Month: September 2011

Moneyball, the latest film from Brad Pitt, was a terrible disappointment.  The story itself isn’t one of the more glamorous tales behind baseball, America’s game.  It does register the question how any of the smaller market teams can possibly ever compete with the big money spenders, like the New York Yankees.  Let’s face it, data and stat’s aren’t exciting, specifically in a game like baseball, so I wasn’t expecting a lot of excitement, but this film is about as boring as watching two terrible teams at the end of the regular season– pointless.

Pitt’s performance is decent, but as the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, there isn’t much excitement to the character.  He seems something in Jonah Hill’s character, who is clearly underplayed in this film, and hires him on because he is desperate.  It’s a risk and of course it somewhat yields rewards– if it didn’t, Hollywood would have a pass.

But, Pitt can’t make this film exciting.  It plays out much like baseball, mostly dull to watch, but we watch because we appreciate the sport– we appreciate what COULD happen, but with MoneyBall, the action never really gets us there.  I do think that the critics and audiences will laud this film as something new and fresh–because there is so little dialogue and action in the film, think Moon with Sam Rockwell– but this has other characters in it, but none of them really matter all that much against Pitt’s character, who is calm and cool throughout the film but he doesn’t have any real story to him–it’s the supporting cast who this character basically leaches off of.  It’s a disappointment, so much to the point that I would consider it a pass.  We will see what it does come Oscar time.

The problem with this film is the problem with watching baseball as a whole– it’s a past time–something to pass the time, to enjoy life as it passes us by– but that isn’t why we watch film.  Film has a much more cerebral intent to it.  The canvas of the power of film allows for any story to unravel itself, baseball is just one of millions stories to be told and this film could have attempted to further expose the real problem with baseball, the disparity of the financials behind the franchises, but that is almost a note in the back.  Moneyball attempts to showcase the thing that drives all American’s–that no matter how little the resource, you can be king, even just for a day.  The problem with that is that is only temporary, an anomaly, a peak on the radar– but the radar, until the rules of the game are changed, are still owned by the teams that bankroll the sport– the organizations that are really the moneyball.  When you look closely at this film, it doesn’t make you appreciate the sport anymore than you did before– instead it seems to make you even sicker about the money behind it all than it did before.

Anyone who follows the sport can see across the league– something is needing to change-unless you are in New York or Boston and that is something even Brad Pitt can’t save.

Moneyball, the latest film from Brad Pitt, was a terrible disappointment.  The story itself isn’t one of the more glamorous tales behind baseball, America’s game.  It does register the question how any of the smaller market teams can possibly ever compete with the big money spenders, like the New York Yankees.  Let’s face it, data and stat’s aren’t exciting, specifically in a game like baseball, so I wasn’t expecting a lot of excitement, but this film is about as boring as watching two terrible teams at the end of the regular season– pointless.

Pitt’s performance is decent, but as the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, there isn’t much excitement to the character.  He seems something in Jonah Hill’s character, who is clearly underplayed in this film, and hires him on because he is desperate.  It’s a risk and of course it somewhat yields rewards– if it didn’t, Hollywood would have a pass.

But, Pitt can’t make this film exciting.  It plays out much like baseball, mostly dull to watch, but we watch because we appreciate the sport– we appreciate what COULD happen, but with MoneyBall, the action never really gets us there.  I do think that the critics and audiences will laud this film as something new and fresh–because there is so little dialogue and action in the film, think Moon with Sam Rockwell– but this has other characters in it, but none of them really matter all that much against Pitt’s character, who is calm and cool throughout the film but he doesn’t have any real story to him–it’s the supporting cast who this character basically leaches off of.  It’s a disappointment, so much to the point that I would consider it a pass.  We will see what it does come Oscar time.

The problem with this film is the problem with watching baseball as a whole– it’s a past time–something to pass the time, to enjoy life as it passes us by– but that isn’t why we watch film.  Film has a much more cerebral intent to it.  The canvas of the power of film allows for any story to unravel itself, baseball is just one of millions stories to be told and this film could have attempted to further expose the real problem with baseball, the disparity of the financials behind the franchises, but that is almost a note in the back.  Moneyball attempts to showcase the thing that drives all American’s–that no matter how little the resource, you can be king, even just for a day.  The problem with that is that is only temporary, an anomaly, a peak on the radar– but the radar, until the rules of the game are changed, are still owned by the teams that bankroll the sport– the organizations that are really the moneyball.  When you look closely at this film, it doesn’t make you appreciate the sport anymore than you did before– instead it seems to make you even sicker about the money behind it all than it did before.

Anyone who follows the sport can see across the league– something is needing to change-unless you are in New York or Boston and that is something even Brad Pitt can’t save.