Movie Review | Moneyball

Moneyball is perhaps the most influential book in sports history. It has ushered in a new era of player evaluation in baseball, and indeed changed the way many think of the sport.

The film adaptation, starring Brad Pitt and (partially) written by Aaron Sorkin, doesn't quite revolutionize sports movies, but is an enjoyable ride nonetheless.

At first glance, Moneyball looks impossible to adapt to film. It doesn't so much tell a story as track the evolution of an idea. That idea — that baseball players are judged on the wrong criteria — is certainly fascinating to the sports wonk, but how does one make it appeal to the masses?

The film tackles this problem by centering around Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane, and his struggles as the first GM to truly embrace the idea. Beane is given what seems like an impossible task — getting his tiny-payroll team to compete (and win) against baseball's titans (the Red Sox, the Yankees, etc.). This is an uphill battle, especially given that his three brightest stars — Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen — have left for bigger money.

Knowing that he cannot compete with the sports' giants on their own terms, Beane decides to take a different tack. With the help of economics major Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), he identifies talented players who have been overlooked by other teams for a variety of reasons (injury, age or body type).

Beane has to confront a century's worth of baseball dogma to implement this strategy. He is ridiculed by the team's scouts, its manager and the sports media (represented as a wash of voices that fades in and out during montages).

As Beane, Pitt delivers an excellent performance. He's a charming smooth-talker, yet also driven by anger at a system that incorrectly marked him for stardom. The film works best when he's negotiating, rapid-fire, with other GMs.

Co-star Hill also does good work as Beane's partner in crime. Where Beane is charming, Brand is cold; where Beane is confident, Brand is neurotic. Yet the two share a passion for the game, and devotion to the idea.

There are some things that don't quite ring true, though. The scenes with the scouts grate — they're clearly just strawmen, and their ignorance is played for cheap laughs. There's also little drama there — as one character points out, Beane is the big boss, and can make his decisions regardless of what the scouts say.

The film also includes some scenes with Beane's family, clearly included to make it more easy to market as a "feel-good" movie. To Sorkin's credit, these scenes aren't as bad as they could be, but they don't really have much of a point — the idea's the thing, and the movie's about the battle for baseball's soul.

Thanks to Sorkin's involvement, Moneyball will draw more comparisons to The Social Network than any sports movie, and it unfortunately pales in comparison. Moneyball is well-written, to be sure, but it lacks the tight pacing and memorable sequences of that movie (most likely due to the fact that David Fincher isn't directing here). Scenes seem to last a beat too long (more than once, I noticed a joke, a pause for the audience to get the joke and a further, inexplicable, pause).

Beane is more clearly a good guy than The Social Network's Mark Zuckerberg, and thus a bit less interesting. Someone could leave The Social Network divided as to whether Zuckerberg was a hero or a villain, a visionary or a plagiarist. There's less moral ambiguity with Beane, and therefore the only conflict of Moneyball is external — whether the idea will succeed or fail.

These criticisms aside, Moneyball is a perfectly enjoyable film. Not quite a home run, but a solid double.

Grade: B+

Moneyball is rated PG-13.