Moneyball Review

Tonight I went to go to see Moneyball. This movie landed on my must see theatre list for one reason.. Aaron Sorkin. As friends and readers know, Jacqui has a slight Sorkin problem. I may or may not own every single TV show and movie he has written. But I digress...

Moneyball is an adaptation of the Michael Lewis' book of the same name. The movie is a dramatization of the events surrounding the 2002 Oakland Athletics. Following the 2001 season, the Oakland A's lost their three star players but did not have the money to replace them with players of a similar caliber because their owner likes to keep the payroll among the lowest in baseball. General Manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) turns to Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who argues that you can replace the players by finding diamonds in the rough who will provide similar production. Sorkin and Steven Zaillian also focus on Beane's personal background and his failure as player because the scouts misjudged his ability. This thread plants the seeds for Beane to reject the baseball status quo and use the methodology preached by Brand. The movie follows the season through its ups and downs, trades, streaks and disappointing ending in the first round of the playoffs. 

The movie itself is a good piece of film.  While this movie appears to be a "baseball" movie, it is far from. Since the perspective is from Billy Beane who doesn't actually watch any games, the focus is shifted to the back story.  I feel this makes the movie very accessible even to those that might not otherwise be interested in a sports movie. Overall, I liked the film itself and the storytelling.

However, I had some problems with the film. Beane and Brand seem to have too much of a central role in the day-to-day management which left out Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman). I almost feel like his character was just there for the television playback scenes.  I found that a bit annoying.  I would have liked to see that character featured more (I am also partial to PSH as an actor).

"The flashbacks" seem to me as something that was added later. I feel this effected the fluidity of the story. They would seem to come out of nowhere. I feel Beane's background was well explained during scenes in the film and these additions were distracting.

As a Sorkin snob, I feel this film is lacking the traditional markings of a Sorkin movie.  Sorkin's writing has a fluidity to it. His movies are written to music and seem to have a certain beat to them. This movie lacked the beat, the speed of dialogue, heck even the "walk and talk" that traditionally mark a Sorkin film. I was disappointed in the obvious "fixes" made to the script. Yes, I am pretty sure the flashbacks I complained about were not his doing.  I am in search of the Sorkin version of this script, I would love to see what was added besides slowing down the dialogue.

I am going to differ from Gerard and give this movie a 3/5.

One more edit.. The use of "the Show"? They should have found a truly original song to garner an oscar nod for this movie.. It won't be nominated for anything else.