Complete list. :-(
His people needed a leader. He gave them a champion.
Newly elected President Nelson Mandela knows his nation remains racially and economically divided in the wake of apartheid. Believing he can bring his people together through the universal language of sport, Mandela rallies South Africa's rugby team as they make their historic run to the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship match.
All this film amounts to is a collection of Mandela motivational speeches interspersed with some poorly choreographed rugby bits. There is no real story here other than Eastwood goes to great lengths to tell you how wonderful Mandela is all the bloody time. Shame he didn't think about the story or characters or anything else that might make an engaging movie. The more I think about the film the more I really disliked it, the only saving grace is Freeman's portrayal of the president. Somebody should have told Matt Damon that the film was set in South Africa and not South Queensland though.
I was half expecting the end to finish with the line, "And South Africa lived happily ever after". Urgh.
White people cure apartheid with rugby. Inthe end, the only person who loses is the film's audience.
An efficiently told and crafted sports drama, Clint Eastwood's "Invictus" is a solid, sometimes rousing film. The story of Nelson Mandela's attempt to unify the hearts of his nation through rugby, the drama is both timely and classical. Though the film never rarely indulges in its powerful emotional potential, it can be a sweeping piece of work.
Taking place when President Mandela became South Africa's leader in the 1990s, the film follows as he works to unify his country. Trying to bring his black and white countrymen together, he charges South Africa's rugby team with the task of thrilling the hearts of all the citizenry with victory. The narrative mixes its focus between politics and sports, and creates an engaging…
Here we have two stories molded together when focusing on a single narrative would have made more sense. Morgan Freeman was fantastic as Nelson Mandela, so I don't understand why the film wanted to inject a generic rugby subplot. I think that lack of focus really hurt this film, since the rugby portions were mere distractions. Matt Damon's acting was fine, but his character was hard to understand. Who knows what that accent was supposed to be. I was intrigued by the political drama until I was thrown into the next rugby scene.
I can only describe this film as a missed opportunity that's front loaded with clichés. People changing their politics and personal feelings because of a game? Give…
For a director who mostly made either westerns or war films, it's cool seeing someone like Clint Eastwood come out of his comfort zone... though frankly, Invictus isn't the masterpiece critics like Roger Ebert made it out to be.
Don't get we wrong... there's a lot of strong moments in the film. It's performances are excellent (with an Oscar-nominated Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon with a hilariously fake African accent), the cinematography is superb, and it's got some truly heartfelt moments that gives justice to Mandala's legacy... but... Eastwood has a hard time in this movie trying to figure out what should be the spotlight of this remarkable true story, should Mandela get the credit or Matt…
This movie made me feel things.
Perhaps the story is disjointed. Perhaps it leaves the viewer with the misconception that South Africa was all good and jolly after they won the World Cup (No spoilers, just look at the cover). Perhaps everything that we see in Invictus has been done a hundred times over.
But who cares? The originality that this film lacks is not a deal breaker for me. Morgan Freeman delivers each line with power and confidence. He convinces us that he's saying every word from the bottom of his heart. Matt Damon leaves something to be desired. Whatever. I've never been a fan of his anyway, so I can't even feel disappointed.
Invictus is raw, and bleak, and visceral enough to make up for its flaws.
Streaming on flight from Cape Town to ATL
Favourite moment: When Morgan Freeman's Nelson Mandela tells Isaac Fe'aunati's Jonah Lomu "I'm a little afraid of you."
Now I'm wondering whether that was historically accurate or artistic licence though.
I found the beginning of this film deeply moving, but I think that has more to do with my memories of the release of Nelson Mandela, the fall of apartheid and Mandela’s election as president, than with the film. But the film does start well: the racial divisions that underpin post-Apartheid South Africa are well drawn, e.g., in the rugby captain’s family home, while the father rails against Mandela the black maid works quietly in the background; the often comic suspicions between Mandela’s black and white security agents – none of this is particularly subtle or complex, but it sets the scene well. But then its progression is obvious. One problem is Morgan Freeman’s Mandela: he is just so good,…
There's something very watchable about Eastwood's stripped back, crisp, simple slice of Mandela. I'm not sure I felt any connection or any real weight to all the proceedings however it was lightweight, clear and with a couple of real standout scenes. I certainly enjoyed it.
An example of what happens when good intentions kill a movie dead.
Clint Eastwood's "Invictus" is tasteful, reverent and serious, all qualities that would make for a great funeral eulogy but which do not necessarily make for riveting filmmaking. Morgan Freeman plays South African president Nelson Mandela capably and actually manages to avoid turning him into a wax-work version of the real-life figure, a trap another actor might have fallen into. But Eastwood's film is thuddingly boring, not translating one ounce of the inspirational vigor this story should.
The final half hour or so of the film depicts a famous rugby match that saw the South African team win the world cup, a victory in which Mandela had the foresight…
Biased because RUGBY! Once you play it, something changes inside you.
It's not as inspiring as it thinks it is.
One of those films that, whilst watching it, somehow convinces you that it's good and yet on reflection you realise it's actually a bit of a mess.
If you remember, as I do, the 1995 Rugby World Cup then you can appreciate the importance of the victory to the host nation and just how remarkable it was. The film's emotional connection for me came because of my prior knowledge of the event and had little to do with any solid characterisation or narrative coherence.
Freeman is great and Damon is watchable (although I bet Francois Pienaar found it hilarious that he was being played by the Hollywood star!) but with a questionable accent. The supporting cast all turn in fine…
I’m sad to say this but I found ‘Invictus’ very disappointing. It takes a very interesting true story and tells it in a very bitty way with little narrative coherence that just feels very ill-disciplined and disorganised. The ideas of focusing in briefly on various random South African people to get a feeling of general national moods or the team of security guards to show how the tensions between black and white South Africans came to be softened are in themselves interesting, but just don’t work. They feel like lots of bits shoved together rather than adding interesting elements to an overall whole. There is also an awful lot of very clunky dialogue. A lot of the characters are really…
Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!
Recommendations very welcome!