Moneyball (2011) Review

Originally written on September 25, 2011, for AD Forums.

Moneyball is a movie with limited commercial appeal, except for the fact that Brad Pitt is in it. The marketing department has done a wonderful job disguising what is essentially a dense, math-heavy, subtle character piece as a feel-good sports opus in the vein of Field of Dreams. Having read Moneyball more than almost every other sports book ever released (the dubious honor there goes to Game of Shadows for me, another book with amazing subject matter that would be tricky at best to film right), I was pretty aware - and warned the people I was going with - that if this film was done right, the daughter would not be a focal point of the film, there would be a lot of statistical analysis, and the A's wouldn't win the playoffs. 

And this film was, amazingly, done right. Moneyball is one of those books that I assumed would never be made when the script was announced as purchased, because that is the most un-cinematic book I have ever read. I mean, Cat's Cradle would be impossible to film, but it at least has some sort of cinematic appeal. Moneyball is a book that exists to tell you why the baseball you knew as a child is wrong, and what Billy Beane is doing about it, and HERE ARE PAGES OF STATISTICS AND MATH EQUATIONS. The use of computer screens and readouts in the film to simulate the complexity of what Beane and (the nonexistent in real life, but pretty obviously based on Paul DePodesta) Peter Brandt was a very inventive stroke; it implies to the audience that there is an insane amount of scientific complexity going on here, while not even bothering to try and explain it in actual terms in dialogue.

The scene where Brandt explains the use of Chad Bradford to the A's organization perfectly demonstrates where the film went right in translating the book to screen - we see pages of stats on Bradford on screen, but as Brandt explains why no scouts have picked him up despite stellar statistics, we see him pitch. The passage of time since the era when moneyball seemed like a really dumb idea has given us more people like Bradford, with bizarre delivery, weirder public personalities, and the audience can immediately side with Bradford - why doesn't anyone pick him up? All we have to see to believe that Brandt is correct in his assumption is one archival footage piece of Bradford pitching.

Acting-wise, Brad Pitt is pretty good. Both me and my friends, however, walked out raving about Jonah Hill's restrained performance, which was a big highlight for us. His role could've easily devolved into a stereotype that Hollywood loves to play - Ivy League nerd - but Hill plays him with such meekness in the beginning, flowing into a growing intensity that matches the building tone of the film. It's a really great performance, and I fear it'll be overlooked because OH MY GOD THERE'S BRAD PITT! Pitt will probably be overshadowed come Oscar time, but hopefully Hill squeaks into Supporting. He deserves it.

That being said, I can see why people think this film is boring. It is faithful as possible to the book, with scenes being transcribed word-for-word in some cases, like in the balletic mid-season trade scene, which is one of the film's highlights. But then again, it's Statistics: The Film. If you don't like baseball very much, this movie is about as thrilling as watching paint dry, I'm sure. (Confession: I don't like Rudy for the same sort of reason - I couldn't will myself to give a shit about football, no matter how hard I tried.) There are other things about the movie that are fairly shaky: the daughter subplot is very thin, and clearly some sort of studio mandate, as it starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and does nothing but demonstrate that Beane has a vague resemblance of a life outside of baseball... except he doesn't, really.

The players are also fairly undeveloped outside of Hatteberg, so we don't get much of an idea about other things going on around the As. Justice is supposed to be an example to the other As, for example, but once Beane tells him he needs to step up, apparently one brief montage of Justice watching a pitch get by him is enough to imply that he was good on his word. This isn't even mentioning any other players on the As, because... well, they're there, I guess. Maybe mentioning their names might've helped, though. You'd never understand one of the signs shown in archive footage towards the end of the movie unless you knew Barry Zito played for the As at the time. (Also won the Cy Young in 2002. The movie is set in 2002. That's some other issue for some other film.) I'm sure 95% of my theater was like, "what the fuck, why'd they show that sign?" There were other signs with similar reactions, but that's the one I remember the best. I'm not asking for full-on introductions for every As player here, but clearer footage from archives if you're not going to mention anyone outside of a core three-four players would've been helpful.

Nerdy notes alert:
- Sound Editing should be in the bag. Seriously, the sound work on this film is incredible. Moneyball will also probably figure into the Editing race.
- I bet no one here caught that the guy Beane was talking to on the phone about Damon is highly implied to be Scott Boras.

Overall, I am definitely a biased reviewer for this film, loving the book, baseball, and Jonah Hill. But this is a well-crafted, excellent adaptation of a book most people would think was completely un-filmable. I would highly recommend it, but understand that this isn't the film for everyone's tastes. However, this is easily one of the best of the year so far.

****.5/*****