Ryan Maddux and Andy Stuckey
Clint Eastwood’s latest feature film is the sports drama, Invictus (PG-13). Based on actual events, the film details the relationship between South African president Nelson Mandela and the national—mostly all-white—rugby team during the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Morgan Freeman stars as President Mandela and Matt Damon co-stars as Francois Pienaar, captain of the national rugby team,.
Ryan: With a big time director (and Oscar winner), two big-time actors (both also Oscar winners) and an inspirational true story, Invictus has the make-up of an instant Oscar classic. With its pedigree — and with the newly expanded format for Best Picture - it will more than likely garner a nomination. Will it be justified? Not in my view. Not to discount the movie because it has an impactful message but Invictus is far from being a great movie or even a really good movie. At its best it’s simply a serviceable film.
Andy: As Ryan said, Invictus has a lot going for it. It checks all the key boxes for being a great movie, but it just doesn’t quite add up. It presents the events that take place with an historical coldness that ends up keeping the audience from getting quite as involved in the story as they could be. Perhaps the biggest problem with this is Matt Damon’s character. We are never really given a chance to get to know, or care about him, and as a result, much of the movie feels flat.
Ryan: Morgan Freeman is as likable and as respected as an actor can get in today’s Hollywood but for the last half of this decade he hasn’t delivered a noteworthy performance — until now. Mandela is on record saying that the only actor who could play him in a movie is Freeman and I couldn’t agree more with that statement. Freeman’s performance won’t necessarily blow anybody away but he definitely captures the charisma and weight of Nelson Mandela. All in all it is a Oscar-caliber performance.
Andy: Morgan Freeman is certainly the best reason to watch this movie. He has spent most of the last ten years or so with phoned in performances and questionable choices. There is nothing questionable here, though, as Freeman is totally convincing as Nelson Mandela from the very opening scene. What is remarkable about his performance is the subtlety. He is not ever over-the-top, but he never wavers in his steady portrayal of the embattled South African leader. The bottom line is that it’s a precise and appropriate portrayal of one of the most important leaders in the world.
Ryan: From a sports movie standpoint Invictus is hit and miss. It definitely hits — in relation to the drama - in showcasing both the maneuvering and the importance of South Africa’s run in the ’95 Rugby World Cup. From a historical standpoint it succeeds. But the movie falters in the sports department. Few American moviegoers, and I include myself, know very little if next to nothing about the sport of Rugby. And Eastwood makes absolutely no attempt to deal with this reality. Ultimately one doesn’t need to know anything about Rugby to appreciate the themes of the movie but the movie would have resonated more if the intricacies of Rugby were explained in some capacity.
Andy: It was a little annoying that I had absolutely no idea what was going on during the rugby sequences. I understand the historical and political significance of what the South African rugby team symbolized and accomplished, but I was lost during the lengthy action sequences of the rugby match. I feel like I have a better understanding of the nonsensical game of quidditch than I do of Rugby, and honestly, that is a problem.
Invictus is a good movie that fails to substantially resonate beyond the stellar performance of Morgan Freeman. It is not a bad movie by an means, but it does not achieve the high levels at which it seems to be aiming. Final grade: B.
