for his storytelling)
No….Clint’s the man… thanks Clint for taking on a rugby movie knowing full well that the US audiences would be scratching their heads.
Shahsan said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
“many great movies’? Besides Unforgiven I cannot think of any. Crowd-pleasing, heavy-handed, mindless schlock, yes, he has made many.
As for Oscar wins, that is more a reward for commercial sucess for the studios and producers. These guys never won Oscars: Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Peter O’Toole. Tom Hanks has won 2 Best Actor Oscars, but De Niro has won only one.
Too many underserving winners and deserved non-winners to mention.
Dave1 said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Gran Torino is a great movie
Shahsan said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
In a simplistic, mindless way.
Features Harry Callghan as an old man, a tough, bigoted war veteran but with heart of gold.
Has selfish family who want him to love into old folks’ home (as in Million Dollar Baby, the family is again selfish, awful humans eg in latter mlovie, turning up to visit their bed-ridden, paralysed relative in Disneyland hats and teeshirts).
The said 70-year-old-plus man then stands tough to ghetto kids in their own patch, and then beats up gang of Hmong thugs in their own neighbourhood. Yes, very believable.
The man gets them to all shoot him as some kind of sacrifice, in front of their neighbours, who happen to all come out at once to witness the scene, and for once, are willing to report their thug neighbours’ actions to the police. Yes, all very believable. All so typically Eastwood.
I guess he is good and popular because he makes these seemingly heavywieght, serious movies but is totally undemanding of how he wants his patrons to think when they watch his movies. Black is black, white is white.
Dave1 said | December 19th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
No, its not typically Eastwood and that’s why its so great. Everyone expects him to take revenge on the gang , Dirty Harry style, but instead he sacrifices his own life instead.
That is the opposite of a Dirty Harry movie.
Shahsan said | December 19th 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
yes, like i said, totally believable. Read what i wrote above. he gets to have it both ways. He did do the whole Dirty Harry thing already, preposterously so. And then stages this hackneyed revenge scene. Oh, so clever.
Anyway, to each his own. Just venting on one of my pet peeves ie the so-called great works of Clint Eastwood and George Clooney, the great hoodwinkers of the public.. You CAN fool some of the people all of the time.
Shahsan said | December 19th 2009 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Anyway, to each his own. Just venting on one of my pet peeves ie the so-called great works of Clint Eastwood and George Clooney, the great hoodwinkers of the public.. You CAN fool some of the people all of the time.
pothale said | December 19th 2009 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
Eastwood didn’t write Dirty Harry/Magnum Force, etc. It was based on real-life events and characters
He was given the part only after Sinatra, Wayne, McQueen and Newman had all passed on it.
It does fit with his penchant for supporting the underdog and victim – a recurring theme in a lot of his movies that are mentioned in earlier posts. Invictus fits the bill in that respect. Heavy–handed, mindless schlock is film critics cliche. Black is black and white is white? I would have thought that Eastwood’s characters have more trodden the line between the two and been more ambiguous in the values and morals he portrayed/adopted in the pursuit of ‘good’.
Shahsan said | December 20th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Sorry, mate, there is no ambiguity in Eastwood’s films. He leaves you in no doubt how you should think or feel. Go watch his movies again.
“Heavy–handed, mindless schlock is film critics cliche”. On teh contrary, most film critics, especially men such as Roger Ebert and David Stratton, have man love for Eastwood. Must be a crush from boyhood. In their eyes, he can do no wrong.
He is actually incapable of making more subtle movies such as, to give some mroe commercial examples, Judgment at Nuremberg, Das Boot and The Lives of Others. His movies are essentially Dirty Harry or Play Misty For Me dressed up in fake gravitas. Even so-called deep movies such as Letters from Iwo Jima suffer from this failing. And he ruined a fantasttic book in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil because of this.
pothale said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Shahsan – I don’t need to watch his movies again to be able to articulate my views. I’ve seen them often enough. There is ambiguity in his movies in my view. In the themes he picks, in the characters he plays, and the actors he directs.
My point was that the phrase ‘Heavy–handed, mindless schlock’ was straight out of the grab-bag of film critics’ cliches. Critics 101 if you like. I’ve no doubt there exists two critics who think Eastwood is wonderful, and possibly many more who don’t.
Funny you should mention Midnight in the Garden…. – one of the most overrated novels to be made into one of the most overrated movies…. would be my view. A few years ago, I had an opportunity to visit Savannah in Georgia where it was shot – and boy do they idolise it. They even have tours that take you around parts of the city to show you where certain scenes were filmed. You can get your picture taken. Local art galleries have paintings by local artists commemorating some of the locations. All a bit OTT.
And why do you not like Mystic River written by the brilliant Denis Lehane and to which the screen play is very faithful? Ambiguities and sublties abound in this story which I thought Eastwood handled well in what is a complex story to tell.
To each his own as you say.
MyGeneration said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Eastwood has made a lot of different sorts of movies over a long period. Some of them are great, some are mediocre, some are terrible (my personal hate is Million Dollar Baby). But he’s a great director by any measure, and ambiguity is a feature of many of his movies.
Shahsan said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Pothale, you think Dennis Lehane is a brilliant author? Then that explains it all. Enough said.
MyGeneration, you are stating your opinion, i have stated mine.
pothale said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Asking rhetorical questions again, Shahsan? Did you not want an actual answer to your question?
Then that explains it all. Enough said.
stash said | December 19th 2009 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
Clint’s come a long way since he was the orderly in Allen in Movieland (1955).
Here’s a selection of his better directing efforts to date:
Gran Torino (2008)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Mystic River (2003)
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
Unforgiven (1992)
White Hunter Black Heart (1990)
Bird (1988)
Heartbreak Ridge (1986)
Pale Rider (1985)
Sudden Impact (1983)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) (what a f##ing great western that was!!)
The Eiger Sanction (1975)
High Plains Drifter (1973)
ohtani's jacket said | December 20th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Well, the thousands of movies and hundreds of great directors I’ve seen say you’re wrong.
Shahsan said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Saying you’ve seen thousands of movies doesn’t prove anything. That’s not an argument. I’ve seen lots too (average 5 a week for at least 20 years), but we cannot further any discussion that way.
ohtani's jacket said | December 20th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Well, it’s a sports blog not a film blog, so I don’t know that’s really necessary to debate the merits of Clint Eastwood as a filmmaker. He’s a respectable elder statesman for people who are only familiar with mainstream cinema, but to say he’s a great filmmaker is a pretty casual statement. He’s a veteran actor who’s a reasonably talented filmmaker with quasi-auteur status thanks to being an iconic figure in spaghetti Westerns.
Shahsan said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
Ok, that description of him I can live with. Fair enough
siva samoa said | December 19th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
I haven’t seen Invictus, but the things that would annoy me are things such as making Jonah seem like a bigger threat than he was.
Were you watching the same 1995 RWC as everyone else ?
Stellenbosched said | December 19th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
From what I have read the whole Suzie story was made up by Mains as an excuse for losing. There has not been any hard evidence that she existed. And my logic says that you cannot have food poisoning 24 hours before a cup final and then play 100 minutes of brutal rugby, as the All Blacks did.
Jerry said | December 19th 2009 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
Suzie is a daft notion, but it’s not really disputed the players were sick. There’s been multiple first hand accounts of that.
Dean Pantio said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=581&art_id=qw961136822629B262
Nick said | December 19th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
I love that food poisoning story makes me laugh everytime i here it
Frank Benazzi was held up over the line i have the vhs and i promise you even if they had video referees in those days they would never have seen the ball therfor held up. as well the boks scored a legitimate try agianst the all blacks in the final, it was called help up by the ref but one can clearly see when the camera is behind the players the ball is grounded, that is sport for you so for you to say that they should have added in the likes of suzie is just ridiculous there is not the slightest evidence that she even exists it was a rumour made up by new zealanders becuase the all black team was bloody good but it was the boks day and probably the only real fairy tale ending i know. it did so much for south africa i dont think people quite realise what it did for the country.
Jerry said | December 19th 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Benazzi probably didn’t score in the semi, but ironically (in that he was the player who probably did score in the final) neither did Ruben Kruger. He’s actually admitted he didn’t score that try against France.
Frank O'Keeffe said | December 20th 2009 @ 1:55am | Report comment
Nick,
I never said Suzie should be in the movie. Rather I said I’d include the food poisoning. I wasn’t inferring that the All Blacks were deliberately poisoned at all, but that they had food poisoning.
I have the VHS of the semi-final as well, and it’s contentious whether Benazzi scored that try. He later admitted years later that he did. You can take that with a grain of salt I guess…
Just little things like that make the difference between a great movie and a terrible movie like Tokyo Story.
Damo said | December 19th 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
I haven’t seen Invictus but any day Hollywood wants to put rugby on an international stage is a good day. Prior to this film “Footrot Flats” was the only one I have seen that had rugby in it. You have to love a country that loves rugby. Or an international film with rugby in it. I’ve had a bit to do with a couple of films and am occasionally critical of film-makers BUT bloody hell can’t we just be grateful for the heat brought to rugby.
One day a film will shoot the real thing. Now THAT will be drama.
Shahsan said | December 19th 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
There was one last year about rugby, called Forever Strong, starring Gary Cole. I havent watched it but RottenTomatoes gave it 32%. Sports movies, by and large, are hard to do. Especially for team sports.
Bondiplage said | December 19th 2009 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
The 1995 RWC was a tough one to handicap. Most people who bet on try difference in certain matchups would have lost money. For example, although Canada beat Romania by 29 points and the Ws beat them by 39 points the Boks scored only one more try than did Romania when they played. The Pumas scored 2 tries against England and England scored none, but Andrew kicked 6 penalties and 2 drop goals. The Ws scored 2 more tries than did Canada in their game. England versus Italy, even steven at 2 tries apiece. The Pumas scored one more try than Italy, Ireland scored one more than Wales, and England scored one more than Samoa.
In the semis, the Boks scored one try, France 0. And although the ABs beat England, England still managed to score 4 tries against them.
In the final, neither team scored a try.
Bondiplage said | December 19th 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
Don’t know about Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or Auckland but Hoyts says that Invictus won’t be released in Sydney until January 21. The studio wanted a pre-Christmas-into-Christmas movie hence the December 12 release date in North America.
Stiff competition for the holiday adult dollar in the States as Invictus goes up against two likely blockbusters, the $300 million Avatar and Robert Downey’s Sherlock Holmes, and one proven blockbuster, the Sandra Bullock movie with a background of American football, The Blind Side. But if Invictus has legs, makes its nut, and a tidy little profit besides, maybe those rugby scripts that ended up in the slush pile will get another look.
pothale said | December 19th 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Invictus will likely bomb in the US. The reaction from preview-goers, including Morgan Freeman, is what the hell is rugby about, and we prefer (real) football – US style.
It’ll be a winner in SA, and have a milder following in Europe – maybe more so in Australasia. Invictus doesn’t have enough rugby action in it – a la Any Given Sunday for example – it’s more a means to an end in glorifying Mandela’s pursuit of unity. It takes liberties with his relationship with the SA captain and makes more of it than actually happened – but that’s how you write screenplays for US audiences.
Colin N said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:33am | Report comment
In it’s first weekend it was third in the US box office, I believe.
Certainly not the worst.
pothale said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
True. Give it time. If it succeeds, full credit to Eastwood to popularise a story and sport that lies outside the narrow confines of Amercican storytelling that doesn;t have an English link.
Dave1 said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
I wish any one trying to make a profitable movie where south african spotsman are the good guys all the best.
Jerry said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Another message board I frequent has offered the following improvements –
1 – Mandela should be responsible for poisoning the AB’s using methods he learned while in prison.
2 – Some sort of shout out to the best film about South Africans in history – Lethal Weapon 2. Perhaps one of the Boks should say something like “He’s the president? But…but…he’s BLICK!”.
Jerry said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
And on the subject of previous films with rugby as a subject, I can’t understand why people aren’t mentioning Old Scores. It has both Grizz Wylie and Steve McDowell in it (in non speaking roles). There’s really nothing wrong with it other than a crap plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting and poor directing.
PastHisBest said | December 20th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
So you’ve answered your own question then Jerry.
By Guess said | December 22nd 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Looking forward to this movie – great exposure for rugby in US – re the food poisoning of the All Blacks – Clint could have just clipped this in – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7l6jg4Hlog – and appealed to an even wider US audience
AndyS said | December 23rd 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Or this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eYSpIz2FjU with some minor mods. Even works with the different body types…
Nick said | December 22nd 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Rugger Buggers,
Whilst it warms the cockles that rugby union is attracting the likes of Eastwood, Freeman and Damon as a vehicle to tell a story again Hollywood has over look the facts in the case of RWC 1995, SA Rugby and the SA Government;
Fact: The All Blacks deserved to win the cup but were poisoned.
Fact: The Bok’s had signed with WRC however welched on the deal.
Lets not forget the dishonesty and lengths South Africa went to to seal its place in history. The powerbrokers of SA and SA rugby were not men of integrity and not rugby men in my opinion. So believe the hype about hope and unity etc etc however under the surface was a machine intent on doing whatever it took to win.
For the record I am not a Kiwi or a racist. I just don’t like crap being reported as fact.
ohtani's jacket said | December 23rd 2009 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
Clearly we need Michael Moore to uncover the truth of what happened in the 1995 World Cup.