double dipped

on saturday night nellie and i double dipped and saw two movies. we went to the theater planning on seeing either 'invictus' or 'the blind side.' we struggled with the decision, but ultimately ended up going to see invictus. conveniently, right when we were getting out of invictus, there was a showing of 'the blind side' that had just started. since we didnt have a babysitter or any other obligation to attend to and since it's always better to watch 4 1/2 hours of movies instead of just 2, we decided to go for it.

so both movies were good but i think i actually liked 'the blind side' better. both are amazing stories, but i think that invictus was almost too difficult of a story to tell. there is just so much to the story, that it seems a little to difficult to pull off in 2- 2 1/2 hours. were it any other director besides clint eastwood, i would say maybe it was the director's fault, but if he can't even pull it off, i dont think anyone could. there was just too much to tackle...even for rugby players (zing!).

invictus is about the south african rugby team that helped unite a nation that was in serious turmoil over the recent election of nelson mandela and blacks being afforded all of the same opportunities as white people. i just think that hours alone could have been spent really showing the viewer how bad it was in south africa in the early 90s. the movie does deal with it, but in order to really make the rugby victory meaningful, you really have to be sucked in to what it meant to the country and you need a decent understanding of what the people were going through. maybe other people could have pulled it off, but i didnt really get sucked in emotionally to what was happening and what the people were going through. as such, there just wasn't as many goosebump moments in invictus as i would have anticipated. i was hoping for more moments where i had a lump in my throat and would think, 'sports are just awesome.' and i think that was because there was a lack of connection with the story which is due to all of the many layers. dont get me wrong, it was good, just not amazing. i could be off on this and could have had too high of expectations. but when its clint eastwood, morgan freeman and matt damon, how can you not be expecting greatness?

maybe that's why 'the blind side' was really good. it has sandra bullock so you naturally enter with low expectations. she is cute and fun, but her movies usually aren't very moving and make you want to punch yourself in the face rather than ponder greater things in life. she did great though and was highly entertaining, at last. just the opposite of invictus, i think blind side worked because it was more of a simple story to tell in that they just had to deal with the boy and telling his story. granted, many people could easily botch that simple task, but it's potentially a lot easier to tell the story of a family that helps a homeless high school boy than the story of a country that had it's centuries long race issues resolved by a rugby game. in one, you have to get the viewers up to speed with a country's history in 10 minutes. the other, you just have to get them up to speed with the first 16 years of a boy's life, which is pretty easy in this situation: he's from the projects and his mom is a drug addict. no need to say more, we pretty much get it.

again, both movies are good and worth seeing. both not really sports movies and both are pretty different so it is hard to compare them, but what's the point of this post and seeing both on the same night if you aren't going to compare them? i think an easy way to do it was in the closing credits. in both movies they show you photos of the actual people and players from the stories that were just told. in blind side, i got the goosebumps and the lump in my throat. i felt more connected to the story and so it made it more touching to see the actual people. not that invictus isn't touching and powerful, but not much connection. no lumps at the end of invictus. and the lumps never lie.