2011: The Year in Film: "Moneyball" Review

Moneyball Before we review this badboy, let's have a brief discussion about theater etiquette. Where did people learn that it's ok to carry on a full-volume conversation in a theater? It seems that theater behavior is pretty fundamental.. they remind you on the screen prior to the start of the movie for christ's sake. Like, how self-absorbed are you that you really aren't even whispering? What the hell? The most annoying thing people do (listen up, ladies) is ask questions mid-movie. Let me let you in on a little secret: ALL WILL BE REVEALED. Seriously, something fun about books, and movies, and TV shows is that they tend to explain things in time. I can guarantee one of two things: either the very thing you are asking will be explained, probably in short order, or the movie you're watching is full of holes and a piece of shit. Questions like "who's that?", "what's he doing", etc. are so incredibly stupid. If it isn't already painfully clear, either explicitly or through context, it's about to be made explicitly clear. If you're unable to interpret the clear signals given to you by people who tell stories for a living, either you're stupid or the movie you're watching is. Either way: DON'T ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FUCKING MOVIE. It is getting to the point where I am considering bringing some sort of shank to the theater. A woman probably aged between 55 and 70 was seated directly behind me and asking pretty basic questions at full volume. Literally no effort to whisper whatsoever. If you don't know what baseball free-agency is.. 45 minutes into a movie that you paid and everyone else paid $10 to get into is probably not the time to familiarize yourself with an extremely elementary concept that would probably be best solved BEFORE SEEING A BASEBALL MOVIE. The whole concept of whatever that woman was up to is so damn stupid to me that it hurts my brain. But anyway, ON WITH THE REVIEW.

So "Moneyball" is based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis that chronicled Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's then and now, and his push of a computerized, sabermetric approach to building a major league baseball team. I love baseball, I love science, and I love statistics and the new sabermetric approach to baseball and sports in general, so I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read the book, despite it being recommended to me literally 10+ times. However, I am familiar with the story and people involved, so I was excited to see this one. Bennett Miller, best known for directing "Capote" is at the helm, and Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, adapting Lewis' book.

It is 2001, and the Oakland A's, fresh off a 100+ win season and disappointing playoff loss, find that they've lost their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen) to free-agency and are facing the difficult prospect of rebuilding on a serious budget. At the time, the Oakland A's had a payroll of less than $40 million while the New York Yankees (among others) had a payroll of around $140 million. (In case you're curious, this situation has only become worse over time) Beane, frustrated at the situation he's facing, decides that a new approach is required to help his team compete. After meeting a young staffer for the Cleveland Indians (sad face) who is using an innovative computer program to evaluate talent and maximize value, Beane brings the staffer to Oakland as Assistant GM, and the two overhaul the team based on statistical analysis rather than "look" and "tools" and the traditional things valued by old-school baseball scouts.

I know, it sounds boring. But Aaron Sorkin wrote it... and he's an amazing, amazing screenwriter. Did you like "the Social Network"? Yeah, he did that. Among many, many other things. Sure, on the surface it's about baseball, but really this film is about science and rationality and change challenging tradition and the old guard. There was, and continues to be in some circles (cough, Joe Morgan, cough) substantial resistance and even hostility to the "moneyball" approach... but make no mistake, sabermetrics are now used to at least some extent by just about every baseball franchise and are spreading to other sports. Billy Beane and co. were first. By mixing in baseball action with drama and scenes fleshing out Billy Beane, the film manages to rise above its somewhat limited synopsis to become part biopic, part social commentary, part sports movie and part documentary.

Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane.. and this flick would have succeeded or failed based just about entirely on his performance. He does not disappoint. His version of Beane is intense, standoffish and a whole lot of a prick, but also very likable. Considering that probably 1/3rd of the movie is Beane by himself or with one other person being intense, a strong Beane is an absolute requirement. Jonah Hill makes a foray into the serious as the fictional (his character is in fact a combination of a couple of different assistants to Beane) Peter Brand, a Yale-educated computer whiz who never played baseball at any level. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is virtually unrecognizable as the pudgy, priggish Manager of the A's who is skeptical of Beane's new approach. Chris "Andy from Parks and Rec" Pratt makes a foray into the serious as Moneyball wet dream exemplar Scott Hatteberg. Once I got over "holy shit, that's Andy!" mode, he was very good and brought an "aw schucks" charm to the role. The supporting players are all very good and believable, but make no mistake, this is Pitt's film.. and he more than rises to the challenge.



The screenplay is tight and brings, through the use of flashbacks, some context and depth to the proceedings so it's not just simply a straightforward telling of the A's 2002 season. The dialogue is crisp and often funny, the characters feel very human, and by framing the film as a contest between underdog outsiders vs. good old boy traditionalism, the film transcends sports and has a lot to say about society in general. I really liked this movie.. it's top 3 for the year.

8.5/10. See "Moneyball" if you like baseball, if you liked "The Social Network", or if you're in the mood to see something made for grownups and demonstrates the growing potential of film. If they can turn "Moneyball" and Bill James' sabermetrics into a movie, I'm excited to see what's coming.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Debt" Review

So I have been blogging... I just haven't been publishing. I have 3-4 half-written posts awaiting some TLC and a little effort.. but never fear, I actually saw a movie. The parentals were in town this past weekend, and so we thought it would be a good idea to see a movie. I couldn't talk them into "Drive" and my mom wouldn't see "Contagion" post-dinner, so we ended up with "The Debt", a remake of a 2007 Israeli film of the same name by Director John Madden.. probably best known for "Shakespeare in Love", which I would like to officially nominate as "Worst Best Picture Winner of All Time". Not that it isn't decent in and of itself, just that Best Picture flicks should be great... and Shakespeare in Love is not great. But enough about Shakespeare in Love (it can't help it that the powers that be in the Academy forgot what "award worthy" meant for a year and chose a comedy over 'Saving Private Ryan').. let's talk about The Debt. When talking about Israel and the background of what has become one of the truly hot-button issues in today's world, it's easy to forget that in our world of cause-and-effect, none of it would have ever happened if it wasn't for the Holocaust. The Nazi regime effectively eradicated the vast majority of the world's Jewish population, leaving the survivors to deal with the consequences. Whatever you think of the result, that's what's driven much of Israeli policy over the ensuing 60+ years. The myriad of reactions and consequences has been a popular subject for film for decades, and here we have a thriller that seeks to examine guilt and duty, memory, history and "truth" against the tableau that was the Mossad hunt for Nazi's in the 60's and 70's.

This film is set against the backdrop of a book publishing that highlights a mission in 1966 to capture a fictionalized version of Dr. Mengele in East Germany. A three person Mossad team operating in East Berlin sought to capture a Nazi war criminal and take him to Israel to stand trial.. and have been celebrated as heroes ever since. The film takes place roughly half in 1966 and half in 1997, as the book is published and the surviving team members are enjoying (to varying degree) retirement in Israel. All is not how it seems regarding the original mission, however, and the film does a very interesting job presenting, tangling and then untangling the threads of may in fact have been the truth. It sort of feels like "Spy Game" (Robert Redford and Brad Pitt) meets "Munich".. and that's not a bad thing.

First, let's talk the good. Hellen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Jessica Chastain are all outstanding. My boy Sam "Jake Sully" Worthington is given perhaps the most challenging role and does not shirk from the challenge. Chastain and Mirren play the same character, 30 years apart.. which is interesting in and of itself. There are some extremely tense scenes that are shot and played beautifully. The film does a great job in presenting something only to deconstruct it later.. what it shows may or may not be the truth. The subject matter is treated seriously, and the toll of deceit and grief feels very, very real. The intimate setting (the Berlin safehouse) and small cast gives a claustrophobic feel to the whole endeavor and helps to rachet up the suspense and sense of dread.

On the other hand, the jumping from time period to time period is done with varying degrees of success. It can be confusing as to what exactly is going on. Some of that has to do with the plot itself, and all is revealed in time, but I feel that if the script was a little tighter, it would be self-evident in real time.





All in all, this is no paint-by-numbers thriller. This is an adult flick that treats international espionage and black ops like something real with consequences rather than a cartoon. There are scenes that are tense and suspenseful that will leave you on the edge of your seat. Come for a spy/Nazi/Cold War thriller... stay for some great performances and sequences. So, despite the fact that the flick falls apart towards the end as its plot approaches nonsense, there is more than enough good here to redeem everything.

7/10