Directed by:
Bennett MillerCinematography:
Wally PfisterComposer:
Mychael DannaCast:
Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Wright, Chris Pratt, Stephen Bishop, Reed Diamond, Brent Jennings, Ken Medlock, Tammy Blanchard (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
Based on real events in 2002, the film follows the unconventional tactics employed by Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), general manager of the cash-strapped Oakland Athletics baseball team, to rebuild his club after losing a few key players to the Major League. Beane enlists the services of Yale economics graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) to devise an unorthodox player selection system based on a sophisticated statistical analysis of each player's skills. As Billy and Peter start to build their team based on computer-generated data rather than the traditional scouting methods, they meet with resistance from old hands such as team manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman). But when the club begins a winning streak with its roster of inexpensive 'wild card' players, the naysayers are forced to admit that the scheme appears to be working. (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (15)
Statistics are boring, but carry valuable information and in the form of a baseball version of The Social Network, it isn’t boring at all. This is as much about baseball as Fincher is about Facebook; in other words, not at all. Despite this, this category is still ruled by The Damned United which is basically the same in a more inventive form of directing and, thanks to the setting, is also a little closer in cultural terms for a European.
()
I don’t understand baseball, I don’t even like it (I only know the Red Sox because of Stephen Kind and Lost) and I doubt that this sport has any sense to it. I like baseball bats (for personal reasons), but that’s not enough to make me able to watch a movie about baseball. So, who did all the work, who made me like the movie? Brad Pitt, who plays a guy who keeps on losing, but keeps on trying, makes bad decisions, knows that but still he keeps on trying until he takes a last, desperate step and starts to listen to a fat accountant. Perfect dialogs, decent humor, excellent actors. It couldn’t have been filmed better, in my opinion.
()
How much does winning cost? A few years ago, Pitt probably would have got the role of a top-tier baseball player. Because he has become more like Redford, in a good way (more serious material, a more serious expression), he now plays a guy who stands in the background. Less action, but no less ambition. For him, achieving success is of primary importance. If he didn’t succeed as an athlete, he wants to at least assert himself from a management position. Here he no longer has to consider others, because he is the one who hands out the checks. So why bother pretending and hiding his arrogant, choleric nature behind a nice mask? Not that he isn't a nice guy (with a few family stops), but he definitely doesn’t play "an American hero", always honest and infallible. For him, human beings are numbers that can, if necessary, simply be crossed out, in which I see a more distinct similarity to The Social Network, with the difference being that this time it’s not only about ones and zeros. The game played behind the scenes is more thrilling than those played on the baseball fields, to which this predominantly interior drama turns our attention only a few times. Will the humanistic, economic or compromise approach win out? The answer is not clear even after the closing minutes, of which there could be fewer (and which push the plot in a slightly different direction). The film avoids adoring Billy Beane, or rather what he personifies (the pursuit of personal happiness at the expense of others). Though the film borrows certain story elements from theatrical fairy tales (flashbacks, a game that has to be won), it actually coldly shows what these films about great victories are based on. (For example, the otherwise important character of the coach is pushed aside, which is evident in his positioning on the periphery of the shot and is emphasised by the "committed" performance of the excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman). Miller peels away the sporting veneer to reveal the cynical managerial drama hidden underneath. At the same time, there are no obstacles placed in the Remuda way of good old tugging at the heartstrings, which, on the other hand, is not assisted in any way (for example, by the soundtrack, whose primary purpose is to create tension). The ambivalent concept of the traditional assault on emotions is beautifully summed up by the daughter’s song, which Billy plays at the end. In short, it’s emotion with a “but…”, and with a lot of added value to think over. 80%
()
The best and most entertaining baseball film I’ve ever seen. Before watching it, I wasn’t expecting it to deliver a great experience because baseball is all Dutch to me, but the fears were unwarranted. Brad Pitt’s great performance and the equally great script didn’t allow my attention to stray away. Thumbs up and I’m rooting for Brad at the Oscars.
()
The best sports-themed film in years. It doesn't matter if you understand baseball or have a relationship with the sport itself, Sorkin's brilliant (again) script is all about passion for the cause, boundless faith in one's own judgement and in what one is doing, despite the risk of losing one's credit. The interactions between Pitt and Hill are a joy to watch. All this without annoying clichés and fake spectacular scenes that would make a stone cry (see e.g. Warrior).
()
Ads