Morgan Freeman Movie:

				Label: Warner Bros. Pictutes Salesrank:
		MPAA Rating: Media: Theatrical Release

Invictus [Theatrical Release] Reviews:
Reconciliation on the Field
2009-12-15 - Rugby has never been well publicized in the US. Soccer, although not a ranking sport, receives far more publicity. Therefore, it was knowledge-expanding and stirring to observe the underdog South Africa team's road to a 1995 Rugby cup victory.

The accompanying plot, of course, was the work of Nelson Mandela in using this victory and its team preparation to try to unify South Africa. From our own trip in 1994, when the country was just opening up, we had an idea that there was much unrest and volatility. The nation was still racially divided, although the Apartheid enforced by a distinct white minority had just ended.

Mandela has never received credit for the job he did in keeping South Africa's peace, while trying to encourage foreign investment. He saw that merely seizing white-owned businesses and infrastructure would only be looting of a fixed amount of wealth. No growth could result from the types of activities that were occurring in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, where white minorities had been ousted from power.

As the new President of South Africa, representing an overwhelming black majority, Mandela took a long term view of what was needed. He alienated a considerable portion of his own party to implement his program of racial reconciliation.

The movie provides an exceptional, well integrated blend of sports and far-seeing political strategy.

Some critics have heaped praise on Invictus, claiming that this represents director Clint Eastwood's work "at the top of his game." Other critics have carped about what they see as "trite" dialog. Perhaps if Mandela had been ranting against his racist predecessors and, even more, against the US, they would have enjoyed the dialog more. One critic claimed that too much artistic license was taken in portraying actual events of Mandela's interaction with the rugby team and its captain. These objections seem trivial.

Others have predicted that Morgan Freeman, in his role of Mandela, is a strong Oscar candidate. I hope that Invictus receives a potful of other rewards as well.

With all the negative, tragic outcomes of recent history and, of course, today's events, it was refreshing and stirring to see the rugby success of the South Africa team. More to the point, it represented a hopeful outcome for the nation as a whole.

Very interesting
2009-12-15 - It sure is a unique movie about nation building. I thought Clint Eastwood captured the spirit of what happened during that World Cup perfectly. The All Blacks were more fearsome and the game far more intense than what is portrayed in the movie. But the intensity of the people, that was wonderful.

It is a very beautiful movie, made with a lot of love and care.

3.5 stars. Morgan Freeman shines in a somewhat flat film
2009-12-14 - INVICTUS is an interesting and often gripping film that nonetheless fails to deliver the emotional or intellectual blow it is clearly meant to. This is due primarily to what is usually a strength of Clint Eastwood's work as director...and to the somewhat sanitized feel of the story.

The film tells the true story of a small portion of Nelson Mandela's life, when he took a strong interest in the national rugby team of South Africa (the Springboks), because he believed their success would help him unite a divided country AND show the world the potential of the new South Africa.

When we meet the Springboks and their captain (played by Matt Damon, in another understated, naturalistic performance that is quick making him a significant acting force)...they are a team of all but one white player. They are avidly followed by the white population of South Africa...while at the same time they are playing well below their potential and essentially being lambasted by the media. In the South Africa of that time (early `90s), the black citizens embraced soccer, and Rugby was the sport that served as a reminder of Apartheid, with the colors and name that symbolized that horrible time.

President Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) senses that he might be able to convince a skeptical white population of his seriousness in being a leader for ALL by taking an interest in rugby. It's a cynical move that is also sincere at the same time. Mandela risks the anger of the blacks that elevated him to legendary status by convincing the National Sports commission to allow the Springboks to continue with their name and colors.

All this occurs as the World cup of Rugby is just months away from coming to South Africa. Mandela knows his efforts will amount to little if the team fails in the early going...so through meetings with Damon, he manages to pass a bit of inspiration down to the team.

In a wonderful and telling scene, we see the Rugby team headed out to teach a rugby camp to kids in a poor, black neighborhood. At first, the kids are only interested in Chester, the only black man on the team. They swarm to him...oblivious to the rest of team and to the sport. Yet we see slowly how these EXTREMELY reluctant coaches embrace their parts a role models and begin to work with the kids. By the end of the day, all concerned are happily exhausted...and totally thrilled. The scene is a cliché in many ways, but it is tidy and effective. We begin to see how little victories will eventually yield the big victory Mandela (and the team) are hoping for.

As a director, Eastwood always allows for a leisurely pace. He lets actors breathe. He lets them pause. He keeps his camera on them for a second longer than any other director would. This allows us, sometimes, to feel we know a character better. We feel we've been invited to share in even the most mundane moments of their lives (this is why GRAN TORINO worked so well...we cared so much about the characters that we overlooked the deeply clichéd story arc). But what the story of INVICTUS needs is more of a hurtling, headlong pace. It ambles, even when the "pressure cooker" of the tournament and all it means for the country comes to a head. There is little sense of urgency...and the film really could have used it. I was always interested...but never to the point of giving myself over to emotion.

That's also due in part to the fact that we've got two parallel stories (Mandela's and the team's). They frequently intersect...but they rarely bounce off each other in unexpected ways. Yes, it's a true story, but it takes such a leisurely, mostly expected course that it feels like a clichéd sports movie. But we haven't thoroughly invested in the Springboks because we've spent so much time with Mandela, that the sports accomplishments seem secondary. And our knowledge of Mandela is reduced almost exclusively to something akin to "#1 Rugby fan." Clearly, he was a much, much more interesting and complex man...yet we are only shown very limited glimpses of him. We see his keen yet instinctive grasp of the politics of race in his country. We believe his desire to forgive the sins of the past so his country can move forward (his actions along these lines are the most inspiring moments of the film...and most come fairly early). We get just the tiniest sense of his troubled domestic wife, although his wife Winnie is never mentioned by name. I won't say he's portrayed as a one-dimensional saint...but it's close to it.

The reason Mandela ISN'T just a one-dimensional saint is because of Morgan Freeman. Eastwood's love of allowing his actors to act truly frees up the best in Freeman. With MILLION DOLLAR BABY, Freeman won his first Oscar. There's a chance he could win #2 with his latest work under Eastwood. (I should also mention that one of Freeman's most overlooked performances was his stunning role in Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN.) No actor is better than Freeman at taking one-dimensional, saintly characters (everything from DEEP IMPACT to even SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION) and giving them an inner life that is frequently only expressed by the subtlest changes of expression. We're accustomed to Freeman's dulcet tones (what a great speaking voice he has)...but the reason he's in another category is because of the little things we barely notice. And he is not only the perfect choice to play Mandela, he's probably the ONLY choice (in the way Forest Whitaker was perfect for Idi Amin...not only was the acting outstanding, but the physical resemblance alone is a plus).

In the end, I felt more educated that enlightened. My mind had new things in it...but not my heart so much. (There are a few moments, such as the sobering visit to Mandela's jail cell, that help to enlighten us as to how large an accomplishment Mandela's forgiveness was.) If I had understood Rugby better, perhaps the games themselves would have been more exciting...but I suspect most of the action in them is fairly generic. If I had seen more of Mandela's other work, perhaps I would have felt a greater sense of HIS accomplishment.

In the end, there is much to admire in INVICTUS, and I certainly would encourage everyone to see it. It is also the kind of film that will cause lots of folks to learn more about Mandela & South Africa. (I can even see high school classes using it as a springboard for much more learning.) But in the end, I couldn't help feeling just a little disappointed.

brush up on your rugby and then see Invictus...
2009-12-14 -
Before you buy the movie tickets and order your popcorn, be sure to take about five minutes or so and brush up on the game of rugby. Then head for the theatre door, grab a seat and watch Morgan Freeman portray South Africa president Nelson Mandela in Clint Eastwood's latest gem,Invictus. In 1995, Mandela used the sport of rugby to bring a nation together, and now, Freeman, in 2009, uses his talent as an actor to show the world on the silver screen how one man's courage and fortitude brought together a nation of 43 million. As for a quick-reference guide on rugby, it is football without pads and it is rough. Forty-minute halves and no timeouts. No forward passing...and if you have a kicker who can boot the ball a long way,that will help. Field goals are worth three points, extra points are two, and if you can battle your way across the goal line it is worth five points. There you go. Of course, there's a few more rules (but not many), but that's enough to make you a little more knowledgeable than the fella next to you who just asked his friend next to him,"What is the score?"


An inspiring film
2009-12-14 - The story of 'Invictus' centers around newly elected South African president Nelson Mandela's attempt to move his people past the apartheid that has plagued his country for so long. An attending of a rugby match, and watching the fans reaction -- divided down racial lines -- to their home country's team, inspires Mandela to contact Francois Pienaar, captain of the South African Springboks rugby team, to see if sport can be used to bring the people together.

One concern I had about the success of this film in the U.S. is that it centers around rugby, a sport which has never been embraced by Americans. I wondered if people would be able to identify with it, but the movie is filmed in such a way that prior knowledge of the sport of rugby (of which I have absolutely NONE) is unnecessary. There are stand-up-and-cheer moments in the film, but it's difficult to label this movie as a sports film. It's much more than that. There is a lot of standard sports movie fare within this film, but I wouldn't call it cliche in any way.

This film is a probable Oscar contender for Best Picture, but Morgan Freeman's nomination for Best Actor, I would label as a certainty. Matt Damon, as South African rugby captain Francois Pienaar was quite possibly the best I've ever seen him. The South African soundtrack added some great flavor to the film.

At the risk of sounding corny, it's been a while since I saw a film that I found inspiring. I would not call this film director Clint Eastwood's best work, but I absolutely found inspiration in 'Invictus'.