Mike’s Review: ‘Moneyball’ is a Playoff-Caliber Film That Doesn’t Go All The Way

GRADE: B

It seems that people have the wrong impression of Moneyball. I even take some blame for expecting the film to be an exciting, riveting, fast-talking baseball insider movie that let non-insiders feel part of the club. But it wasn’t. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing — to me, at least.

Moneyball is no Oscar winner. It’s a well-written, gorgeously shot film that feels as authentic as the book from which it is based. But I can’t help but wonder how much better it would have been if Steven Soderbergh remained at the helm. Instead, we get Capote-director Bennett Miller. And he didn’t do that bad of a job, but there’s too much left on the table and it leaves me disappointed.

But the big question here is whether or not Moneyball is a good sports movie. Yes and no. In the traditional sense, it is not. It’s not overly exciting (apart from one riveting showcase of the Oakland A’s tremendous winning streak) and lacks enough laughs to fall in place with most baseball movies. Jonah Hill deserves credit for injecting a much-needed dose of humor and relief to a film that otherwise takes itself ridiculously seriously. But the film succeeds in one department that few, if any, baseball films have ever succeeded before.

I played professional baseball. It was everything in my life until I was released by the Cleveland Indians in 2008. I have a unique perspective on the game that few filmmakers ever care to explore. Moneyball did it wonderfully. There is a certain attitude that ballplayers have. At the Major League level, it becomes a profession. You get released, traded, injured, promoted and demoted. But there is an inherent understanding because you are getting paid at the very least (league minimum) $300,000+. Moneyball displayed the professional mentality so well. If you didn’t know any better, you would think Bennett Miller played the game all his life. It just feels authentic. And it has nothing to do with the script or Brad Pitt. It’s the lesser-known actors who perfectly portrayed the athletes depicted on screen – real men that played the game and helped shape the story that is Moneyball. All of this realism is accented by Jonah Hill’s character who has this god-like vision of ballplayers as testosterone-ridden freaks that will rip his skull off his spine if he threatens their career. No, these are professionals and they act like it. There is no cinematic flair to entertain the masses. The only man throwing chairs (apart from the inevitable Billy Koch glove throw) is Brad Pitt. I could go on for hours – just trust me, this is as authentic as it gets in a movie clubhouse.

You’re probably wondering if this is a movie you want to see. Well, there are two leagues of moviegoers in this situation – those who have read Moneyball and those who haven’t.

To those who have read the book, my answer is simple — it is everything you would expect out of a movie based on a book based on statistics. It works, but the book is better.

To those who have not read the book, it really depends on your patience. Moneyball is a movie with confidence. It’s not the laid back I-don’t-care-what-you-think movie like Drive, but it knows the story it wants to tell and it’s not going to rush itself for the likes of you. In some cases, I think this will frustrate audience members. There will be plenty of people who will feel just as lost as I do when doctors in TV shows start spouting medical dialect just to prove how “legitimate” they are. That happens a lot in Moneyball. The first act is riddled with insider dialogue about WHIP and ERA and Fabio — conversations that only those with a detailed understanding of the way of baseball and perfect hair will follow. But that didn’t stop millions from loving ER for years. So what’s the kicker with Moneyball? It must be Brad Pitt, right? He’s okay, but apart from a few nuances that make his Billy Beane “impression” somewhat enjoyable, he comes off flat. It’s not Philip Seymour Hoffman either, whose presence is nearly entirely wasted in what must have just been a favor for his Capote director.

No, Moneyball is a movie worth going to for the non-baseball nut (and baseball nut) because of Jonah Hill. He is the perfect character in this film. Not only does he lighten the all-too-serious mood, but he is that one character we can relate with. He isn’t a regular Joe per se. He’s brilliant and thinks outside the box. But still, we follow the quasi-fictional character through clubhouses and sidelines with a sensation that we are in a world we don’t deserve to see. There is one scene in particular in which he is forced to release a player and Brad Pitt gives him a pep talk that feels like a VIP ticket to a Major League front office. And this is coming from somebody who has been released by a professional ball club. You walk into the office and you know what’s going to happen. They don’t release you if you’re playing like a stud. You walk in and they tell you you’ve been let go. They give you a name and a number if you need help arranging travel and you leave the office. You knew this day was coming. Life goes on. There are almost three dozen other ball clubs that might want you. Moneyball gets this, and I love it for that.

There are not many baseball dramas out there. Moneyball doesn’t even hold a candle to Field of Dreams or Bang the Drum Slowly. I would say For Love Of The Game  and The Rookie are better. Then there is The Natural, arguably the most personal and dramatic baseball film of all time. But those five films all share a common thread that Moneyball does not – they are deeply personal. They include a father/son relationship, an unbreakable friendship, a destined relationship and a dream come true — respectively. What does Moneyball let us relate to? It’s a VIP ticket to a big league clubhouse. Cool, but not personal. This is where Moneyball missed its big chance.

I call Moneyball a “playoff-caliber film” because it gets there, but doesn’t finish the job. The book came out right at that time when steroids began its headline takeover. There isn’t room in this film to explore that controversy, though I do hope we get a great steroids-in-baseball film soon. But there is a universal theme that made Moneyball so powerful as a book. It’s a story about the little guy. It’s the story of David beating Goliath with a rope-a-dope instead of a stone to the face. It still applies today — in fact, it may be more relevant than ever. Americans need a great tale about a team with too little money finding a way to survive and succeeding in a world where those with deep pockets are rewarded constantly. The film plays with this theme frequently, but never commits to it. Instead, it uses Billy Beane’s personal history as the catalyst, much like The Social Network used a Mark Zuckerberg break-up as the catalyst for the film’s plot. It’s too bad, because this alienated everybody in the audience. The film had an opportunity to take a stand as a movie about current economics without pointing its finger at current economics.

But look, Moneyball is a great film. It’s got just enough to earn its keep. Although I feel the book deserved a better film, this one does the job. To make a baseball metaphor, it hits about .275 with 20 home runs. Average. It’s sleek look and gorgeous cinematography act like a shiny coat — a coverboy exterior for a shallow film that just approaches the plate, goes through the motions and takes its base. Then again, it is much like the players the characters in the film are looking for — a guy who can take a walk instead of hitting the home run. It succeeds to an extent, but never goes all the way. There’s nothing wrong with loving Moneyball, but ask yourself if it really made the point it tried so hard to make.

What Should You Do? Give it a chance, see it.