It’s difficult not to admire Clint Eastwood on any front. Not only is he a huge icon of the big screen, his directing projects have been both diverse and intriguing. Invictus is certainly no different.

In February 1990, Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) is finally released from prison, after serving 27 years behind bars. His release signalled the end of apartheid and a new beginning in South Africa. With an election that allowed all South Africans a vote, Mandela was soon elected president.

Instead of introducing sweeping changes that would have continued to divide the South African people, who looked to ways of unifying them. With South Africa being the host nation for the rugby world cup finals in 1995, he saw an opportunity to do just that. However, for many, the Springbok side – which had only one black player in the team – wasn’t really considered representative of the nation.

Listen Matt, I won't tell anyone I'm in this film if you won't. Agreed?

It didn’t take Mandela long however, to see something in Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) – the team’s captain, that would not only lead the team to victory, but also unite the whole country. The problem was though, the team weren’t exactly playing well, and they were to compete at the highest level against some of the best teams in the world, in front of a global televised audience.

So there you have it. Clint Eastwood directing a film about rugby. Sure, it’s a bit more than that, what with Mandela wanting a nation to bond over this huge sporting event; but essentially, it’s a film about rugby. Directed by Clint Eastwood. Rugby. Eastwood? Rugby? And therein lies the rub.

The US of A love their sports. The key word in that sentence being ‘their’. American football, baseball and basketball are the staple diet of the majority of US sports fans. Introduce something other than that and they pull really confused faces. Look how football (or ‘soccer’ as they call it) is doing over there. That’s right, it isn’t.

So why on earth would someone like Mr Eastwood make a story about a sport that’s kind of like their American football, but isn’t? The fact is that no-one In America will care about a film about rugby, despite the fact that it stars all-American nice guy Matt Damon, and Morgan Freeman as Mandela.

Eastwood doesn’t help matters though, by making a decidedly average film. It’s no more than a made-for-TV effort. It’s gentle, with warm performances – particularly by the always watchable Freeman, but nothing more than that. And although Damon impresses with his incredible bulk and South African accent, those no getting away from him playing a sporting hero riddled with clichés.

To make matters worse, its timing is dreadful. This year, South Africa will be hosting the football World Cup (one that the US have actually qualified for incidentally, and who also face England in the opening group stage. Just saying); a competition that attracts more viewers, more sponsorship and quite honestly more interest worldwide than any other sporting competition. Eastwood’s film concerns a competition that took place fifteen years ago. Who cares, really?

And of course there’s the small matter of the results of the matches. Even if you don’t know them (look away from the screen now – actually you don’t have to, but we’ve always wanted to say that phrase), it doesn’t take a genius to work out which country lifts the trophy at the end. So Eastwood can build the drama up as much as he wants (which he rather surprisingly doesn’t), the audience will always be aware, one way or another, of the film’s predictable outcome. And that’s the film’s ultimate failing – no surprises.

Invictus just doesn’t have what it takes to elevate it from being anything other than a well-meaning, moderately uplifting tale, into something with real punch and sparkle.

Using a sporting analogy, Eastwood may have fumbled the ball with this one, but if anyone can dust themselves down and come back even stronger, the smart money will always be on him.