Invictus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

****/****