Short version: they took source material that I thought would be completely unwatchable as a movie, and turned it into a movie.
Seriously. A movie about how the Oakland A\’s general manager used unconventional thinking and statistics to build a winning baseball team for the 2002 season. \’Statistics\’ and \’Baseball\’ are not words that you build a dramatic movie around. I enjoyed the movie, but I wasn\’t captivated by it. I feel like I enjoyed it because I am nerd enough to have enjoyed the book, and I feel like it probably has some appeal to more casual baseball/sports fans.
I do also generally enjoy Brad Pitt.
The performances were fine. Pitt was good, Philip Seymour Hoffman actually looked quite a bit like Art Howe (although he just sounded like himself), and Jonah Hill was also good. And that\’s pretty much it. It was well written, and it told the story of a baseball season.
wadE and I agreed on the word \’underwhelmed\’. It\’s a nice, watchable movie. Great for Netflix/Redbox prices, and a good movie for baseball/sports fans and/or people who just want to watch Brad Pitt look good for 2 hours. I\’m not sure how it got an Oscar nomination for anything, let alone Best Supporting Actor In a Role about a Nerd with barely 20 lines in the whole movie. (What? It was just Best Supporting Actor? Huh.)
So, yeah. Moneyball. I suspect you already have an idea about whether or not you\’re interested in seeing it, and I\’m here to tell you that whatever you\’ve already decided, you\’re right. Stick to your guns.