A solid, but flawed and overrated movie with an unrealized potential

Rating: 7/10 (21 February 2012)

We all know that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Some people (including yours truly) also think that there are bad movies, really bad movies, and sports movies (sorry, sports movies fans).
With a commendable bravery, "Moneyball" proceeds to challenge both statements: that statistics in sports is useful only for a peculiar and puzzling total waste of time called "fantasy leagues", and that a sports movie cannot be multi-dimensional, deep, or nuanced.
Does "Moneyball" succeed in its mission? Yes and no. Yes, it is a solid player, but not a champion. Just as its main character, Billy Beane, the movie definitely proves something and makes a strong point yet fails to achieve the ultimate goal. Just as Oakland Athletics, it wins the league and then loses in the first round of the postseason.
When I think about the factors that stood in the way of "Moneyball" fully realizing its great potential, the first thing that comes to mind is the screenplay – decent, but plagued by regrettable flaws.
Based on Michael Lewis's book "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" it was re-written three times – first by Stan Chervin, then by Steve Zallian, and finally by Aaron Sorkin, famous for his work on the screenplay for David Fincher's "The Social Network". Although there are no "ifs" in history, who knows: if Aaron Sorkin alone worked on the screenplay for "Moneyball", the result might have been different.
My main complaint is that the transformation from a losing team into a winning team was too sudden and not fully explained or justified in the movie; instead, it was hastily raced through and remained underdeveloped and not very believable.
Another underdeveloped subplot that in addition to its all flaws also has a cheesy happy end was the difficult working relationship between Billy Beane and the Athletics' manager Art Howe. I felt that the script could have added more dynamics and complexity in depicting their conflict as well as more thoughtfulness and depth in showing its resolution. In addition, Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of my favorite actors, seemed to be a miscast as Art Howe. I understand that after a successful collaboration on "Capote", Bennet Miller, the director, wanted to see Philip Seymour Hoffman in some capacity in his new movie, "Moneyball". However, as versatile actor as Hoffman is, playing a sports manager-type character simply does not seem to be a good avenue for showcasing his remarkable talent.
The scenes that involved Beane's daughter were touching and cute, but at the same time unnecessary and distracting. I realize that the daughter's character was mostly a plot device needed to explain why Beane had rejected the tempting offer from the Boston Red Sox, but a waste of the precious screen time on this derivative subplot that did not add anything to the story seemed both unjustifiable and regrettable.
Finally, "Moneyball" remained innovative, engaging, and original only as long as it kept focus on its main theme - the new team building strategy pioneered by Billy Beane and his (fictional) sidekick, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill). Each time the action would shift from the Billy Beane's office to a baseball field, the movie would lose most of its charm and become just an average, predictable, and boring sports flick.
The directing by Bennet Miller was solid and smart overall, but not breathtaking and not without flaws. I wish he would have a determination and courage to trim all the unnecessary fat from the movie and make it leaner, meaner and about 30-40 minutes shorter.
In the acting department, the strong performances of Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill were memorable, but not extraordinary, not the Oscar level if you ask me, despite the fact that both were nominated (Brad Pitt in a leading role and Jonah Hill – in supporting role).
Jonah Hill, a promising actor, seemed to lack versatility and was a little monotonous and repetitive in his expressions. It almost looked like he thoroughly memorized two or three of them and kept diligently alternating them throughout the movie.
Brad Pitt's performance was good but not good enough to make us forget that his Billy Beane was just a movie character played by an actor. We wanted to see Billy Beane, but instead we still saw glorious Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane, which is not the same. Brad Pitt's best impersonation seemed to be a concerned father in the father-daughter episodes, rather than Oakland Athletics general manager in the rest of the movie.
In the end, "Moneyball" is a solid, but flawed and overrated movie with an unrealized potential. It definitely deserves our attention and respect, but not a high praise or an ecstatic acclaim, despite the Oscar hype that surrounds it.
knowyourmovie.blogspot.com