I saw Moneyball earlier this week on DVD. (Thank you, Library.)
I want to start out my description of this film with some passionate outburst, to convey enthusiasm and to be persuasive, but my feelings about this film are kind of subdued.
I haven't read the book so I can't say how the screenplay differs from the book. I have begun reading The Big Short, with which I am already deeply in love, so I'm inclined to think that a) I would probably enjoy Moneyball, too, were I to read it, and that b) Aaron Sorkin's screenplay is probably somewhat faithful to the book.
I guess what I really enjoyed about this film was that Brad Pitt's character, Ben Beame (if that's his name; I'm not sure) was really passionate about winning but he didn't always show his passion; he wasn't given a girlfriend in the screenplay (although he did have a daughter who worried about him and said irreverent things to him). The drama of the screenplay was chiefly about whether he would succeed using an alternative strategy with has since changed baseball (for the better, I think, but I can't really comment but I'm not really a fan as an adult).
I think Jonah Hill's performance has been praised and it was good. I felt that it was missing something: variety, intensity, something. I do think that an actor has to play the music he's been given and that the role didn't give much scope for the expression of a range of emotions.
I really liked Brad Pitt's performance and liked it so much because it was naturalistic, and so believable. I like highly realistic movies. There's a wonderful scene where Pitt, as Beame, lays out the new strategy to the assembled scouts who are giving him their recommendations for new, untried talent with a lot of potential. I'm guessing that the scouts were not actors but scouts. But, if they were actors, they sure were good.
I want to start out my description of this film with some passionate outburst, to convey enthusiasm and to be persuasive, but my feelings about this film are kind of subdued.
I haven't read the book so I can't say how the screenplay differs from the book. I have begun reading The Big Short, with which I am already deeply in love, so I'm inclined to think that a) I would probably enjoy Moneyball, too, were I to read it, and that b) Aaron Sorkin's screenplay is probably somewhat faithful to the book.
I guess what I really enjoyed about this film was that Brad Pitt's character, Ben Beame (if that's his name; I'm not sure) was really passionate about winning but he didn't always show his passion; he wasn't given a girlfriend in the screenplay (although he did have a daughter who worried about him and said irreverent things to him). The drama of the screenplay was chiefly about whether he would succeed using an alternative strategy with has since changed baseball (for the better, I think, but I can't really comment but I'm not really a fan as an adult).
I think Jonah Hill's performance has been praised and it was good. I felt that it was missing something: variety, intensity, something. I do think that an actor has to play the music he's been given and that the role didn't give much scope for the expression of a range of emotions.
I really liked Brad Pitt's performance and liked it so much because it was naturalistic, and so believable. I like highly realistic movies. There's a wonderful scene where Pitt, as Beame, lays out the new strategy to the assembled scouts who are giving him their recommendations for new, untried talent with a lot of potential. I'm guessing that the scouts were not actors but scouts. But, if they were actors, they sure were good.
No comments:
Post a Comment