Invictus (2009) User Reviews

As a South African, I can tell you the entertaining, inspiring and enjoyable "Invictus" exceeded all my expectations.

[JeffersonCody · 8/10 · 13 December 2009]

As a South African who saw this film on Friday morning, I can tell you you the entertaining, inspiring and enjoyable "Invictus" exceeded all my expectations.

It really is a true story of epic proportions yet it's told with an intimate feel, and it is at least 98% accurate to the events of the time. Clint gets all the big details and so many of the little details right, but he never goes over the top. He directs with minimum fuss and achieves maximum effect, just letting the powerful story unfold without getting in its way.

I watched the 1995 Rugby World Cup and saw Madiba come out in the Springbok jersey. It was a wondrous sight. And when Joel Stransky slotted that drop kick over in the dying minutes and the Boks won, I wept and cheered along with everyone else. After the match millions of South African - of all races - celebrated. It was an amazing time. It was the birth of the "Rainbow Nation". Nelson Mandela is the greatest and most beloved of all South Africans. The man is a living legend, but so human and real. When he was President he brought hope to all South Africans, white and black. We, in my country, will never stop loving this incredible man. Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman did South Africa and our beloved Madiba proud. Francois Pienaar is also an amazing South African, an intelligent, big-hearted rugby played who always led by example, and Matt Damon's performance as him was superb. I was glued to the screen for every second of the film's running time (I didn't even move from my seat until the final credit rolled and the house lights came on), and I was moved to tears on several occasions. The final scene was especially touching.

Freeman's performance was magical and I can see him getting as Oscar nomination. If you think his Mandela is too cool to be true, think again. Mandela really is this cool. A brave and intelligent man whose courage and strength of character should serve as an example to people all over the world. After being unjustly imprisoned for nearly 30 years by a cruel and repressive regime, he emerged to run a country and teach its people the meaning of forgiveness and reconciliation.

I thoroughly recommend the authentically detailed, historically accurate "Invictus" to film lovers, Eastwood fans, Nelson Mandela fans and sports fans everywhere in the world. South Africans would be crazy to miss this excellent film, but it deserves to be a hit all over the globe. Let's hope it is.

Viva Clint Eastwood, viva Morgan Freeman, viva Madiba.

PS. I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood as both an actor and a director.

Of the films Eastwood has directed, my favorites, in no particular order, are "Unforgiven", "Million Dollar Baby", "Gran Torino", "The Outlaw Josey Wales", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "The Bridges of Madison County","Bird" and "Invictus". Yes, it's really that good. "Invictus" is another winner from Clint. He just seems to get better with age. What a creative roll he is currently on.

PPS. "Invictus" is one of the best sporting movies I have ever seen. But it's also about more than sport.

Morgan Freeman shines in Clint Eastwood's solid drama

[wolverinesforever · 8/10 · 12 December 2009]

Set in the early to mid 90's, Clint Eastwood's "Invictus" covers the first year of Nelson Mandela's presidency and how he pushed the nation's rugby team, led by captain Francois Pienaar, to achieve World Cup glory. However, Mandela's backing of the rugby team splits many hairs, as the "Sprinboks" have come to be a symbol of apartheid for millions of South Africans, making Mandela risk the very base that pushed him into office. He must also deal with personal security, his exhaustive schedule, and the strains on his personal life.

As much as I respect Morgan Freeman, I was concerned that his presence would be distracting, that I would be seeing him instead of Nelson Mandela. I shouldn't have worried. Freeman completely immerses himself into the role and gives one of the best performances of the year. Not only are his accent and tone of voice quite good, but he brings a true 3-dimensionality to the role. Compare, for example, him having tea with Francois, to talking with his family, and to making a political speech. Freeman nailed every facet of Mandela's life.

Damon also excels as Pienaar, the solid enough rugby player who must do more than just lead by example for his team. The screenplay, adapted by Anthony Peckham, doesn't offer many narrative surprises, but it does do a good job examining not only the strife South Africa was in when Mandela was elected, but also the value of the team to the entire nation. Eastwood wisely plays the material straight. Though the material may seem familiar, the performances by Damon and especially Freeman are what elevate this tale into a solid and even uplifting drama.

Strong themes overcome predictable plotting

[C-Younkin · 8/10 · 9 December 2009]

Morgan Freeman's made a career out of playing inspirational second fiddles who always steal the movie. Now with Clint Eastwood's "Invictus", we finally get to see this amazing actor take front and center and run with it. The movie, based on a John Carlin novel about the event that changed South Africa, fits Freeman like a glove and it's hard to imagine he's not a front-runner for that lead actor Oscar he has so deserved for so long now.

He plays Nelson Mandela as a born leader, an authoritative yet empathetic uniter who preached forgiveness and looked for common ground when elected president of South Africa. His election caused unrest among whites, and blacks still had hard feelings for years-worth of oppression. The one thing he saw that could unite was the Rugby team, a shamefully rag-tag bunch facing extinction because many still saw the team as a left-over from apartheid. Mandela knew ending the team would mean more unrest among white Rugby fans so instead he presented a challenge to team captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon); win the world cup,unite us.

Do they? It's all predictably plotted and there are times where you wish Eastwood had employed an announcer to explain what's happening on the Rugby field but the great themes of forgiveness, unity, and determination make this a sports movie well worth seeing. There are really wonderful elements here. The relationship between Mandela's white and black security detail. The Rugby team reaching out to the community by going to the slums and teaching kids how to play. Pienaar's visit to Mandela's prison cell to understand the man's courage. The people of South Africa rallying into something of a community. And the bond between Mandela and Pienaar, very well played by both Freeman and Damon, of two men looking for their country's pride, it's center, and it's heart. By the final Rugby match, the movie has built up such good-will that any predictability or confusion on screen becomes an afterthought to the joy and excitement on display. Eastwood's film shows how sports can unify people, a simple yet inspirational and lovable message that should leave audiences cheering.

Well Made, But Completely Forgettable

[Matt_Layden · 6/10 · 17 December 2009]

Nelson Mandela has been released from prison and was voted as the South African president. Wanting to unite his country, he found a way to do so with rugby and in the South African team captain, Francois Pienaar.

Morgan Freeman was born to play this role, he knew so, and that's why he produced this film. A dream project of his, waiting for someone to take the job of directing, his old friend Clint Eastwood steps in. Who says no to Clint? Especially Freeman, who under Eastwood's direction won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Invictus, William Ernest Henley, which is read by Mandela in the film, is well crafted and has a strong lead role. Unfortunately, the film is a by the numbers product that you seem to forget once you leave the theatre.

My main problem with the film is the lack of emotion. I couldn't care for any of the characters in this film, save for Freeman, who as I stated does an excellent job. Matt Damon, who is shown on the poster, has the supporting role here. But he is given absolutely nothing to do except play rugby. His character has no story to him, but aren't we suppose to believe in him? After all, Mandela does. He gives him inspiration to win the world cup. Matt Damon does an alright job, but nothing worth mentioning. The same goes for the rest of the cast, they seem to be there just because the story is based on real life.

Eastwood knows how to direct a film, the Academy seems to think so too, so you know going into it that it well be well crafted. This is Eastwood's first step into a semi sports movie genre. The sport is rugby, and after watching the film, I still have no idea how to play it. The final act of the game is in slow motion as well, clichéd? You know it. You can hear every grunt from every player. It is elongated to the point of annoyance. The rugby sequences did not pull me in, nor did I care for who was going to win. It doesn't feel like he is trying to step out of his comfort zone either. It feels like an Eastwood movie, take that as you want.

The best parts of the film, are when Freeman commands the screen. His presence is more interesting and entertaining than any of the rugby scenes. Speaking of a rugby scenes, I must say that every 'epic' shot of the fans in the stands looked horribly fake. At some points I thought I was watching a PS3 game. It really took me out of the experience of the film.

If the film were a bit shorter and more focused (is it a sports film or character driven film?) than I could maybe invest my interest. It seemed to balance both as nice as it could, but ultimately gave out to one more than the other and unfortunately it's the weaker part. Eastwood chooses to sidestep more important things in the film. Is this because of the script? Are we suppose to want to keep watching Mandela inspire a rugby team to unite nation? The racial undertones are there at the beginning, then completely forgotten. In the end, I wanted more from this film.

The film is not bad, it's moderately good. Some scenes are actually inspiring, but that's more because of Freeman and not the generic script. I guess I wanted a little bit more from this one. Everyone involved made it seem like it should have been a great success, instead it comes off as something that everyone just decided to throw together. This is another film that belongs in that category of good, but not good enough for me to want to recommend it to you for theatre viewing.

One of Clint's Best...

[ClaytonDavis · 9/10 · 4 December 2009]

In surely one of his lightest and straight-forward works of his career, Clint Eastwood has achieved one of the most inspirational films of the year with his new film, Invictus.

Starring Academy Award Winners Morgan Freeman as South African President Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as Rugby Captain Francois Pienaar, Invictus is a picture full of emotion, magnetism, and revelation. What critics and audiences may be deceived by is belief that this is THE Nelson Mandela biopic which it is not. It is the story of Nelson Mandela's first years as President of the culturally separated country South Africa in 90's. In a way to unify his people, Mandela used the country's love for Rugby to connect the whites and the blacks. As their record has been less than impressive, no one expects anything notable from the Springboks. Mandela taps the captain of the team to rally his troops and surge into battle for the greater good of his country.

Everything about Invictus works on so many degrees of the medium based on the book "Playing the Enemy." The film never comes off as too pretentious or egotistical; it requires nothing more from the viewer than an open mind and heart. Eastwood directs the film perfectly, laying back when he needs to, never pushing the subject matter or shoving it down our throats. He utilizes all the skills we've come to love about his earlier works in Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, and Letters from Iwo Jima. The use of light shows a character' s vulnerability inhabiting their souls or a score by Kyle Eastwood that offers both zeal and subtlety during a rugby match.

Cinematographer Tom Stern hits another one out of the park, catching all the fury and apprehension of all the different elements of this strenuous time. Joel Cox and Gary Roach edit the film with the perfect amount of precision and friction.

Morgan Freeman as Mandela is a wonderful charmer, showing the man's most hostile yet tranquil behaviors. Not necessarily the most engulfed characterization seen on film this year as Freeman's accent comes in and out of remission, but it's a tremendous performance worthy of an Oscar nomination.

Matt Damon, showing himself as one of the best working actors today, doesn't have enough of the character depth and arc to carry the picture. Damon's performance doesn't allow him to really go anywhere. It's a superb turn, with a great accent inhabitance, that warrants credit where the credit is due. However, Damon requires nothing more than a little motivational speaking and responsive humility.

Invictus, is one of the best pictures of the year, standing in the ranks of one of the best sports films of the decade. This is the type of film that Oscar will likely be all over and fall in love with. I concur.

****/****

Great work from Freeman and the story, but everything else feels average or amateur at best

[DonFishies · 6/10 · 17 December 2009]

While not exactly a biopic per se, Invictus does tell an important piece of Nelson Mandela's (Morgan Freeman) life as President of South Africa. With the country's rugby team losing horribly match after match, he looks to Captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) to help unite the team in time for the country's hosting duties of the 1995 World Cup, and in turn, unite a country still reeling from apartheid.

Clint Eastwood continues to defy all Hollywood conventions with Invictus, his ninth film of the decade. The man is going on 80, but he is pumping out more movies than heavyweights like Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg. And with each passing film, he continues to up his craft and his scope for what he is capturing on screen. While Invictus is nowhere near the epic undertaking of the twofer of Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, it still stands as a very accomplished work. But much like Flags, it is a very flawed work.

The story itself is fairly well done. It is predictable of course, but is sappy in some wrong places. It is not quite Remember the Titans for adults like I heard it described as, but it borders on feeling much the same way. I find it interesting that the first real story we get about Mandela dramatized on screen is more about rugby than it is about the man, but Eastwood presents it in such a fascinating way that it manages to work as a depiction of him. There is a great reverence on display from the beginning, with actual TV footage digitally manipulated to add in Freeman over the real Mandela, and at every turn, the story stays consistent with these early images. It jumps around in focus between Mandela and Pienaar, but it never feels bothersome and always feels like a well rounded tale. Unfortunately, that tale does not always stay as interesting as it could.

But while the story is not bad, the editing is all over the place. After really beginning to hit his stride, Eastwood seems to be falling back and looking more amateur in some of the scenes on display here. Some run too long, others too short. Others are left far too open ended, and some too preachy. Even worse, some scenes have characters fading in and out like ghosts, pushing a heavy handed message about the unfairness of the system too far. Having seen his previous work, it is clear Eastwood knows better than this, so why allow these elements to take away from what could be a fantastic piece of work?

The ending rugby match that seems to run on forever has a lengthy period of time where everything runs in slow motion. While this is typical for a sports film, especially for the team playing, Eastwood makes everything run in slow motion: the team, the fans watching in the stadium, the fans at home and at bars, Mandela himself. And it runs for more than five minutes like this, overkilling and destroying any suspense or tension the film has going for it because the audience begins to laugh at how ridiculous the scene looks. It reminded me a lot of what I can only explain as the 'Gatorade' sequence from Spielberg's Munich, where one of the most intense scenes in the film is ruined by a goofy slow motion sequence. It takes you right out of the movie; the last thing any filmmaker wants to see happen.

The music fares even worse. While the African inspired songs that play throughout the film are very well used in their sequences, there are a few English-speaking songs that are just wrong for the film. Thankfully Eastwood does not sing any himself (unlike the hilariously bad tune that nearly ruins Gran Torino), but the lyrics are just awful. Again, they took me right out of the film, and made me laugh more than anything. They may help describe what is going on, but in the forms they are given to us, they do nothing but take away from everything. While I was a little disappointed to hear another similar Eastwood score in other cases, the addition of an African influence causes the score to sound all the better and more original. The man can only use a similar score for so many films before it becomes stale, and thankfully it is altered to sound all the more unique.

While his accent is not perfect, Freeman delivers another fabulous performance. The man may be ageing as quickly as Eastwood, but his technique never wavers. His soft spoken and generous nature is only complimented by how easily he slips into the character. He has just the right amount of power and gravitas in each scene that it is hard to realize it is not actually Mandela playing himself on screen. It is a very personal performance that is just as inspiring as it looks. It is not the performance of the year, but it comes really close to competing with it.

Damon on the other hand, does not fare so well. He just does not come off as believable as the rugby team's Captain. His accent falls somewhere between Freeman's great accent here and Nicole Kidman's horrible attempt at Italian in Nine. But even despite that, his character is just not compelling enough to make us really care about his struggle to help Mandela achieve his goals. When he does make it work, he does well for himself. But those moments come too few and far between.

I wanted to like Invictus more than I did. Freeman delivers, and the story is fairly well done as well. But the rest just feels either average or amateur at best. The film is not bad, but it could have been significantly better edited.

6.5/10.

Inspiring and uplifting!

[jdkraus · 10/10 · 11 December 2009]

Originally, I thought this movie was going to be a biopic on the life of Nelson Mandela. To some degree, it is a biography on Mr. Mandela, but the film's main focus is on his idea of inspiring a country that is drawn to crime, violence, and poverty (after years of Apartheid) to a glimpse of hope via the nation's rugby team.

Without a doubt, this is the perfect role for Morgan Freeman. I will note that his accent comes and goes throughout the film, but he nails the role down. He is not overly dramatic nor does he just read the script. He becomes the man. Morgan Freeman is easily one of my favorite actors because he never plays himself. He always makes himself into the character he's assigned to. He'll definitely receive the Best Actor nom, and hopefully, Morgan can finally win the Oscar he so desperately deserves.

Regarding Matt Damon as the rugby coach (Francois Pienaar), he too immerses himself into his role. He even maintains a solid accent. However, the sympathy of the film is aimed towards Mandela than it is to Francois. The other cast members (none of which I recognized) also gave decent, believable performances.

As with the plot, it is predictable, something we've seen before…underdog overcomes impossible odds, yet screenwriter Anthony Peckham throws in many important themes that may seem all to familiar, but is nonetheless eye-opening such as: forgiveness, unity, and determination to do what is right. Racial tension between the whites and blacks is dominant in the movie, particularly between the black and white security guards, but the film's point, as well as Mandela's goal, is to put our differences aside and work together as one.

The movie isn't just about a rugby game, but rather organizing a nation to a success. It may be considered a wise political move on Mandela's part, but as Morgan says to his aid, "It is a human calculation". People need inspiration in order to change and to do good. These themes are what make it a good film. It also makes it a different kind of sports movie.

Tom Stern's cinematography is wonderful, and this time, he doesn't make the movie all sepia tone like in "Letters of Iwo Jima" or "Changeling" and I congratulate the editors Joel Cox and Gary Roach once again for making each shot beautifully seamless and well structured for the storyline. The music by Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens is not just a pretty tone that plays along with the movie, but it adds some oomph and emotion. I particularly love their choice of African vocals, for it not only makes the film feel more real, but it is absolutely beautiful to listen to.

Clint Eastwood has done another great movie. Not only has he captured the themes of the story, but also the poverty of South Africa as well as the intense rugby sequences. There are some powerful scenes in this movie, as well as some intense and suspenseful ones, and even ones that'll make you smile. For the first time in a movie for this year, I actually cried. Not because of sadness, but from joy.

"Invictus" is an inspiring film. Some back-story could have been added to the characters and the first act could have been faster, but overall, I enjoyed this film. "Invictus" proves that it doesn't take special effects and big action sequences to make a great film. It is excellent to see one of our great old directors to recognize this, and display it so wonderfully without being preachy about it.

Locker Room Lockup

[tedg · 29 May 2010]

To my mind, this is less about South Africa, sport and Mandela than about another man.

Oh, the drama was really there. It doesn't matter that it was not as significant in uniting a nation as depicted. How could it be? How could it?

But the dramatic form is there because it works. We like to show the sweep of the large by embossing on an individual. Here at least we don't have love. And we like to illustrate a personal struggle by showing masses in huge movement. Masses and mass excitement are cinematic, and human internals cannot be. So we show internal struggle by external means.

What I celebrate is another man, Clint Eastwood. Now here is a man well past the time he could relax, making significant films. This is not complex like "Mystic River," nor as cheaply mawkish as "Million Dollar Baby." It is in between. But it is — if I recall — the first time Clint has shown mass movement. Here he uses Morgan Freeman in ways that Morgan has a hard time cheapening the thing.

Photographing moving team sports like football, soccer and basketball is something of a challenge. You have to make decisions about what role the camera plays. Dance is a similar challenge, but you have more flexibility because the tradition in theater is to break the walls and engage. In sport, the barrier between player and watcher is sacrosanct. The drama depends on you investing in the game; the fiction that the players represent you is tangible.

But it equally depends on you being remote, whether in a stadium or in an upholstered chair in your home. That distance makes the business work. It allows representation without inclusion, because the viewer gets the pleasure of having someone else do his work for him. It has to be explicit that it is someone else.

So the camera cannot take the viewer into the game as a participant. It has to always be a watcher. But how to do so, staying within the carefully evolved confines of watcherdom and still give us some greater immediacy? Eastwood finds a balance. He relies a bit too much on the camera on the ground, looking into the locked players for me. But he strikes a better balance than say Oliver Stone does in "Any Given Sunday," which is basically a war movie without death.

Eastwood. Building a legacy, one small but well crafted film at a time. Who among us ever suspected that this fellow, with no film school, no real musical training, would become one of our most practiced directors and film musicians.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Reconciliation and Forgiveness

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 28 January 2011]

On 11 February 1990, Nelson Mandela is released after twenty-seven years imprisoned in Robben Island. In 1994, he is elected President of South Africa and he tries to unite his nation that is divided by the apartheid. Near the Rugby World Cup 1995 in South Africa, Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) invites the captain of the Springboks François Pienaar (Matt Damon) to come to the government palace for a tea and inspires François to win the championship with his team.

"Invictus" is a pleasant movie about the integration of people through the sports, in a country racially and economically split, by an enlightened man that preaches reconciliation and forgiveness. Morgan Freeman, as usual, has a great performance in the role of the great South African leader. However, this film should be shorter and spends too much time in sequences of rugby, a sport that is not popular in my country and therefore boring and uninteresting to me. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Invictus"

Just one great film

[artzau · 10/10 · 11 December 2009]

People forget that Nelson Mandela came to power at a time when his country was bitterly divided. There was the bitter experience that white South Africans saw in their neighboring countries,i.e., Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe and other nations where the White colonialist had been replaced by Black African politicians and a stable government had been replaced by corrupt, self-serving regimes where those in power feathered their nests after seizing the assets of their former White citizens and placed all their friends in positions of authority with the result of the country going to the dogs. The scene where the Afrikaaner newspaper remarks, "Mendela can get elected but can he run a country," and the superb Morgan Freeman remarks to his bodyguard that the headline raises a good point.

In a sense, this film is about Mandela. The rugby team becomes a metaphor of what he faced when ascending to the presidency, a nation divided. Noting that the Black South Africans were cheering for the opposition in the face of the old Apartheid guard whose love of rugby unified them. It's easy to forget that there was a great division among White South Africans, i.e., the descendants of the Boers, Afrikaaners, and the rest. There was even a middle ground with the "Coloreds," Asian South Africans, being caught between these two worlds and there were bitter rivalries among the competing African political interest groups as well.

Mandela's focus on reviving the national rugby team and making it a symbol of a new united nation homes in on the role of Matt Damon, an Afrikaaner who's the captain of the team. Francois is the catalyst that makes this story work and Damon, the rugged Mick from Boston, does a fantastic job showing the transition from hopelessness to hope as many White South Africans felt at that time. The wonderful thing about this film is its touching on all the levels. It goes beyond being merely the story of a single man or group of men. Sure, we love a "feel good" movie and of course we love an "underdog can win" flick, but this film works works because its about people working together to rebuild something new for everybody.

The film reeks with great moments: Pienaar visiting the cell where Mandela spent more than 20 years of his life, thinking and planning; The New Zealand Rugby team doing their Maori threat dance before the match; the jet buzzing the field before the game-- and so on. See it. Enjoy it. And, don't forget, it's a bit of history. Romanticized? Somewhat. Mandela wasn't able to solve all of South Africa's big problems, but he did one bang-up job for the Springboks.

A routine look at a legendary man at a critical time--it works by appreciating Mandela

[secondtake · 7/10 · 14 November 2012]

Invictus (2009)

It helps to have Nelson Mandela as your main character. The inspiration he provided his country for decades, in and out of jail, is transferred here through a single focus--the national rugby team. In the form of Morgan Freeman, Mandela is made to be as profound and humble as he truly seemed to be, at least as a public figure.

So even if you have troubles with Clint Eastwood movies (they all seem pretty decent, you have to admit, whatever the repeating clichés in them), this one rises above in enough parts to warrant the good attention. Eastwood, to be sure, never appears. This is mostly Freeman's movie, though the other big name is Matt Damon, who is good enough (as usual) in a role that is minor and fairly straight forward, the captain of the team.

The best of the movie is the interpersonal mixing with the political. We get a glimpse (if only that) of post-apartheid South Africa, and of how fractious the scene was. And how Mandela used the mostly white rugby team to represent a new, tolerant country with its new, tolerant black president. It's a clever, clear way to get into that world in a heartbeat.

Where the movie gets most outwardly exciting it gets more ordinary--at the Rugby World Cup. Then it becomes a kind of sports movie where the underdog seems like it really might win. It helps to have the larger themes of reconciliation and Mandela's presence mean so much in it all, but eventually it's all about getting the goal. I was cheering for the S. African team but I was also losing respect for the movie's more interesting (and important) intentions. I know, that makes me seem mixed up, but you might see what I mean when you get there.

Does this sentimentalize the situation? Oversimplify? Make Hollywood and far more interesting and complicated and sometimes unhappy affair? Probably a loud yes on all accounts. But in that sense, it really is a Clint Eastwood film. Well made stuff, but not half what it might have been.

Freeman is great as Mandela

[eastbergholt2002 · 8/10 · 12 December 2009]

Invictus is an enjoyable film, Morgan Freeman is great as Mandela and it's an inspiring story. The movie revolves around the 1995 Rugby World Cup and Mandela's attempt to unite South Africa behind its rugby team. Mandela develops a relationship with team captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon)playing the role of mentor and motivational coach.

Although it's well-made and worth watching. As a rugby fan I was a little disappointed with the action on the field although most ordinary film-goers may not notice. I am not convinced the director (Clint Eastwood) really understands the game and the actors hired to play the Springboks didn't really look the part. At 5'10" Matt Damon is a little small to play the 6'3" and 240 lb Pienaar. Pienaar was a popular charmer with a ready smile and a real ambassador for South African rugby. Damon still seemed to be playing Jason Bourne. It was an intense performance but it wasn't how I remembered Pienaar.

South Africa had not been allowed to play in previous world cup tournaments and the years of isolation had left the Springboks uncompetitive. They were seeded ninth coming into the tournament but exceed expectations by reaching the final. The action focuses on the final match with New Zealand. New Zealand had an amazing wing (running back) in the 20 year old Jonah Lomu who at 6'5" and 265 pounds seemed unstoppable. South Africa really were the underdogs. It was also the only time that the All Blacks have managed to reach the final since 1987. They usually get beat by the French (1999, 2007) or Australia (1991 and 2003)in the quarters or semis.

Overall it's nice for rugby to finally receive some recognition from Hollywood, because it's a major global sport. It's a good film.

I discovered that "Invictus" is a short poem by the English poet William Ernest Henley. The title is Latin for "unconquered". It was first published in 1875.

The Master of His Fate is given a decent, corny sports movie

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 12 December 2009]

In Invictus, Morgan Freeman doesn't have to act like Nelson Mandela, since he basically *is* Mandela (more God-like in demeanor and in his kindness and reserve than his God in the 'Almighty' franchise). His poise and speech and way of showing immense pain and conflict buried underneath a strong demeanor is perhaps reason enough to see this movie. Seeing him on screen, acting intensely even when sitting calmly in a car with his sunglasses on, is seeing a tremendous actor doing service to a marvel of a human being like Mandela. I just wish this Mandela, who is what he is and is alongside Matt Damon as a likable-tough South African Rugby captain, was in a movie less corny and more political. The story is the tale of the 95 Rugby World Cup, but it's also the story of Mandela in this context, and the balance between the two becomes, shall we say, 'sappy'.

With all due respect to Clint Eastwood, it comes off here like all Nelson Mandela did as president was worry about how South Africa was doing in whatever Rugby game was going on, even when doing President-things like meetings and speeches. It's meant to be a stirring sports movie - how the underdog triumphed against the odds - more-so than a politically-charged screed, which is fine, on paper. But I wish the sports scenes were less corny and we saw more of what Mandela did as President. His tactic is clear, to be sure: get the Rugby team to win the world cup, and unite the nation. This, too, is fine, on paper or in theory. But we only get very slight glimpses of this nation's strife, and people going into the film without knowing the history of the aftermath of apartheid will be getting a story that is half-cooked around the facts and pablum of victory.

It is watchable, don't get one wrong: the scenes where Mandela projects his influence on people is magnetic to see. Mandela in front of a crowd can be just as moving and interesting as in front of one person, be it that sports organization he comes to as a surprise visit ("You chose me as your leader - let me lead"), or his cool rationale for focusing so strongly on Rugby ("It's a ... human calculation"). One wishes for more of that in some part to Freeman's presence and control of the role, but also because the scenes with the Rugby team, frankly, aren't anywhere near as compelling. We've seen this story before and even without knowing the true story know it's outcome minutes before it's presented, like, as they say in sports movies, "destiny".

Again, some of the predictability would still be fine, and is tolerable, but Eastwood also doesn't really do enough to give the Rugby matches real uplift and energy. He does try in the climax, but in, again, a corny aspect - he cuts between the various fans watching in bars and houses and in the sold out arena New Zealand/South Africa are playing in, and then with a little boy who may/may not be getting ready to do something with an object in a bag, only to stop by the awesome power of the game on radio. Perhaps if one is a sucker for such inspiring stories, this will come as the treat of the season. For those wanting something more from its iconic filmmaker, or to see a side of President Mandela outside of being a hardcore Rugby enthusiast, it disappoints. But, at the least, it has that embodiment of a great figure at its center, the best one's seen since the days of Henry Fonda as Lincoln.

Sadly disappointing

[Barky44 · 5/10 · 3 January 2010]

I'm very sorry to say it, especially because this film was created by talented folks such as Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood, but "Invictus" is terribly disappointing.

Nelson Mandela is a tremendously important figure in 20th Century history. His inspiring story affects not just South Africans but all of us. He deserves a film of the same emotional caliber as "Ghandi" was for Mahatma and "Kundun" was for the Dalai Lama. But "Invictus" falls flat and fails to live up to that standard. This is an incredible shame, too, for if IMDb Trivia is to be believed, Mandela himself believed that the world cup rugby story sums up his history, charisma, and leadership quite nicely and would make for a good film.

There are multiple problems with this film. First and foremost is the pacing. This movie is so dull, so lifeless, it clumsily plods along from one meeting to another with barely an emotional center at all. The script and the direction are the culprits here: too much idle chit chat. The biggest problem is the focus on the security detail. Fully 1/3 of the film is devoted to these chaps for no reason! There's little payoff for all that time investment. They should have been relegated to the sidelines, providing their one redeeming quality in this film: much-needed comic relief.

Next is Matt Damon. Now I am far from a Matt Damon basher, I think he's a fine actor and never find him to be an ego distraction like so many other stars. But he adds very little to this story, his character could also have been sidelined. It seems like the producers wanted star power to get this project off the ground so they fished around for a big-name white star to give the film some cred and hopefully an audience.

Then there's rugby itself. This has to be one of the worst sports movies ever made in terms of not engendering interest in the sport itself. I think "MIghty Ducks" did more to promote hockey than "Invictus" did to promote rugby. A sports movie should engage and excite the viewer. This one simply showed the stereotype that rugby is a brutal, pointless sport. I doubt there will be many kids lining up to learn rugby as a result of this film.

Most aggravating is something the film LACKS. One of the most inspiring things to ever come out of Africa is the music. Where are the great African rhythms? This soundtrack, and the use of music throughout the film, is terrible. There's even this full-blown American pop number in the middle of it. None of the great, traditional, powerful, inspirational African music is in this film at all, and that really bothers me.

This is a crying shame. Nelson Mandela's story needs to be told. "Invictus" fails to tell it well.

Typical in your face movie

[seka-gaula · 27 October 2011]

The movie looks very impressive but only to foreign people, who are clueless about South Africa's political history. The same could be said of its director, Clint Eastwood, who seems to have just read a book about Mandela & his commitment to help South Africa win the World Cup Rugby and did a movie about it, without any profound knowledge about South Africa's political heritage.

Eastwood makes it look as if Mandela had it all his way after becoming the president of South Africa,and we South Africans know there's no truth to this. There's no F.W.De Klerk in this movie & some white Afrikaaners who still endeavoured to make things difficult for Mandela & the entire black race in a post apartheid South Africa, meaning those who thought that blacks were going to oppress whites in the same way that whites maltreated blacks. There's more humour in the movie & less the emotional trauma that engulfed the black race during this period.

Towards the movie's end, there's a white guy lifting up a black kid in rejoice after South Africa trounced New Zealand to win the World Cup. That to me was so unrealistic it was like a fantasy dream.

And what about the flaws in this movie, which IMDb movie reviewers declined to mention? Morgan Freeman struggling to pronounce Mandela's middle name, "Rholihlahla", when Mandela took oath for the first time as president of South Africa? That was a total disgrace because Mandela had always taken pride in pronouncing African names correctly. If Eastwood was smart, he would've hired someone to pronounce Mandela's middle name & pretended as if it was Freeman doing so.I hear from a reliable source that they did the same with Terrence Howard, who will also try his luck as Mandela in the upcoming movie, Winnie, alongside Jennifer Hudson, who will portray Winnie Mandela. Adjoah Andoh's accent was also very annoying & I can assure you there's no South African who speaks like that.

And Freeman keeping quiet in singing the national anthem during the final match between South Africa and New Zealand? Aah common! Mandela always sang our national anthem to the full to encourage other people to be patriotic about our country.

To encapsulate, I think it's for the better that South Africans portray their own political heroes because they know their political history better than anybody else. They also won't struggle to emulate the African accents of their political heroes since they are naturalised in them.

And the movie is very predictable, looks like a sports like Disney movie & doesn't leave any memories behind. If I had to give anyone credit in this movie, it would be Tony Kgoroge, who portrayed Mandela's bodyguard, Jason Tshabalala. Watch the movie & you could really see him trying his best to invoke those much needed emotions in the movie. And what did Matt Damon do to be nominated for an Oscar award in this movie? I give the movie 6/10 & it's even lucky to get that from me.

Seka Samuel Gaula Cape Town, South Africa

Politics and sports come together decently

[GethinVanH · 7/10 · 26 December 2009]

I don't like many of Eastwood's emotionally cloying films like "Million Dollar Baby" and "Gran Torino". Emotional harp strings are played frequently in those movies.

Invictus is quite different. The movie is a biopic but it's not a biopic, it's about one part of Mandela's life. It's a very small part, the 1995 Rugby World Cup which was held in South Africa. This is a risky move, but this is in fact better than doing a complete biopic of Mandela's life. I would compare this movie to last year's Frost/Nixon, it's a glimpse of the man's life, a part of his life deemed important not by the man himself but by his biographers.

Freeman is quite good but his accent is a bit flaky at times. Damon is alright as well but he doesn't have much to work with here as the captain of the South Africa Rugby squad. A lot of it is working up his teammates and convincing them that there is a political purpose behind their team winning.

There is still some manipulation here as there always in Eastwood's films. A plane flies over at one point and the music gets all ominous and tense. Your first thought is 'OH MY GOD, IT'S THE TERRORISTS' but it's subterfuge on Eastwood's part, as usual.

The musical score is also quite bad in a few places. Instead of going with a traditional instrumental score, there are bad pieces of modern adult contemporary music.

Overall it's a pretty decent movie and I liked Freeman in his role as Mandela, I can't imagine anyone else really taking on this role. Maybe there is a South African actor out there who could do it. There are South African actors in this movie and it's really quite hard to understand their accent at times.

This is the greatest inspirational movie

[nicms99 · 10/10 · 1 May 2010]

I must confess that I am a great fan of Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman an Matt Damon (not necessarily in this order), but what impressed me most in this movie was the story (and if it was real, much better!). We can learn from this story that not revenge, but forgiveness is the most powerful weapon of our beings. Seeing this picture movie I realized how difficult was for Mandela to prevent a civil war or even a riot on such a drastic change of regimes. For those who lived under hard circumstances (like apartheid, communism or so called socialism) is much easier to understand the subtlety of the story, and more than that, this movie is a must see. That's one of the reasons I rate it 10 out of 10.

Good and effective, great performances, but generally run-of-the-mill

[Monotreme02 · 7/10 · 26 December 2009]

For the past decade or so, Clint Eastwood has had one of the most consistently high-quality outputs out of any director working today – and aside from Robert Altman and maybe one or two more earlier in the decade, he is also the oldest one of the bunch. It was an absolute treat to see a director reach the twilight of his career and bloom with the vitality and energy of a young director just getting his big break. Eastwood's films this past decade have been big, potent epics of emotion, from the Shakespearian characters in Mystic River to the down-and-dirty determinists in Million Dollar Baby to the subtle honor of the stars of Letters from Iwo Jima. Eastwood was always so careful in selecting his powerful, dramatic subjects over the past few years – which is why the vanilla-coated glossiness of Invictus seems completely out of place in his oeuvre.

The strongest aspect of this film is without a doubt the cast. To Eastwood's credit, subject matter like this – big, epic historical biopics – do usually tend to ham it up when it comes to acting and very often enter the level of theatrics and over-performing. Luckily, Eastwood is at least too smart to fall into that trap, and both lead actors in the film – Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, who actually plays more of a supporting character, but no matter – deliver quite subtle and yet totally effective performances, despite the fact that they are playing larger-than-life characters with real-world counterparts. This renders the performances less bombastic and showy than what has come to be expected from these types of roles – I especially expected Freeman to turn this into one of those "roles of a lifetime" things – but they are still emotionally powerful and admirably subtle turns from two of our greatest actors, especially Damon who is most effective and one of the most underrated performers working today.

As to the film itself, it's not that it's bad in any way; it's a really good and effective drama that depicts an important event in world history and covers a lot of emotional and political ground in a very simple and concise premise. There are some truly powerful scenes – such as the first time Freeman's Nelson Mandela steps onto the Rugby field and is met with a pretty noticeably equal mix of cheers and boos from the crowd. My one real problem with the film is that it takes a very important and complicated political atmosphere – post-Apartheid South Africa and the reconciliation efforts on the part of Nelson Mandela to bring the blacks and the whites together and to unify his country – and just blatantly over-simplifies it and sugarcoats it. And I think that the screenplay is to blame: its lack of harmony and emotional balance is really noticeable. I felt that scenes depicting the racial tension suffered from the "Crash" effect: put the problems so dead center – and solved them so easily and without too much suffering – that they never really got the heart of it. I also felt that something was a little off in the rugby scenes: Eastwood has shown a newfound energy and vitality in his recent films, but the scenes depicting the rugby games in the film just felt stiff, and lacked the immediacy of better-edited sequences in the likes of Friday Night Lights. To sum it up, I think that when a science fiction film manages to deal far more seriously and deeply with the same themes as an important historical drama such as this one, something is definitely lacking.

Inspirational

[dfranzen70 · 10/10 · 12 December 2009]

Clint Eastwood manages to top himself with this true story of how the new president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, used the national rugby team foray into the World Cup to unite his country after years of apartheid. Eastwood’s soft touch provides a timely but not heavy-handed message about hope and change that probably won’t be lost on American audiences. The result is beautiful, exhilarating, and wholly inspirational.

Mandela, played with effortless dignity by Morgan Freeman, is fresh out of prison and desperate for a way to rebuild his country, which has been torn asunder by the heinous policies of apartheid. Mandela comes to believe that the most sensible way for this to be accomplished is not by making speeches in faraway lands but to give his countrymen something they can all cheer about. His solution is to galvanize the national rugby team, which to date had not been a particularly successful club and had been given very little chance to compete on an international stage like the World Cup. Mandela pins all of his political hopes on the club’s chances; should they fail, he will appear to have behaved frivolously in paying so much attention to a sport, and the black people and the white people would be even farther apart.

The odds were decidedly against the Springboks of South Africa. The team was a certified failure, so much so that the coach had just been axed. Captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) is frustrated. Times are so bad in South Africa that during the team’s matches, the white audience members cheer for South Africa – but the black audience members cheer for the opposition, because the team itself is almost entirely white, with only one black player. Indeed, after Mandela’s election as president, South African groups vote overwhelmingly to drop the traditional rugby nickname “Springboks” as a way to shed themselves of all reminders of the apartheid era. Mandela realizes that such a action would instead drive a further wedge between the two races, so he countermands the local votes and maintains the nickname and the traditional green-and-gold uniforms.

Sports movies in general are expected to follow a particular formula, more so than other films. That is, if we’re met with a ragtag band of sandlot players, we expect them to somehow persevere by the end of the movie. This is one of the few genres in which such predictability is a major plus. Sports movies are meant to manipulate you shamelessly, and you’re a willing, permissive participant. Invictus certainly plucks all the heartstrings it can, but the bonus is that these events actually happened. This isn’t The Mighty Ducks beating the bad guys or Henry Rowengartner’s Cubs winning the World Series, this is a real-life rugby team gaining strength, wisdom, and inspiration from their newly elected president to triumph over steep odds.

That said, this is less a movie about winning the championship and more about unification. Mandela, who had been imprisoned for 27 years, had steep odds of his own to contend with. Although democratically elected, there were still plenty of people throughout the country who really didn’t trust their new leader at all and were convinced that he would lead them all to ruin. (Sounds a little familiar, and I assume that the timing was intentional on the part of Eastwood.) Mandela had to unite everyone, beginning with his own staff, in order for the country to move forward and have a seat at the proverbial international table.

Because of this grand vision, Mandela takes a personal interest in the fortunes of the rugby team, even to the point of rescheduling events so that he can watch the matches either in person or at least on television. He is careful not to intrude too much in the training and management of the team (particularly Pienaar).

Now, granted, this is an American movie made for American audiences, so there are some concessions. For one thing, the rules of rugby have to be mentioned at least once (and not enough, as far as I was concerned); for another, the focus isn’t just on the political machinations and aspirations of Mandela but rather on how the team itself reacts to its new success and the attempts by its captain to inspire them to ever-greater heights. What this slight sleight of hand does is present the idea of postpartheid attitudes in the framework of an athletic event, something American audiences can always care about, no matter the sport. Excellent decision by the director, I think, because the overall message is enhanced, rather than obscured, by the experiences of the Springboks.

Even with the political subtext, and even among sports movies (which themselves are usually very evocative), this is a highly emotional film. The rugby scenes are so well done, so fantastic to watch, that nonfans like me – who don’t know a thing about rugby – can’t help but let down their steely resolve and cynicism. This is a happy, optimistic movie, but it’s not a funny movie. There was hardly a dry eye in the theater today, thanks to the powerful rugby scenes, and I have to admit I haven’t teared up that much at any movie in a long, long time. Eastwood’s strong direction pushes the audience into the right direction, but we go willingly and happily. Freeman is commanding in the role he was always meant to play (Mandela himself wanted Freeman to portray him), and even Damon is excellent as the South African rugby captain. This is a true winner in all aspects of film.

Good Enough Sports Pic; Good Enough Political Bio-Pic

[Danusha_Goska · 7/10 · 20 December 2009]

"Invictus" is a good enough sports movie and a good enough political bio-pic, but not more than that. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman. I really need to see him play against type at least once. Maybe a male prostitute or something. Here he does what he always does, lately: play the stately elder who mentors usually white youths. Matt Damon is surprisingly good as a real life rugby player, Francois Pienaar, who, as a google image search quickly reveals, was much larger and more ferocious looking than Damon. Damon's South African accent is good, but, in the end, he's given little to do. The rugby scenes are appropriately inspirational.

The film's weak points are many. There are too many scenes of Nelson Mandela being handed paperwork by his lovely aid, signing the paperwork, and handing it back to his lovely aid. There is no appreciation of the South African landscape, or even Cape Town, one of the most spectacularly situated cities on earth. Nothing new is achieved in the field of filmed sports. If Clint Eastwood wanted to create a film with no memorable, arresting visual images, he certainly did. The film presents the situation in South Africa as black or white, and it's much more complicated than that. For example, Afrikaner settlement in predates Zulu settlement; and majority vote has been followed by very high crime rates, including utterly horrendous rape rates.

A marvelous film to flash us back to South Africa's most precious historical moments...

[janyeap · 10/10 · 8 December 2009]

Indeed, a lovely and feel good movie that reminds us how a nation so stricken by apartheid and rebellions, and 14,000 civilians dead, is able to heal, and its turning point in history in reconciliation and strife for democracy. Director Clint Eastwood's film does pay tribute to both Nelson Mandela and the captain of the previously hated Springboks rugby team, Francois Pienaar for the Springboks's epic win against New Zealand's All Blacks with the final 15-12 score at the 1995 World Rugby Cup, as well as for their initiating the first major step towards white and black South Africans living together in acceptance. And that famous hand shake we see in the film really does speak a lot.

The match between the two teams at Johannesburg's Ellis Park Stadium in 1995 is so phenomenally presented on screen. Boy, it does look so real that I can't help myself cheering for the Springboks as if it's a life event! Eastwood, too, brings humor in the film. Boy, that famous moment with the All Black's gigantic superstar being tackled near the try-line by the big size Springboks defender! And the black and white Presidential guards gradually building up their trust in one another! These are so captivatingly funny. And with minutes ticking and Stransky does his amazing kick, sending the ball almost 100 ft to strike the drop goal to deliver the final score for Springboks' victory is so stunningly awesome! Fabulous film direction from Director Eastwood! The scenes with Matt Damon's visit to the prison are extraordinarily chilling, and fabulously crafted... reminding the viewers of the 27 yeas of prison and hard labor Mandela had to go through in his fight for his people's freedom against the NP's apartheid programs. Director Eastwood's film offers incredible spot on with facts, to include the Springboks' green and gold jerseys with their Springbok and Protea emblems! And, after the Springboks made their epic win over the All Blacks, watching Morgan Freeman's Mandela presenting the trophy to Matt Damon's Francois Pienaar while wearing a Springbok shirt with Pienaar's own number 6 on the back, it's impossible not to be touched by that scene. Indeed, the many, who had watched that particular match in 1995 Rugby World Cup, can relate to that scene as seen live on TV worldwide.

Morgan Freeman does play Mandela to a tee, Mandela's frailty, his gait, his charm and the way Mandela talks and smiles! And Damon is also no lesser credible as an Afrikaner rugby captain! Anyone familiar with Francois Pienaar would be able see Damon and Pienaar's physical builds are pretty similar. Boy, oh boy, do I love his Afrikaner accent! Indeed, my best feature film seen so far for the Oscar race. A true work of artistic film-making value that superbly unfolds South Africa's major historical events and moments! To observe the faces of hope on screen is so heartwarming. I certainly hope that this film and both Freeman and Damon would be getting Oscar nominations.

I really can't wait to get all my family members and friends to see this film! Best feature film I've so far seen for the Oscar race!

A Continuous Story of Nelson Mandela Life after He Was Elected President.

[gisren · 7/10 · 27 May 2021]

This movie is a look at Nelson Mandela's life after he became the first elected President of South Africa. It really was intense to watch as he got hate from his own people, but inspiring to see that he kept his head up and a warm smile on his face. The camera angles on the scene were they capture the crowds cheering and how it went into slow motion really set in place how important that moment was for Mandela and the team. The choice to choose Morgan Freeman to play as Mandela was a no brainer. Every role he has ever played, he delivers it perfectly and as expected each time. Morgan Freeman really captured what Mandela would put forth for his people and the 1995 winning Rugby World Cup team, and made the movie feel authentic, like as if I was really watching Mandela live.

A superb movie about the power of personal character to influence a nation

[tucsonkent · 10/10 · 22 December 2009]

Don't miss this inspiring movie! The acting is superb. Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon become their characters. The attitudes of Damon's family help to exemplify the resistance to change. The attitudes of the South African blacks toward the mostly white South African rugby team reflects the deeply held anger of people who have suffered repression for generations.

The movie is a testament to the power of courageous personal character, when it is grounded in respectfulness and pragmatism, to inspire others to change attitudes that are deeply held.

The use of rugby as a tool to effect change is most appropriate. Clearly, everyone in the country cares deeply about the sport. The sport itself is quite brutal. Clint Eastwood does a superb job of conveying this element of the sport, as well as the importance of attitude in influencing a team's performance.

"Invictus" divides its forces into two fronts and, unfortunately, becomes less potent than it could have been. if only one side of the coin was chosen (preferably Mandela)

[fernandoschiavi · 6/10 · 13 March 2023]

The plot takes us back to the early 1990s, when Mandela was released from prison after being incarcerated for over 30 years. The opening scene is a competent summary of the Apartheid years, showing the division between whites and blacks, the latter playing football in a vacant lot, while the former, rugby in a green field. The progression of facts is fast, but quite explanatory and even exciting. Mandela's speeches, delivered by Morgan Freeman, are of a poignant intensity, and the first few minutes already catch the viewer with a lump in the throat.

Four years later, presidential elections take place in South Africa and Mandela is elected. The first point that the new ruler wants to change in the country is the separation between whites and blacks. Not with small revenge on the people who oppressed them for so many years, but with the idea that dialogue and understanding can make everyone live in harmony. One of his first actions is to assemble a multiracial security team, which will accompany him in all his appointments. This idea is rejected by the head of security, Jason (Tony Kgoroge), who, however, ends up being persuaded by the president himself. Realizing that rugby is a game very dear to the population, but that the crowd is divided between whites, Springbok fans, and blacks, fans of any other rival team, Mandela decides to ask the captain of the team, François Pienaar (Matt Damon), for a special attention with the World Cup, an event that will be hosted in the country soon. Mandela believes that a championship victory could bring the population together at last.

From a political point of view, "Invictus" is frighteningly naive: summing up Mandela's political initiatives to his involvement with the rugby team (his other commitments as a statesman, including a speech at the UN, are always viewed with disinterest by Eastwood), the film resorts to crude contrasts between the beginning and end of the narrative in order to try to demonstrate the effectiveness of the President's strategy. Thus, if at the beginning Mandela is booed by part of the public that is in the stadium, later he is received with shouts of "Nelson! Nelson! Nelson!", while a boy who refused to accept a shirt from the national team is eventually seen cheering for it - and if these examples already sound terribly artificial, they don't even compare to the embarrassing shot in which we see several white police officers carrying a little black boy as they celebrate a South African victory, in one of the film's most pathetic scenes. The script signed by Anthony Peckham (Sherlock Holmes, 2009), which completely forgets all the other attitudes that Mandela took to make South Africa evolve as a country. It wasn't just support for rugby that caused the population to let down its guard to racial prejudice. Certainly, other measures were taken, but never shown on the scene. It is true that the film is, after all, about sport, but certainly more details about the politics of the wise Mandela would enrich the narrative, giving a better portrait of that time. But that wasn't the point, apparently.

In any case, "Invictus" at least has some moments of subtlety that, if they don't balance the artificiality of most of the narrative, at least avoid major embarrassments: it is interesting to note, for example, how François speaks in Afrikaans with a white maid of Mandela not realizing that this is an insult to the President (who, in turn, pretends not to notice) - and Eastwood is to be commended for not trying to draw the viewer's attention to what is happening, leaving it up to us to perceive for ourselves (or not) the gaffe committed by the athlete. In the same way, when one of Mandela's black bodyguards finds himself facing a white colleague he doesn't know, his initial impulse (asking if he "is under arrest") is revealing and touching, demonstrating his conditioning to decades of oppression and injustice. Finally, the sequence involving a tour of the national team through an impoverished region of the country is something that moves without exaggeration, while at the same time illustrating the President's intelligent double strategy, which shocks the athletes with reality while bringing the population closer together. Of team.

As for the cast, it's no surprise that Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon and the rest of the cast are so inspired by their roles. Freeman, a friend of Mandela, had been trying to bring the life of the former president of South Africa to the cinema for years. After many unsuccessful attempts, the actor decided on the cut of the Rugby World Cup. Knowing this, it is easy to understand the vigor of an actor when interpreting Mandela, given the preparation and anticipation of his desire. An actor more than used to playing authority figures and characters whose wisdom is notorious (from God to the President of the USA, he has embodied all kinds of leaders), Freeman lends his immense charisma and his powerful and evocative voice to Mandela, pronouncing the words in a careful cadence that not only refers to the enunciation of the man he is incarnating, but also suggests a fundamental caution and intelligence for that man to be able to carry out his difficult functions of guiding a country divided by prejudice and poverty.

At the same time, the actor seeks to avoid deifying the subject, also portraying his loneliness, his sense of humor and his occasional insecurities. To emphasize this effort, by the way, another character goes so far as to comment that Mandela "is not a saint, but just a man", which seems to be an obvious attempt by the film not to become a hagiography - which would be commendable if the script itself do not take it upon yourself to, in the scene immediately following this speech, bring Mandela waiving a third of his salary because he considers it too high. Still, Freeman manages to create a figure that, while not being multidimensional or particularly complex (which is a shame), is far from caricature due to his restrained and balanced performance.

Matt Damon, another talented performer, is less fortunate, as his François Pienaar is never satisfactorily developed by the script - and it becomes even difficult to understand why the role required a star of Damon's stature, as it offers no opportunity to prominence, revealing himself as a lackluster athlete and a captain without much leadership ability. Anyway, the actor does what he can, deserving credit at least for his physical transformation and his accent. It is curious to observe how the star understands each different moment of that character, showing a shy silence in his day-to-day life, but abundant strength and determination while on the field. Pienaar's place is in the stadium, playing alongside his teammates. Any other location makes you uncomfortable. The interpreter's body expression represents this, especially if we notice how out of place he appears to be at home and how much master of himself he feels when commanding his companions.

The production gains real strength in its second hour, when it turns to clashes between the Springbok and their opponents in the World Cup. Eastwood is competent in managing to mix the brutality of the matches with the emotion and beauty of a game in the stadium. It is impressive to watch the players' movements so closely and to witness, on the big screen, emblematic moments of the matches - as is the case of the New Zealand Haka, a Maori ritual that precedes each All-Blacks game and that is captured with all the importance it deserves by the film-maker. On the other hand, Eastwood practically limits himself to some panoramic shots and mid-range shots, always opting for more closed shots that favor interpretations. He ends up exaggerating the use of slow motion - especially in the final game -, also making mistakes in the inorganic flashbacks that seek to do the unnecessary job of sending the viewer back to the period in which the protagonist was imprisoned. As if that were not enough, the filmmaker is dishonest when trying to create a cheap suspense in two specific moments: when accompanying a van that moves towards Mandela and when focusing on the somber expression of a pilot who commands a plane over the stadium in which the President is found - and the impression we get is that, lacking a real threat present in the script, Eastwood felt compelled to artificially include it through the direction.

The film's intentions are the best. And even though some of the most impressive/remarkable sequences were filmed in a stadium like Ellis Park, one of the most traditional and important in the country, the film lacks a better exploration of Mandela's story. The positive point of this story, and what it serves for us, if we consider football, or for other countries, taking into account their outstanding sports, is that of showing the ability of athletes to overcome themselves and, with their struggle, inspire and move to others. However, the film ends up getting a little tired due to some rugby sequences that are too long - which, probably, will only completely please fans of the sport. By seeking this balance between the "heroism" of a political leader and the act of bravery of athletes who knew how to reflect their quest for the union of a country, Invictus divides its forces into two fronts and, unfortunately, becomes less potent than it could have been. If only one side of the coin was chosen (preferably Mandela). Unfortunately, it is these small sins that put Invictus a notch below the filmmaker's previous works, such as Gran Torino (2008), Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) and Mystic River (2003). Those who think that Invictus is a biography of Nelson Mandela are mistaken. The protagonist of Invictus is the South African people demonstrated through rugby, and of course, a small part of the life trajectory of the Great Man that was Nelson Mandela. Too bad it didn't have as big an impact as it deserved.

Turning Your Back on Terror and Torture

[vitaleralphlouis · 1/10 · 28 December 2009]

Nelson and Winnie Mandella may be heroes to uninformed or hypocritical liberals, but well-informed people know that during the 1980's and 1990's numerous black citizens who dared to oppose, or being suspected of opposing, the Mandella's ANC Party in South Africa were tortured to death by "necklacing."

Necklacing is the practice of taking a person who disagrees with you politically and placing an old rubber tire filled with kerosene around their shoulders and setting it on fire. The torture-death normally lasts about 20 minutes.

Although this was done by black South Africans against other black South Africans dozens of times, others who opposed the Mandellas were taken care of by Winnie's "ball team" -- thugs who did not play sports but rather used baseball bats to club dissenters to a tortured death.

Oddly, American liberals who blab-on about inmates at Gitmo being subjected to loud music or other inconveniences; they find no fault with the Mandellas ANC torture practices -- or they pretend to know nothing about them. A simple Google search for "necklacing" would tell them all about it -- as would reading a newspaper -- but persons bent on ignorance will never make such a search.

Now we have Nelson Mandella portrayed in saint-like fashion by no less than Morgan Freeman. Shame on Clint Eastwood for making this deceitful movie.