Gurlyndrobb
While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.
Ortiz
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Celia
A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
u-10052
Invictus is a story about perseverance and forgiveness. It is a story of failure and triumph. This is an inspirational story about a rugby team that refuses to give in, and succeeds despite all odds at mending its broken country. Nelson Mandela, played by Morgan Freeman, is the epitome of leading by example. He is an empathetic, but strong willed leader who is determined to see his country whole again.He forgives those who locked him away in a cell and subjected him to hard labor for 30 years, because he wanted freedom for his people. He realizes now that his past enemies are now his people, and he must guide them. He keeps the name of the Springboks, and interests himself in the sport of his country. He talks to crowds of people, any of whom might be an assailant, but he puts himself in danger to show that he is not afraid, that these are his people. He supports the culture of the white minority, even though they were his enemies. He also leads Francois, captain of the South African Rugby team, by giving him a poem for which the film is named. Francois is a sincere leader who wants the best for his team, and he tries to accomplish the goals that he and Mandela share, a victory for South Africa. Matt Damon plays this part extremely well, nervous when first meeting Mandela, serious when leading his team off the field, and fierce in the huddle. The poem that helped both Mandela and Francois preaches perseverance and strength under pressure. For while an enemy may beat you, he may not crush your soul unless you let him. This is a theme shown throughout the film that makes this story so inspirational.
zkonedog
Whenever I see the name "Clint Eastwood" associated with a new moving coming to theaters, I automatically think of such incredible films as Million Dollar Baby, Changeling, and Gran Torino. Perhaps I am just spoiled by Eastwood's spotless track record, but that is the reality of the situation. With that in mind, Invictus does not live up to the billing...but it still is a very honorable effort.Basically, the film takes place primarily in the country of South Africa, where Nelson Mandela (played superbly by Morgan Freeman) has come to power and is striving to bridge the gap between blacks and whites after decades of apartheid rule. Mandela seizes upon the country's terrible rugby team, stocked primarily by high-brow, burly white men, as a symbol of unity for the country. He tabs Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) to captain the team and make them respectable (if not a whole lot more) heading into the World Cup. The rest, as they say, is history.Now, I can't say that this film was outright bad in any way. The race-relations message is one that resonates, the rugby team is certainly inspirational, and the acting is pretty good as well, led by the remarkable Freeman as one of the world's most storied leaders. Yet, unlike "Torino" or "Baby", the word I would use to describe this film is "understated". Instead of walloping viewers over the head with such heavy topics as euthanasia, religion, or death, in this effort Eastwood takes a much more low-key approach. There is drama, yes, and plenty of inspiration, but it just doesn't feel as epic as it could have been. Whether this was Eastwood trying to "follow the facts" as much as possible, or the real-life story just not providing the high drama of a fully scripted film, I'm not sure.Thus, if you are heading to the theater expecting utter greatness like I was, you will likely leave disappointed. However, if the topics/events/times in the film are of significant personal or cultural importance to you, then Invictus will automatically garner a five-star rating for its factual portrayal of the events that transpired.
l_rawjalaurence
The sporting sequences in Clint Eastwood's film are so-so; despite the guttural grunts on the soundtrack, it's clear the actors will never be successful rugby players. The commentary on the game(s) is replete with expressions that would not be used in rugby-playing countries; this is inevitable, perhaps, when the film is aimed at mass audiences, the majority of whom are not au fait with the game's rules.Yet such shortcomings should not detract from a highly uplifting film that shows how Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) not only managed to unify the country during that magical year of 1995, but preached a message of hope and forgiveness that everyone could understand. Director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Anthony Peckham are very good at depicting South Africa in the immediate aftermath of Mandela's release, when the whites and blacks had to try to get used to living as equals. This is well illustrated in the subplot involving the security guards, led by Jason (Tony Kgoroge), with white subordinates who up until a few years previously had been arresting their black counterparts. With their sharp suits and stony expressions, the white guards, led by Hendrick (Matt Stern) look especially fearsome.Mandela's way of reconciling the two races was simple; not just to supplant one regime with another, but to try and reconcile everyone. Hence his insistence on preserving the Springbok name and colors for the rugby team. The sequence where he enters a meeting and overturns a majority black vote to ban the name is especially affecting; Mandela speaks slowly and in measured tones, without trying to antagonize anyone.The central relationship between Mandela and South African rugby captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) has been cleverly handled. While Pienaar wants to adapt to the new South Africa, it's clear he is not sure how to do so, until Mandela invites him to afternoon tea. In this oh-so-tranquil of surroundings Mandela outlines his vision and the means to accomplish it, not by imposing his will on anyone but encouraging consensus. It is a lesson well learned; in the World Cup Final when South Africa are trailing the All Blacks, Pienaar calls his team together into a huddle and reminds them of why they are playing the game, not just for themselves but the entire nation.The title INVICTUS comes from a poem by the nineteenth century British writer W. H. Henley, emphasizing the importance of listening to the gods but remaining "the captain of one's soul." This is a lesson both Mandela and Pienaar are well aware of, as together they lead their country into a new era of national unity.
jc-osms
Appropriately, this dramatisation of South Africa's famous Rugby World Cup victory in 1995 in their own country, just a few years after Nelson Mandela's release from prison and the nation's re-admission to international sport, was shown while the present competition is occurring (Come on Scotland!). Actually I'm no rugby buff and so without a full working knowledge of the events of the time, bar the conclusion of course, let myself be swept along in a green and gold wave of sporting triumph and nation-building under the aegis of Mandela's benevolent presidency.The three narrative viewpoints centre on Mandela himself naturally and his transformation of the hard-line body politic in South Africa, the national rugby team captain Francois Pienaar and his evolution from relatively ignorant white Afrikaner to an inspiring one-nation sports idol, inspired by the humanity of Mandela and as a counterpoint microcosm of the new South Africa, the fractious, grudging melding of the established white security detail with Mandela's new black team which naturally goes from mutual dislike and mistrust to eventual respect and cooperation if not outright affection. In truth there wasn't too much drama to get excited about, as there usually isn't in sporting dramas and I have to say that while I enjoyed the triumph of the underdog and the respected the magnanimity of Mandela's conciliatory vision for his nation, director Eastwood didn't exactly rouse me out of my seat in so doing. I also never quite believed that I was watching Nelson Mandela, as Morgan Freeman, game as he is, just always looked like Morgan Freeman in the film. Damon benefits from being based on a less widely-known character although I understand that physically he resembles Pienaar just about as little as Freeman does Mandela. As ever he engages totally with his role, especially physically so that you believe in his part.The crowd scenes, especially recreating the stadium-full atmosphere of the Final and the later euphoric street celebrations of black and white alike are well done, even if you don't quite get the full blood and guts effect of fully engaged sport in the matches itself. Eastwood also, as ever, takes plenty of time out for reflective silence and rumination with some obvious exposition inserts too, no doubt with the American viewer in mind (say, how does this extra-time work again?).Still, it had to be said he does a relatively good job with an assignment which must have been somewhat alien to him and pays proper respect to one of the more notable sporting and national triumphs of recent times.
