f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Movies => Topic started by: Rendakor on October 16, 2011, 08:07:41 PM



Title: Moneyball
Post by: Rendakor on October 16, 2011, 08:07:41 PM
Just saw this, very good flick. If you like baseball or Brad Pitt, go see it.


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: Teleku on October 16, 2011, 10:21:55 PM
Just saw this tonight myself!  And I agree, it was actually very good.  I enjoyed it the whole way way through.  Had some great dialog and scene setups.  Of course, makes it even better if you happen to live in Oakland and are very familiar with the subject matter, heh.


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 20, 2011, 10:04:18 AM
Really need to get out to see this myself. Read the book years ago and enjoyed it.


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: Teleku on October 28, 2011, 08:24:18 PM
I'm just bumping this because I finished watching the world series (in which Ron Washington loses again), which made me think of the A's, which made me think of this movie.  Its really good, I hope more of fuckers go out and see it.  I want to hear views!


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: UnSub on November 27, 2011, 11:09:52 PM
As someone who cares little for baseball, "Moneyball" is a solid film about being an underdog organisation in a league of financial giants. It has its cliched bits, but it is solidly acted and well scripted (Aaron Sorkin being behind part of it).


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: Margalis on November 28, 2011, 01:09:47 AM
I have no interest in it because as a baseball fan I think the whole concept is kind of sensationalized and overblown. The reason the A's of that era had success was that they had 3 starting pitchers who all developed nicely and stayed healthy at the same time.

Now it's true that the A's drafted proven commodities out of college rather than taking risks on talented but less proven guys, but that strategy didn't work with Huston Street, Joe Blanton and other guys the way it did with Mulder, Zito and Hudson. The success of the Moneyball formula was not repeatable - which makes it not much of a formula. The reality is that if you have three great starting pitchers on your team you are going to be pretty decent. And while there was a certain amount of strategy involved in getting three good young cheap pitchers there was also quite a bit of luck.

The other Moneyball acquisitions like Chad Bradford and Scott Hatteberg are really almost irrelevant compared to those three starters.


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: K9 on January 10, 2012, 07:17:12 AM
I saw this on a flight over christmas, just adding to the positive sentiments, I thought it was an entertaining flick.


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: Tannhauser on January 21, 2012, 03:42:19 AM
Watched it the other day, really enjoyed it.  A surprisingly quiet film, I couldn't tear my eyes from it.  Awesome script, stellar cast and really understated direction.  I always think of Brad Pitt as a pretty boy, but when I watch his work I remember he is also a great actor.  I don't know who cast the movie, but they should win an Oscar.  Each actor seemed perfect for his role, even Jonah Hill.  Just loved watching the inner workings of a baseball club and the wheeling and dealing. 

I admit I'm biased, I'm a big Sorkin fan and watch everything he produces, but this was written even better than Charlie Wilson's War and I really, really love that move (see it if you haven't).  Along with The Social Network, Sorkin seems a master at what NOT to put in the script. 


Title: Re: Moneyball
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2012, 08:42:16 AM
I watched this over the past weekend and loved it. Much much better than any movie about statistical analysis should ever be. Funny that I realized who Billy Beane was after this. Apparently, I saw this guy play minor league ball for the Jackson Mets back in 1984 when the team had a huge winning season with a whole bunch of future major leaguers. I had heard Beane's name mentioned as a GM for years and always wondered if it was the same guy and it was.