Which one of the following do you really like 1. Baseball
2. Statistics
3. Economics
4. Sport in general
5. None of the above
If you ticked on 5 then I suggest that you avoid Moneyball like the plague. You will find nothing in it that will keep you riveted to the screen. Chances are that you will walk out of the hall scratching your head and cursing the Academy for yet again picking a dud for the Best Movie nomination. If you ticked on 1 or 2 or 3 and have a deep love for either of these subjects then chances are that you will find the movie very interesting and will comfortably sit through for more than 130 minutes. But you need to pay close attention to what is being said. If you ticked only 4 then you will struggle through the movie. You will have to be patient enough to survive the parts that are heavy and I mean really heavy on numbers and strategies. You need to be even more cued into what is being said and you have a good chance of understanding the movie better than people who have not done what I have recommended.
In the unlikely event that you have ticked 1, 2 and 3 then you have hit yourself a jackpot. Chances are that you are Peter Brand (Johan Hill) who is an economics major from Yale and has found his calling in baseball. Who strongly believes that getting the championship is about winning more games. Winning more games is about getting to more bases and getting more people out. Winning more games is about scoring more runs that the opposition. Adds up doesn’t it? And who would have been better placed to experiment with this method than the General Manager of the Oklahoma As i.e. Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who is at his wits end trying to figure out how to manage a baseball team @ a budget of $38 million a year which is the lowest in Major League Baseball. The two went on to revolutionise player and team selection over the early part of the previous decade. Stuff that case studies are made of.
Based on a book written by Michael Lewis "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" – the movie has earned itself 6 nominations. None of the nominations – including Best Picture – are surprising. That it may not win the best picture is mainly due to other movies such as The Descendants and The Artist being better made on more parameters than the 6 that Moneyball finds itself nominated. Excellent editing for certain and great performances from both Pitt and Hill who seem to have a chemistry of sorts on screen. They just get along seemingly very well. Havent read the book so cannot comment on the quality of screenplay adaptation and I am not qualified to comment on the sound mixing either.
What I can definitely say though is that the movie is well made and worth a watch. But keep a look out for what I called out in the first paragraph. An understanding of basic baseball, economics and statistics will go a long way in understanding the movie. 7.5 on 10. Deservedly in the top 10 movies of the year. But not surprising that it hasn’t released in India yet.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3229326361/
2. Statistics
3. Economics
4. Sport in general
5. None of the above
If you ticked on 5 then I suggest that you avoid Moneyball like the plague. You will find nothing in it that will keep you riveted to the screen. Chances are that you will walk out of the hall scratching your head and cursing the Academy for yet again picking a dud for the Best Movie nomination. If you ticked on 1 or 2 or 3 and have a deep love for either of these subjects then chances are that you will find the movie very interesting and will comfortably sit through for more than 130 minutes. But you need to pay close attention to what is being said. If you ticked only 4 then you will struggle through the movie. You will have to be patient enough to survive the parts that are heavy and I mean really heavy on numbers and strategies. You need to be even more cued into what is being said and you have a good chance of understanding the movie better than people who have not done what I have recommended.
In the unlikely event that you have ticked 1, 2 and 3 then you have hit yourself a jackpot. Chances are that you are Peter Brand (Johan Hill) who is an economics major from Yale and has found his calling in baseball. Who strongly believes that getting the championship is about winning more games. Winning more games is about getting to more bases and getting more people out. Winning more games is about scoring more runs that the opposition. Adds up doesn’t it? And who would have been better placed to experiment with this method than the General Manager of the Oklahoma As i.e. Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who is at his wits end trying to figure out how to manage a baseball team @ a budget of $38 million a year which is the lowest in Major League Baseball. The two went on to revolutionise player and team selection over the early part of the previous decade. Stuff that case studies are made of.
Based on a book written by Michael Lewis "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" – the movie has earned itself 6 nominations. None of the nominations – including Best Picture – are surprising. That it may not win the best picture is mainly due to other movies such as The Descendants and The Artist being better made on more parameters than the 6 that Moneyball finds itself nominated. Excellent editing for certain and great performances from both Pitt and Hill who seem to have a chemistry of sorts on screen. They just get along seemingly very well. Havent read the book so cannot comment on the quality of screenplay adaptation and I am not qualified to comment on the sound mixing either.
What I can definitely say though is that the movie is well made and worth a watch. But keep a look out for what I called out in the first paragraph. An understanding of basic baseball, economics and statistics will go a long way in understanding the movie. 7.5 on 10. Deservedly in the top 10 movies of the year. But not surprising that it hasn’t released in India yet.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3229326361/
