Moneyball

[Vanilla]

Review/Discuss

[CoolioD1]

I thought it was fantastic. The ending was very inspirational and it didn't even need that big winning moment. To be honest I got pretty emotional at the very end. Amazing performance from Brad Pitt as well, one of his best IMO, I always thought that his acting was sometimes forced, but here he's totally naturalistic and made it look easy. Which is of course a lot harder than it looks.

[Travod]

Jonah Hill was the best part but he was barely in it. By the time we got to the end I was moaning and shifting in my seat. I thought it had been 4 hours.

[Jlundegaard]

Brilliant film. Not a bad moment to be found here. Pitt really is an outstanding actor.

[Gopher]

Just saw this again. Terrific movie, anchored by an A-list performance from an A-lister and a great screenplay.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Gopher

[ladyevenstar22]

it was ok, a bit boring, i felt a ghost of emotion at the right scenes, had it been about a sport i like and understand i might have shed a tear or twothat said brad is the reason i stayed concentrated on the film, he's still really good-looking! jonah hill was surprisingly serious in this film i bought it, my fav scene is when brad goes to see that player at his home, and just before you see his wife looking at the bills and trying to figure them out then brad walks in and changes their life by giving this guy a second chance! great scene even when you're down there's always someone ought there who might still believe in you and give you another chance to prove your worth!i thought ther'd be more baseball scenes but it was mostly a lot of talking, i see the similitude with TSN great dialogue but cold no warmth to it

[Cmasterclay]

Wow, I don't think my opinion of a movie has changed that much upon a later second viewing in ages. When I first saw this, I thought it was mediocre and overrated- a technical movie that didn't really exceed my expectations in any one area. But I watched this again yesterday for a research class, and holy shit. This movie was pretty fucking fantastic. I finally GOT it. I actually almost got a bit emotional when the daughter's song kicked in at the end while he was driving around- brilliantly directed scene. And the editing is fantastic throughout. I don't think Pitt and Hill deserved to win the Oscars like some lobbied, but I'll be damned if they weren't real and geniune as could be. Great film. Bumped from a 6/10 to a 9/10 for me.

[RobinHood26]

Brad Pitt gives a downright amazing performance. This film has grown on me.

 

B+

[ChD]

Great movie. I really didn't have high expectations since my friend told me it was a dumb movie. Well, I certainly won't listen to him again. Loved everything about it, and I don't even understand baseball. That's gotta say a lot.

 

A

[AniNate]

I'm pretty firmly in the "disappointed" camp with regards to this movie. I wonder if maybe it's because I am such a huge baseball fan, but for a movie based on a true story, the drama feels really artificial. For some reason Sorkin and Miller largely ignore the far more palpable successes of the 2002 Oakland A's (their trio of Cy Young-caliber starting pitchers, namely) in favor of a forced ragtag-misfits narrative and making Beane out to be some sort of negotiating genius (We Indians fans mostly remember Ricardo Rincon as the short end of the Brian Giles trade). And honestly, there really is not enough actual baseball. The laughably overdramatized portrayal of their 20th straight win doesn't cut it. If they only had time for one game, it should've been the final game of their division playoff series, imo. 

 

C-

Edited April 12, 2014 by tribefan695

[Plain Old Tele]

You should read the book. One of the key reasons Michael Lewis focused on that particular season (aside from the fact that was when he was regularly interviewing Beane, various players, etc) is that it was the season after they lost three of their superstar players and it was an open question how Beane would try to fill the gap. The book itself branches out quite a bit into Beane's underlying philosophy and its historical antecedents.

[AniNate]

You should read the book. One of the key reasons Michael Lewis focused on that particular season (aside from the fact that was when he was regularly interviewing Beane, various players, etc) is that it was the season after they lost three of their superstar players and it was an open question how Beane would try to fill the gap. The book itself branches out quite a bit into Beane's underlying philosophy and its historical antecedents.

 

As long as he doesn't make Rincon out to be some sort of hidden gem and place excessive dramatic heft on a game against a bad team in early September when the A's pretty much already had a playoff spot locked up.

Edited April 12, 2014 by tribefan695

[Plain Old Tele]

The game is used for dramatic effect to some degree in the book, but it's more a capper of the longer saga that played out through the whole season (with particular moments focusing on specific players, Beane's superstitions, etc).I really can't recommend the book enough, honestly. Lewis is a tremendously entertaining writer and it's a blast to read.

[Goffe]

It's well made, but I couldn't get into it. I know nothing about Baseball, so half of the movie had me clueless. 

 

I think it is funny that this kept reminding me of another movie, another Oscar-nominated movie that I didn't like, and finding out after it ended that they were directed by the same person. -50/100

Edited August 10, 2015 by Goffe

[Plain Old Tele]

As a complete aside, Goffe, does your grading system go from -100 to +100? That seems incredibly... over-detailed.

[Goffe]

As a complete aside, Goffe, does your grading system go from -100 to +100? That seems incredibly... over-detailed.

on the contrary, it's a simplification of my rating system. It means that that I'm more inclined to give it a 45/100 instead of 55/100, it means that the movie is pending between 45/100 and 50/100.

It's annoying having to decide if the movie is a 47 or 48 or whatever out of 100.

[Plain Old Tele]

on the contrary, it's a simplification of my rating system. It means that that I'm more inclined to give it a 45/100 instead of 55/100, it means that the movie is pending between 45/100 and 50/100.

It's annoying having to decide if the movie is a 47 or 48 or whatever out of 100.

 

So, if a movie is exactly mediocre, does it get a 0? I guess my confusion comes with you deciding to use both a 0-100 scale and a -/+ scale. If I'm reading yours correctly, the only other person I've ever seen use a similar system was the online critic Mark Leeper, but he only went -4 to +4.

[Goffe]

So, if a movie is exactly mediocre, does it get a 0? I guess my confusion comes with you deciding to use both a 0-100 scale and a -/+ scale. If I'm reading yours correctly, the only other person I've ever seen use a similar system was the online critic Mark Leeper, but he only went -4 to +4.

my ratings range from 0 to 100, there are no negative grades.

-/+ means nothing other than pointing which direction the grade is directed at.

If I had to be very specific about Moneyball's grade, I would give it a 47/100, instead I give it a 50/100 with the minus sign in front of it.

If I felt Moneyball was a 53/100 movie, but not quite 55/100, I would give it a +50/100.

[Plain Old Tele]

my ratings range from 0 to 100, there are no negative grades.

-/+ means nothing other than pointing which direction the grade is directed at.

If I had to be very specific about Moneyball's grade, I would give it a 47/100, instead I give it a 50/100 with the minus sign in front of it.

If I felt Moneyball was a 53/100 movie, but not quite 55/100, I would give it a +50/100.

 

[Goffe]

come on now, it's not as complicated as Jay rating system.