Invictus

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 11, 2009

7.1	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 219 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

Longo12Feb 3, 2014

I think the acting in this movie from Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon really save this movie for me. It isn't a bad movie at all but it certainly could have been better. I don't have too much of a knowledge on the actual history (or rugby even)I think the acting in this movie from Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon really save this movie for me. It isn't a bad movie at all but it certainly could have been better. I don't have too much of a knowledge on the actual history (or rugby even) and I didn't feel like I finished the movie with much more than I started with, which is kind of disappointing.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

BillyS.Dec 15, 2009

If anyone cared about rugby, Invictus might just be a decent sports film, instead we the greatest African-American actor alive today pretending to be Nelson Mandella wholly on his slight resemblence of him. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman If anyone cared about rugby, Invictus might just be a decent sports film, instead we the greatest African-American actor alive today pretending to be Nelson Mandella wholly on his slight resemblence of him. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman in Invictus, no make-up, no accent, just Morgan Freeman and his heavenly voice reading scripted lines intending to make us believe he is Mandella. He didn't, not for me anyway. A big disappointment after such high hopes.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

CameronL.Dec 24, 2009

Good movie, but something about it holds it back from reaching its full potential. A lot of people have said that it was too embellished...but my problem is that it lacks movie magic. The musical score couldn't keep up with the emotion Good movie, but something about it holds it back from reaching its full potential. A lot of people have said that it was too embellished...but my problem is that it lacks movie magic. The musical score couldn't keep up with the emotion that the film should've been evoking. The editing was choppy and I kept finding myself lost. On top of that, I still don't really understand what happened. There was sooooo much fluff, but nothing about nothing about the rules of rugby or how the playoffs work. When the movie ended I still thought they were supposed to play England. Basically, if you know what happens you can enjoy it and if you know how rugby is played you will enjoy it, but the rest of the audience (aka the majority) is extremely alienated. Too bad because every part of this project had potential except Matt Damon.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

kgm.Dec 25, 2009

0 of 1 users found this helpful

YOLONov 26, 2011

Confusingly and utterly dry and boring through most of the movie. Morgan Freeman does an excellent job as Nelson Mandela but Invictus fails to capture any passion or emotion at all feeling dead and boring the entire way through.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

ChadS.Dec 12, 2009

The cooler head prevails, so the Springboks retain their name, their emblem and colors, and the baggage of their apartheid affiliated past that goes along with it all. Free at last, during a town hall meeting, the National Sports Council has The cooler head prevails, so the Springboks retain their name, their emblem and colors, and the baggage of their apartheid affiliated past that goes along with it all. Free at last, during a town hall meeting, the National Sports Council has payback on its agenda, but President Mandela(Morgan Freeman) urges the recently emancipated members to reconsider its kneejerk reaction, "and surprise them(the Afrikaaners) with compassion, restraint, and generosity." The filmmaker then shrewdly cuts to the vehicle containing a triumphant Mandela and his aide, celebrating the narrow margin of victory in favor of the Springboks' continuing survival as a national sporting enterprise. With his speech of showing compassion toward the Afrikaaners, Mandela creates two factions: those who are in a forgiving mood, and those who are not, and if the filmmaker stayed in that decision room, the imagined dialogue between both factions would give the moviegoer a more rounded picture of South Africa's black constituency. According to "Invictus", all it took was a Mandela-run p.r. campaign, in which the Springboks held rugby clinics in shanty towns, that convinced the native population to cheer on their former oppressors, a team composed primarily of Afrikaaners. The native blacks are painted as being naive, or worse, simple-minded. For instance, Eunice(Sibongile Nojila), the Pienaars' housekeeper, asks Francois(Matt Damon) to relay a message for President Mandela that makes her sound like a bright child. And then her face lights up like a child's, late in the film, when it dawns on the maid that the extra ticket for the country's match against New Zealand, is indeed, for her. While Mandela had already made peace with the country's apartheid past, a majority of his people probably wasn't, and that's what "Invictus" neglects to show.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

HowardP.Dec 15, 2009

Agree with Miami Herald review. Yes...boring is a word that comes to mind. It's a real Ambien of a movie....virtually tension-free. The Saturday night audience I saw it with in Manhattan seemed asleep.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

NickB.Dec 20, 2009

I think what at least some of the user commentors are confusing, is the story with the film. It's a fantastic story, and a much much much less than fantastic movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

billytDec 15, 2009

BORING at best. You know you have seen a good movie when hours or even days you catch yourself thinking about some aspect of the movie. For me I was actually looking at my watch hopeing it would end SOON. Other than writing this and maybe BORING at best. You know you have seen a good movie when hours or even days you catch yourself thinking about some aspect of the movie. For me I was actually looking at my watch hopeing it would end SOON. Other than writing this and maybe telling co-workers to save their money, I will never think of this movie again. well maybe to kick myself for wasting my hard earned money. good for a rental movie....by yourself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

DarrenK.Dec 21, 2009

I actually have to wonder if I was watching the same movie as A. O. Scott and Kenneth Turan. The version I saw seemed like a bad rough cut of a movie. The pacing was terrible, the cuts were repetitive and interminable. In the last seen for I actually have to wonder if I was watching the same movie as A. O. Scott and Kenneth Turan. The version I saw seemed like a bad rough cut of a movie. The pacing was terrible, the cuts were repetitive and interminable. In the last seen for example, Eastwood cut at least 40 times to different groups of people watching the final match. Not only was this tedious, but it sucked any emotion out of the scene. I was literally rolling my eyes half way through it, Overall, Freeman was fine, but he could do this character in his sleep. There was no real depth to Mandela other than a few throwaways about his lack of relations with his family. Damon did a good job with a tricky accent, but the character was a dud, with no development. In this film Eastwood strongly tends towards the obvious and pedantic (just like Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino) but obviously he has charmed the critics. Good for him, not so much for us.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

DWillyDec 19, 2009

Worth seeing, but dissappointing. The historical truth of the story gives the movie heft way beyond what's actually on the screen; and many, many opportunities for something much more impactful are missed, whether it's big Worth seeing, but dissappointing. The historical truth of the story gives the movie heft way beyond what's actually on the screen; and many, many opportunities for something much more impactful are missed, whether it's big political stuff or just effective sport movie zing. Especially surprising is how flat Matt Damon is. He perhaps revealed something of the reason on a talk show when he said that he once asked Clint Eastwood if they could try another take and he responded with: "Why? So you can waste everyone's time?" You can see how little Eastwood knows about acting from how he consistently casts unforgivably bad performers in supporting roles. Still, the setting is great, Morgan Freeman is solid and, again, that story and the real man portrayed in it are amazing.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

J-ShapAug 28, 2011

Ultimately surrenders the depth and conflict of South African race relations to a sports game, which is disappointing given the performances by Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, and the direction by Clint Eastwood.