Moneyball

Overall, I thought this was okay; very strong for the first half-hour, confusing after that. (I'm not sure, but the introduction of Pitt's daughter Moldy Peaches may have been where it lost focus.) A lot of good performances--thought PSH and all the scouts were especially good. It's been a few years since I read the book, so I don't remember much. Does Scott Hatteberg figure that prominently in the book? The film zeroes in on him as the poster boy for everything Moneyball, without (as I'm sure others have probably pointed out upthread) even mentioning that year's Cy Young or MVP winners. Hatteberg had a good year; not as good as the many thousands of players who had better years but didn't figure prominently in any films, but pretty good. When I get a chance, I'm curious as to what he did during the 20-game win streak--which was an odd thing in which to invest so much protracted drama in, seeing as the A's fell back into a tie for the divisional lead a few days after it ended.

jeez dude, PSH and all the scouts were caricatures that fell short of two dimensions.

Gotta disagree. Thought the scouts in their first round-table meeting with Beane were one of the best things in the film, and even though PSH didn't remind me of Howe visually or temperamentally--I remember Howe as an upbeat presence, and PSH is dour through-and-through--I liked him fine.

Another head-scratcher: in a film about turning the sport inside-out, there's time out for Pitt's very old-fashioned tantrum/speech about losing.

Even though it's not stated outright, the decision to trade Jeremy Giambi is based mostly on his deficiency in one of the ancient intangibles (and partly to make room for Hatteberg, yes): he doesn't care enough about winning. Is this an oversight of the film's, or an argument for its complexity?

Winning and losing is the only way to dramatize sports in mass-audience movies.

(or so the people who make them believe)

I thought the film redeemed itself a bit at the end, in the sportscaster's little sermon after Oakland loses to Minnesota (games are won on the field, not inside a formula, etc.). I'm not endorsing what he says, but I thought it dramatized a basic argument--one that's been going on since James first arrived--well.

Wow, this movie is fucking terrible.

It's just a steady nothing.

Did they shoot it in like one day? It felt like a bottle episode.

all my favorite Italian is in

lol whoops

it's not nearly as terrible as most baseball movies (like that one w/ fucking Madonna that I never saw), I'll give it that much.

i thought it was well done. they took a pretty dull theme and made an entertaining movie if it, without going all hollywood all over it.

making a 20th consecutive win into THE BIG GAME = not going Hollywood?

lol @ that i never saw

i thought it was well done. they took a pretty dull theme and made an entertaining movie if it, without going all hollywood all over it.

― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:58 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

think this sums up why i hated it! they took a really interesting topic and made it tasteful to the point of lifelessness. it was still very hollywood in its heart, just not so much stylistically. they either should've pushed it to the max re: hollywoodness, or actually given it a treatment that engaged in a non-evasive way with the details of the story (like soderbergh, an actual baseball fan, mightve done) - bennett miller, like i think a lot of hwood, identifies with the 'themes' of moneyball but has no interest in the details, but the details are the best part

As I indicated above, I'm closer to Thinwall on this. I don't think you could make a narrative film that does just justice to the details--or maybe you could make it, but not with a big star, and not something that would get widely distributed. I think they did about as well as they could do on that front. If you wanted to wade into the intricacies of the subject, you'd need a good documentary that would take in the whole story of sabermetrics.

well if they had to make it into a moneymaking brad pitt vehicle, i would've vastly preferred that they schmaltz it up and make a pumped up rousing underdog sports picture a la Warrior - something with a bit of theater to it

movie shoulda just been 2 hours of charts, computer screens, and nerds blowing their load as decimals flew by on screen

WAR Horse: The Rick Reuschel Story.

No explosions or high speed chases :::: not going all Hollywood

"Punch it, Billy, Art Howe's gaining on us!"

A League of Their Own is a million times better than this shit

That movie with Matt LeBlanc and the monkey was roughly on par with it.

I liked this and the monkey movie, but anything dealing with baseball or Matt LeBlanc I'll give a pass to.

I do think it was weird that they made the end of a 20-game winning streak into "the big game" as Morbs said, but I guess in the absence of success in the playoffs that's how they planned to sell it to the masses.

thought this was pretty entertaining fluff. the stuff with the daughter was far and away the worst part of it.

I didn't think the daughter part was that bad, just trying to humanize the guy and show why he didn't join the Red Sox - family more important than $$$ and fixing broken dreams of youth. I'm pretty sentimental though, so I guess they got me.

circa otm. For the most part this felt like a generic baseball movie that threw some of the more concrete aspects of the "Moneyball" events against the "rag tag losers who suck but then win" backdrop.

It was perfect for passing time on a plane ride. Not sure I'd have cared about it if I went to an actual theatre to see it.

It probably didn't help that I watched pretty much every A's game that season. I really struggled with how divorced the movie was from reality. But the movie really failed on its own terms. I never got the impression that the ragtag bunch of guys were partipants in the success of the team, but instead some sort of magic was happening, somewhere offscreen while Beane and Brand are in an office. We didn't see how Bradford, Justice, or Rincon helped the team win, and barely saw what Hatteberg did, let alone what the GOOD players on the team did.

very good point. I noticed that too. there was like a huge gap of time between the visit to Hatteberg's house and his next appearance in the movie.

The scene with David Justice ("I'm just trying to milk you") was tacked on, too.

A League of Their Own is a million times better than this shit

THIS.

Face it, Morbs. Baseball would be a better sport if only women played it.

When Peter Brand suggested that the A's acquire Jeremy Giambi, the scouts were probably only confused and dismissive because he had been on the roster for the previous two seasons.

It was cool when Beane traded Pena on a whim and got nothing in return. I'm sure when Ted Lilly watched that part he threw down his glove in disgust.

When they were talking about Hatteberg do you think the scouts were like "Oh, you mean the guy who just started 13 times in September for the Red Sox? That guy? He isn't even a BASEBALL PLAYER! He is literally a goof who is afraid of baseballs!!"

I still haven't seen this, but I re-watched "A League of Their Own" about a year ago and it's aged a lot better than I expected.

Eric, women's baseball is a notch above gay softball

r we still talking about sports here, or is 'gay softball' a euphemism

No, I think we're still talking about the A's here.

1. Best Picture: “The Artist,” ‘’The Descendants,” ‘’Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” ‘’The Help,” ‘’Hugo,” ‘’Midnight in Paris,” ‘’Moneyball,” ‘’The Tree of Life,” ‘’War Horse.”

2. Actor: Demian Bichir, “A Better Life”; George Clooney, “The Descendants”; Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”; Gary Oldman, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”; Brad Pitt, “Moneyball.”

4. Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, “My Week With Marilyn”; Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”; Nick Nolte, “Warrior”; Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”; Max von Sydow, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.”

8. Adapted Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, “The Descendants”; John Logan, “Hugo”; George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon, “The Ides of March”; Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin and Stan Chervin, “Moneyball”; Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.”

13. Sound Mixing: “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” ‘’Hugo,” ‘’Moneyball,” ‘’Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” ‘’War Horse.”

20. Film Editing: “The Artist,” ‘’The Descendants,” ‘’The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” ‘’Hugo,” ‘’Moneyball.”

yes, it was THAT mediocre

ha ha!

that sound mixing nom is a little O_o
like - it did *have* sounds, i guess.

that was for the crack of the bat! crowd noise!

uggh i keep forgetting how they stretched it to 9 or 10 picture noms instead of 5. pisses me off.

hey sanskrit

i don't think it's that strange. Moneyball did have kind of a weird sound atmosphere around it. Large chunks of silence, lots of strange breaks in action - not sure if that should get a nom but what does?

"action"

same level of thinking that got Fight Club nominated only for... sound effects editing

skrit, if it had been 5 nominees two of the 3 films that don't stink would've been left off.

When they run through the list of player names near the beginning, I saw Matt Cain - Giants. He wasn't drafted until the next summer. GET IT RIGHT, HOLLYWOOD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WBv2f8XWU

In retrospect, I think I might have enjoyed this movie if it had been a German film.

"When they run through the list of player names near the beginning, I saw Matt Cain - Giants. He wasn't drafted until the next summer. GET IT RIGHT, HOLLYWOOD"

He was in the infamous Moneyball draft wasn't he? He went right after Blanton, I think.

Those early scenes were from the winter/spring before the 2002 season, though.