David Ansen over at Newsweek has chimed in:
"We witness a politician at the top of his game: Freeman's wily Mandela is a master of charm and soft-spoken gravitas. Anthony Peckham's sturdy, functional screenplay, based on John Carlin's book Playing the Enemy, can be a bit on the nose (and the message songs Eastwood adds are overkill). Yet the lapses fade in the face of such a soul-stirring story—one that would be hard to believe if it were fiction."I could not really tell if the review was great or good.
I am very curious about this film. I normally find Clints films rather dull or lacking in something to make them great, but sometimes spotted with wonderful performances (Meryl Streep, Marcia Gay Harden to name a few) that lift the material up. I mean Meryl in 'Bridges' makes that film ten times better that it was.
Also on TMRzoo I read this review by Bruce Owens (no idea who the guy is or about the site, just came up in a Google search and I went to it):
In it he says the following (which made me smile a little):
"Invictus is a poem by British poet William Ernest Henley. The title is Latin for “unconquered”. This movie title has been chosen for the new Clint Eastwood film about South Africa’s triumph in the 1995 Rugby World Cup. He should have titled the movie “Somni” which is Latin for sleep. Clint’s 34th outing as a Director looks like he has gone down the Changeling and Bridges of Madison County road again. No one can bore an audience like Clint can."Ouch. But obviously this review does not matter, what matters is that if one person feels it, then others will as well, just how many is beyond me.
The film will no doubt 'stir the soul' for some, but it will definitely have it's cracks. Will it make the final 10? More than likely. The question we have to ask, will the movie be a big enough hit to get nominations for its director and actors? I say this because the field is tightening up and you have to ask who you can drop to make room.