How could a movie about such an inspiring subject be so uninspiring? I'm not sure what critics and others are smoking, but I think the only reason this movie has received such good reviews is because Clint Eastwood directed it. I think the actors did whatever they could to save the movie (Morgan Freeman was great, and Matt Damon did the best he could to act despite his character being highly underdeveloped), but ultimately Clint gave them no chance to shine or show the true depth of their characters. Overall, this movie had no dramatic elements to it, and it was very boring. Also, the rugby scenes were terrible and didn't really show the intensity of the sport at all. Way to jack this one up, Clint.… Expand

(disappointed sigh) It is difficult to review these movies because if you say anything bad about a movie on racism, you are deemed a racist. I am not caucasian so I say this with all love of races in mind, this movie was terrible! The only bright spot was Morgan Freeman's performance as the president. He did phenominal! The movie was boring and the conflicts disapeared halfway throught the movie with no explanation. Nothing ever really changed on the Barney kids' (soccor team) part, but everyone celebrated as if something changed. They would extablish character traits and plot points that never paid off. Remember, I am not a racist, I just know that this movie was awful!… Expand

The film did very little to educate us on the history of Mandela, and apartheid (it assumed the audience would know that already), and the performances were one-dimensional. I felt Damon and even Freeman to an extent were trying so hard to pull off the right accent, that the performance did not come through. I only wonder how many overdubs they had to do with the accents, but even so the performances were boring and there was hardly ANY real conflict shown. Visually underwhelming, and surprisingly amateur in its execution. I had high hopes and an open mind, but left feeling cheated and not entertained.… Collapse

A ham-fisted, Disneyfied, plodding, schmaltzy attempt at a film. The rugby scenes were very poorly done and lacked any excitement. 2 stars out of ten for the efforts from Freeman and Damon in the face of a terrible script and directing. Yes, we all got the message because the film was completely lacking in any sort of accuracy or subtlety. "Yay! Everyone's friends again. Kumbayah!"

Very disappointing, no real tension in the film, glossed over the facts of the time in South Africa. Freeman was made for this role, but Damon did not stand out at all. Really expected a more rousing performance, no stand out speech or team boosting outbursts. The actual games looked terrible as with the stadium, Eastwood shouldn't do sport, particularily sport he doesn't know. Think this was too much aimed at an American audience that knows nothing about South Africa or rugby.… Expand

They cheated and gave the All Blicks food posening. Shame on Cint for making such an untruth. its like making a movies where the enigma code was cracked by the yanks in WW2.

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.

Very pointless. That's all.

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

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

Bottom line is that everything besides Morgan Freeman's acting is average to awful. Matt Damon doesn't do a terrible job, but his character is utterly boring. The lines fail in their attempt to evoke emotions and are often cheesy. The movie often brings up certain information, such as Mandela's separation from his wife and family or him collapsing from exhaustion at one point, only once or twice and never goes in depth into any of it. The rugby stadium is so obviously fake that it should make you laugh. In general, the movie just didn't convince me that a rugby team could just singlehandedly unite a nation, probably because it can't.… Expand

I have to say i thought this was just about the most conservative and reactionary take on mandela that i can imagine. mandela, a true revolutionary hero, is characterized as someone whose supreme accomplishment is to support a nearly all-white rugby team. i don't like the message of this movie. this sort of politics is why south Africa with all its resources, even after revolution, is still owned by foreign multinationals, and the people are dirt poor. i expected more of mr. eastwood, very glib and empty movie on nelson mandela.… Expand

Just reread William Ernest Henley's poem Invictus. Earnest indeed. It makes me think that the movie could just as well have been title Dickhead. I know that's unseemly but it does seem true.