I hope to see the Clint Eastwood-directed Invictus this weekend.

It’s a movie about Nelson Mandela’s support for the Springboks in the 1995 rugby World Cup. Sport was divisive in post-apartheid South Africa until Mandela defied his own supporters to back the Springbok name, jersey and team in the cause of reconciliation and national unity.

I searched Google for “Oatmill Cinema, Mount Gambier” and magically was given session times (pictured above). Amazing.

The same search for “Oatmill Cinema” only gave me a link to the website.

The only other cinematic reference to Fitzroy Football Club that I’m aware of is a segment in The Club showing highlights of a semi-final against Collinggwood.

Here’s the Waters’ quote:

The touring show screens “the best of the fest”, a selection of 12 short films from 100 offered at the main festival, which itself is a showcase of the best entries from more than 500 submissions.

Festival director Paul Harris says short films continue to offer a unique viewing experience for audiences who enjoy innovative and exciting new work, but occasionally feel jaded by the “cookie cutter” blandness of much mass market and arthouse fare where diversity and innovation are in such short supply.

Harris says the festival gives exposure to emerging new talent.

“Many have gone on to achieve careers in the mainstream, but most look back with a nostalgic realisation that the short film medium offers a creative freedom that can evaporate in proportion to the inevitable pressures that go hand in hand with higher budgets and attendant artistic compromises.”

The Sir Robert Helpmann Theatre was about half full for the Mount Gambier screening, which apparently was a much bigger attendance than last year.

I’m not a film goer, but I was interested to see the promised creativity and hopefully be entertained.

The films ranged in length from 90 seconds to 20 minutes.

A couple were very confronting (Cicada and The Ground Beneath), one didn’t make any sense at all (Schadenfreude) and one was racist, ironically against whites (Dogs Run Loose Around Here).

Being Carl Williams (pictured) was amusing, also Pink Noise and First Love.

Personal taste is very subjective with films like these and some people will have totally different views.

The fact I only thought there were a couple of duds out of 12 films in a two-hour performance suggests the touring show is good value and worth seeing.

It’s good to know there is so much emerging talent in the Australian film industry.

A memory flooded back to me of watching Laurel and Hardy movies on black and white television in the 1970s.

I then thought about other “classic” shows I used to watch and how they are no longer on TV, except perhaps an obscure pay channel.

The Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers, I Love Lucy, F Troop, Skippy, Mr Ed and Francis the Mule all came to mind.

I loved watching Francis the Talking Mule. According to Wikipedia there were only seven movies.

I can’t remember any of them, just that I liked watching.

I liked Mr Ed too. Considering I’m allergic to horses it seems strange I enjoyed shows about them.

The tickets were $11 each. The popcorn was something like $6.50 and the drinks were about $5 each.

The popcorn came in sizes of massive or extra massive. The drinks were super large or super super large, and they didn’t have any juice.

Every business needs to make money and I imagine cinemas struggle somewhat in the face of competition from video stores and pay television, but the food and drink prices are virtual extortion.

We saw one parent smuggle sweets in for his kids, ruefully explaining it was just too expensive. I think we’ll do the same next time.

Juliet and I went out for lunch while the kids watched their movie. It cost us $71 for a three-course meal with a bottle of wine.

I thought it was gross at times but generally hilarious. I can understand why the Kazakhs are offended

It has a bigger go at Americans and western society though, especially our self-righteous thinking that we’re the best.

I loved the rodeo scene where Borat prepared to sing the anthem.

To save some summary text, here’s the New York Times’ version:

"Adapted from William Trevor’s novella of the same name, the made-for-cable My House in Umbria stars Dame Maggie Smith as Mrs Emily Delahunty, a British romance novellist living in Italy.

While on a shopping excursion to Milan, Emily barely survives a terrorist train bombing. Though she recovers fairly rapidly from her ordeal, three others — a German journalist, a British general and a traumatised orphan girl — still bear profound physical and emotional wounds.

In the spirit of democracy and compassion, the pluck Mrs Delahunty invites her fellow survivors to recuperate at her lavish Italian estate.

This ersatz family gets along famously — at least until the arrival of the orphan’s priggish uncle, American entomologist Tom Riversmith (Chris Cooper), who strongly disapproves of Mrs Delahunty’s carefree lifestyle."

That’s where the paper’s review ends and that’s where the story becomes interesting! Riversmith was a cold fish who had no real interest in raising his niece. Delahunty used all her ancient experience and remaining charm to convince him of his inadequacy.

This wasn’t a gripping movie, and I haven’t read the novel, so I can’t comment on its literary accuracy. However, the vision was stunning and the cast magnificent. Every actor played his/her part to perfection. Congratulations to them: Maggie Smith, Ronnie Barker, Chris Cooper, Emmie Clarke and Benno Fürmann.

I was moved to sentiment on several occasions, which reflects well on the film.

The weakness, in my view, was the film’s portrayal of the actual "terrorist". His motivation and fate weren’t property explained.

Despite this, I enjoyed my visit to Umbria, and hope to really go there one day!

My main interest in seeing this film was to compare it with John Grisham’s excellent book of the same name, which I read a few months ago.

The movie stars Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, John Cusack and Rachel Weisz in the main roles.

Given my confessed ignorance of cinema I won’t comment on the technical aspects or their acting performances.

I will say that I enjoyed it, but I remain puzzled at the variations from Grisham’s original storyline.

The novel features a courtroom battle where a jury is manipulated to win a verdict against big tobacco companies for causing pain, suffering and death. The manipulation is done to revenge a family tragedy involving lung cancer.

Nicholas Easter gets himself onto the jury and progressively “bumps” other jurors who don’t see things his way, or he persuades the others to his predetermined way of thinking.

While he’s working on the inside the big tobacco companies have a jury consultant working on the outside to sway the verdict by whatever means.

Their paths cross in a fascinating plot that marries conflict with perceived mutual interest.

By contrast, the movie begins with a startling scene in which a rogue gunman murders several people. The court case then features a battle against big gun companies, trying to hold them liable for the shooting.

Nicholas Easter only causes one other juror to be removed in the film, saving blind foreman Herman Grimes from a poisoning attack he suffered in the novel.

I can understand why much of the detail was condensed. Movie makers simply don’t have time to tell the full story.

That’s why I’m surprised the film includes a long dialogue between lawyer Wendall Rohr (Hoffman) and jury stacker Rankin Fitch (Hackman). It bordered on boring and didn’t add to the film’s drama.

I also can’t understand why the tobacco industry was switched for guns, except that gun control is a topical issue in the United States.

I’ve read some online reviews and that aspect has offended some people who consider the film is trying to moralise and threaten people’s constitutional rights, so the change might have backfired. I’ll keep looking for an explanation from the director or producer.

I’m not going to be pompous and say “read the book instead of seeing the film”. The movie was good entertainment. So is the book. Experience both, but don’t expect the experiences to meld.