Invictus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.