Everyone is a sterotype and everything makes no sense

Rating: 1/10 (20 August 2015)

This movie almost seems to exist in attempt to DE-legitimize Moneyball. However, Curve is so bad that it only cemented Moneyball as being anything but similar to terrible.
Here's what happens: Clint Eastwood plays a stereotypical old baseball scout who cares only for old-school baseball knowledge and thinks typewriters are scary new technology. He is losing his vision, can't drive and wants the 1950s back. And despite alienating his daughter, he is hero of the story because his ancient baseball thinking, within their fiction, is always perfectly correct to make up for him being otherwise completely unlikable and wrong. In reality, no baseball philosophy is close to 100% correct all the time. Eastwood's daughter(Adams) is a lawyer who hates Eastwood on the surface because he didn't care for typical responsible or girly interests like her. She is roped into helping her dad out because she hates him or loves or who cares. The real confusing character is her love interest through the movie, played by Timberlake, who is (no joke) a former pitching prospect who never made it big due to injury, asked to prove himself as a good scout for evaluating one player in order to become a Red Sox play by play broadcaster. Even those who know virtually nothing about baseball must know that this makes no sense. It turns out that the player both Timberlake and Eastwood/Adams are evaluating is the definition of stereotypical entitled sports jock. His lines of douchbaggery are laugh out loud bad and on the nose. His character at one point insists another player gets hit by a pitch so he can bat in the 9th inning. Douchebag threatens his teammate by saying his at bat has future major endorsement deals for douchebag at stake. Of course the jerk player also is projected by Eastwood and Adams as being unable to play in the big leagues because they think he will fail against real competition particularly the good MLB curve-balls, despite having great current statistics in high school(this concept actually isn't too unrealistic, but the movie lacks a sense of reality because everyone evil is bad at playing and evaluating baseball and every good is a perfect baseball analysis or player. They convince Timberlake not to draft the stereotypical jock player either, but The organization that Eastwood reports to(the Braves) ignores their report and drafts him anyway, make Timberlake thing he was manipulated into making a bad decision. Shortly after this disaster draft, Adams sees a kind young kid(who was bullied by the drafted jock earlier in the film) pitching to a friend. She immediately sees him as a future MLB pitcher and somehow is able to convince the Braves to sign him despite the kid never playing at a competitive level and her only being the daughter of mistrusted decrepit scout. What follows is the new pitcher and hitter facing off and the hitter failing.
Eastwood and his daughter are revealed to be brilliant. Adams and Timberlake reconcile, the end. The movie is really more like an irritating unrealistic feel good chick flix with some baseball and Eastwood playing baseball scout version of the same old character he has played the last 10 years.
The story just fails to spark an ounce of the interest of Moneyball because the story is constructed to show that good analysts are those who see past statistics into a player's heart. Good players on the field are always good off the field, and bad people are those who are self centered entitle jocks or young analysts who trust statistics. If someone knows anything about baseball, they will see these characters as the complete unbelievable agenda driven stereotypes and that they are. Almost every scout in real baseball uses a great deal of both new age statistics and old school scouting tactics, and this movie didn't even conjure this common scouting value as an option.(in case you think Moneyball displays no middle ground either, it's important to remember that moneyball took place earlier when new age statistics weren't commonly used by scouts like they are now. The depiction of the jock player is the most blatant example of an unrealistic one dimensional character. He really is portrayed like a sports star from an SNL skit. Moneyball doesn't stick perfectly to the book, but it is a much closer depiction of a story which is both more interesting and based on truth. Also moneyball's humor is on purpose and displays the subtle realities and often poignant qualities of baseball's unreliability.