Moneyball and …

Heyo to all my loyal readers (if you’re out there) I feel that I’ve been neglecting my blog lately and now have two movies to dish about.

I saw Moneyball a couple weeks ago and after a discussion with my co-viewers (my mom and sister) have had many thoughts about the movie swirling around in my brain.

While Moneyball was an enjoyable film (other than the extremely annoying woman in the audience with the extremely annoying laugh and her use of it at extremely unnecessary moments), I still felt something was missing from the story.
What I do know is that Brad Pitt plays Oakland A’s manager Billy Beane, known for his unconventional method to form a winning baseball team with players that don’t require a big salary.
Moneyball is not supposed to be a strictly sports movie, like Major League, but more of a drama and for that reason I don’t feel the writers went deep enough.
It’s based on a true story and a book so they clearly had enough material to access, but I left the theater only understanding what Billy Beane did in his career as manager but not who he is as a person and how that influenced his choices.
I am not really sure what caused the movie to fall short of its potential, especially with the library of other work by the screenwriters and the fact that the author of the Billy Beane book had his hands in the project too. For me, writers Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin took Moneyball and placed it below the caliber of films they could, and have, put together. I wasn’t nearly as disappointed in Moneyball, again because it was overall an enjoyable movie, than in Social Network so maybe Zaillian had more writing influence than Sorkin.
My last complaint, whether this is because of the writing mishaps in bringing the true story to the big screen or the actors themselves, I don’t feel Brad Pitt and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are in roles that fit their skill.
Basically, something was missing there too. While they, and Jonah Hill, had chemistry on screen I felt the cast just didn’t match this movie.
I’ve recommended this movie to friends and coworkers, even if they were planning on seeing it anyway, because I think my reaction to Moneyball could be simply a matter of opinion. My mom and sister and I overall happened to agree about the “missing” story, but critics and box office reports show Moneyball is resonating with viewers.

If anything, I think that’s because Moneyball will appeal to different demographics rather than a target audiences of  rom-coms or horror movies. Men and women, baseball fans or not, will probably take something away from Moneyball. If you do and happen to read this, let me know what you think.

Since I have no appropriate transition to insert here, I am just going to go ahead and talk about the other movie I finished recently, Jake Gyllenhaal’s Source Code.

Can Gyllenhaal save the day by reliving eight minutes on a Chicago train with a bomb on it over and over again? I really have no idea. Source Code is a very entertaining movie and it’s a good thing because when it came down to the nitty gritty details in the plot, I was a bit lost at times. That’s not to say I am too focused on explosions and eye candy (Gyllenhaal) to pay attention; the plot is just a little confusing and Source Code would probably take another screening to catch all the details I missed the first time around. So ladies (who may like the ending more) and gentlemen, check out Source Code and I hope to be back soon when I finally get to see Drive.