“Moneyball” is a single minded story about baseball and little else. The film spends most of its 133 minutes in the trenches of the Oakland A’s Stadium, delving deep in the statistics involved with America’s favorite pastime. For a fan of the game, this true story has plenty to offer as it shines insight on one of the most intriguing sports stories of the past few decades. If you are indifferent about baseball (or detest it) you will probably find “Moneyball” about as exciting as watching paint dry.
Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is an ex-professional baseball player turned general manager who is fighting a seemingly losing battle. After coming up short in the last game of the 2001 League Division series against the New York Yankees, Beane’s Oakland A’s are decimated as they lose not one but three of there best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen). With a budget of under $40 million dollars, Beane must try to replace his all-stars and compete with other ball clubs operating with resources much greater than his financial capabilities. (The Yankees salary budget in 2001= $110 Million. In 2011= Just about $197 million!!) Beane needs a fresh angle and he finds it in an Economics graduate from Yale named Peter Brand (Jonah Hill).
The unassuming Brand sees the game as a series of numbers and stats which goes against accepted rules that most “baseball people” regard as gospel. Considering that this exposes a value in players that no one else thinks as worth anything, Beane loves the idea and goes all in, recruiting from what is perceived to be the dregs of the major league talent pool. He is met with near constant opposition but, when the team begins to notch up the victories, it becomes apparent that Beane and Brand might have changed the face of baseball while polishing off a touch of its veneer.
“Moneyball” offers a vivid, focused glimpse at what goes on behind closed doors in the Big League world. While the film makes it very clear that this is a stage for Pitt to shine, the real superstars involved with the project are the screenwriters. Working from a book by Michael Lewis, scribes Steven Zaillian (“Schindler’s List,” the upcoming American version of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network,” “A Few Good Men”) infuse the film with a cinema verite style that is driven home by director Bennett Miller who’s only other major film credit is “Capote,” the small indie hit from 2005. Miller gives a nice, slight touch to the small things, (Beane watching his daughter play guitar while singing him a song is easily the movie’s most poewerful moment) The scenes involving negotiations and insider banter play as authentic and are exhilarating.
The entire film has a verbal cadence that is neither showy nor flashy. While these star vehicles can be an excuse for an uberstar to walk through a film, spouting off pompous monologues (see: “Erin Brokovich”) this film is notable for its absence of rousing speeches. Pitt’s Beane is to-the-point and a man of few words. Even when he goes into the locker and a “big moment” is expected, Beane can only muster a few words that does very little to inspire. It’s this departure from convention that is the most welcome aspect of “Moneyball”.
Brad Pitt is ultimately the chief attraction here and he plays the underdog nicely. Everything revolves around him in the picture and even Hill, who shares the screen with him nearly the entire time, spends the film staring at Pitt. While “Moneyball” may garner Oscar Buzz because of its talent’s pedigree, it doesn’t truly deserve it. It’s a fine film with plenty of good elements, there just isn’t anything great about it.