Hakuna matata, yes ‘The Lion King’, released in 1994, was the largest grossing movie this past weekend. To me this is confusing because ‘Moneyball’ has received rave reviews and intense promotion (unless the commercials are only airing on ESPN where I see up to three a day). I get it, a movie that has a major focus on statistical analysis of predicting successful baseball players isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it is Brad Pitt we’re talking about here. Anyways, let’s get away from the fact everyone spent $15 on a movie they can see at home right now for free and dissect the more important matter, is ‘Moneyball’ really that good?
For all the Rottentomatoes™ (yes, my blog is so popular I used the trademark symbol in fear of copyright infringement) followers out there ‘Moneyball’ is sitting at a 94% and an 8.1 rating. Or, in a conversion to my ratings, an A (what I gave ‘Drive’ last week). We have Bennett Miller (‘The Cruise’ and ‘Capote’, yes those are his only two films, dude takes as much time as Dre spends on throwing down an album) directing, Pitt and Jonah Hill starring, and Sorkin (remember this equation, Sorkin = Oscar nom) writing. Therefore, by simple addition, without seeing the film it’s gonna be in the 90s on Rotten. Not so fast.
First off, Miller. Technically he’s incredibly sound, not one camera angle I’d change, nothing an inch out of focus (or when it is, purposefully so), amazing tone (especially the in-game sequences, switching seamlessly from fictional recreations to MLB/SportsCenter archive footage). Unfortunately, unlike ‘Capote’ (must see if you haven’t), there are flaws, these present themselves in two major areas, pacing/running time and how to manage character focus and statistical analytic debate. The film is largely uneven, Miller spends the first few scenes painting a picture of Billy Beane (the real life Oakland A’s GM that used mathematical principals to gather undervalued players a small market organization could afford, played by Pitt) and showing us why we should care about this figure. He then goes into an hour and a half dissection of the fight between the old guard and Beane’s new unorthodox approach to the game (with only a couple minutes of explaining why Beane is who is and does what he does). Miller ties it up at the end explaining Beane’s character in a 20 minute bore after the film has run its course (hence the problem with running time). Miller would’ve been better off dealing more with Beane’s character in a parallel manner while the plot plays out. Other than that, perfection. Unfortunately Miller’s singular (or couple of) flaw(s) will make a huge impression on an astute viewer.
Pitt is good but no great in my opnion. Beane as a character is very distinguishable yet doesn’t have many big moments, almost playing as a witty dramedy more than a character analysis, someone you can really sink your teeth into. Unfortunately I wasn’t familiar with Billy Beane beforehand to make comparisons, but I almost wish Pitt played him with more of an edge and less humor (don’t know if this is conducive of Pitt, Miller, or Sorkin). Miller waits to give Pitt his Oscar baiting emotional scene until the very end of the movie, and by that point I think it’s too late.
I don’t really like what the film does with the rest of the cast aside from Hill. Soderbergh was originally signed on to do ‘Moneyball’ but due to his ideas to have more of a documentarian style (wanted to use a majority of MLB clips and the actual ballplayers retell the story), he was let go. On comes the typical sports cliché of having actors who haven’t played major league sports and who generally resemble sports stars to portray them. Bad choice. Hill does well to give a performance that utilizes his humor but really showcases his talent to go above, good things for him in the future I hope.
Aaron Sorkin, can’t really said anything that hasn’t been said before, Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar nomination lock, you heard it here first folks.
Instead of transcending the realm of good baseball movies (and by no means is that to say it doesn’t do what it set out to well) and becoming something new and refreshing entirely, ‘Moneyball’ takes a formula seen in ‘A League of Their Own’, ‘Field of Dreams’, and ‘The Natural’ (‘Bull Durham’ is well ahead of that class) and gives it a nice refresh (although still not as good as any of those three I think). If Miller would have focused more on the maddening debate of sabermetrics (as Soderbergh would’ve done so well and as the book it’s based off of did) rather than try and create another feel-sorry-for the over the hill baseball silhouette, I think we would’ve had something much more to applaud.
Grade: B (or what Rotten should be, 84%)
Remember these are just chances of nominations, but ‘Moneyball’ is definitely the most Oscar friendly film of 2011 so far. Also these are predictions not how I personally feel.
Oscar Chances:
Best Picture: Highly Likely
Best Director (Miller): Possible
Best Actor (Pitt): Highly Likely
Best Adapted Screenplay (Sorkin): Lock
Best Supporting Actor (Hill): Long Shot
Best Original Score (Danna): Possible (no one else is going to predict that)
Best Cinematography: Possible
Best Editing: Possible
Sound Categories: Long Shot
