VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

YourFamilyExpert With Clint Eastwood directing, Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela, and Matt Damon sharing top billing, how could Invictus fail? The answer is that it doesn't, as this rich historical drama provides great insight into South African history and the philosophy of one of the 20th century's greatest leaders. The film tells the true story of Mandela's presidency as he struggles to overcome prejudice and years of hatred and violence between blacks and whites. Seeing in the nation's rugby team an opportunity to unite his people, he befriends the team's captain (Damon).While loaded with true-life sports movie clichés, Invictus overcomes them through the strength of its acting and the attention to political detail, from the desire of blacks to take back their country to the fears of whites about losing their voice in the newly democratic nation. I was fascinated and moved by the power of Mandela's philosophies of forgiveness, respect, and fellowship to steer both groups in the direction of unity. Invictus has brief strong language but is otherwise free of potentially offensive content.

David Silbergeld The movie takes on the challenge of the complex story of the role of rugby in unifying the new, post-apartheid South Africa, and is interesting overall. It fails, however, to approach the potential of the actual story. The production comes across as a collection of snippets thrown together more than a cohesive story. Furthermore, the progression of popular black South African emotions towards the team, from hatred to approval and adoration, is poorly developed - and as a result seems somewhat false. This movie comes across as more of a feel good movie about post-apartheid unification in South Africa than the more thoughtful analysis of how this sport was used as a symbol/tool for unification in a nation on the brink of civil war due to a very recent and complex history of racial separation/terror.

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.

SnoopyStyle Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) wins the election but faces a divided country and questions about his governing abilities. His bodyguard Jason is dismayed at the white presidential security hired by Mandela. He notices that the whites are cheering South Africa's rugby team Springbok but the blacks are cheering for the opposition. He has to fight back efforts by black activists and recruits captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon). The team is losing but they make a historic run in the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship hosted by South Africa.Director Clint Eastwood makes a perfectly fine historical drama. Freeman has the sense of the wise compelling leader. The only drawback with Matt Damon is his size. I don't see the physicality of the captain of the national rugby team. It's a minor quip. The drama is limited. It doesn't take full advantage of an underdog sports drama. This is more of a political drama but not a very daring one. The actual events may not have enough drama.