Moneyball

A movie done to the size and skills of Brad Pitt. The story is interesting enough and is well driven and directed. Hill does a good job, mostly because nobody had seen him doing a serious role before.

Sporting Economics I have no affinity to Baseball as a sport, I'm British you see. I tried to get in to it when British cable networks began showing it, but it never grabbed me. My only contribution to any conversation about the sport is that I support The Cleveland Indians because of the film Major League, a film that continues to make me laugh to this day. I was intrigued by Moneyball, synopsis tantalisingly offering up a sports success story based on an improbable blend of maths (something I hate with a passion), guile and perceived misfits as a team. Sure enough, after viewing Moneyball it has landed joyously onto a personal favourites list. Unsurprisingly, when digging into the actual facts of the Oakland Athletics 2002 season at the core of the story, I found truths stretched, some character portrayals toyed with, and omissions to round out a better story. But crucially, the key element here is the moulding of a team for what in Baseball parlance is financial peanuts. This makes their 20 game wining run as being an outstanding achievement. The mathematical aspects of the story are easily explained via the interactions of General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and his economics right hand man Peter Brand (Jonah Hill). Baseball operations behind the scenes are given fascinating clarity via the tremendous screenplay (Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin). And ultimately the blend of on field action, family relationships and team assembling flows beautifully as one. In turn punch the air brilliant with heart tugging worth, and brainy into the bargain, Moneyball most certainly a film non Baseball fans can watch and maybe love for bringing something new to the sports movie table. 9/10