Moneyball

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% (30.11.2011)

The Social Network meets baseball. Without knowing the name of the (co-) screenwriter in advance, I read Sorkin's work in it. It is once again irreconcilable, reckless, verbose (towards the subject), at times coldly distant, yet full of respect for the "solitaire" who will change the world (of baseball). Enjoyment of the film will increase exponentially with the viewer's awareness of the game as such. But even if you know as much about baseball as I do, there are still a lot of lively-written and well-acted characters whose relationships and communication entice. The film didn't seem all that rational to me (I didn't understand it in detail), but emotionally it just works (at times, surprisingly, and I don't know why, the adult infantile relationship between Billy and his daughter evoked Coppola’s Nowhere). Moreover, apart from a few cliche slow-motion parts, I have to appreciate how spartan the whole thing is. No ultimate feel-good. Just "daddy, you’re such a loser"... A remarkable testimony about how things can be changed and (again) a film that is about a rebellion against those who say that there is no other way. Coincidence? You decide. :-) (15.11.2011)

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). (20.01.2012)

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. (16.12.2011)

Moneyball is a fantastically original and cleverly written, brilliantly directed story about inspiration and good intensions. I don’t care for baseball, but the message of this work rings true for any field – trust your instincts, follow your own path and don’t sell yourself short. Why didn’t Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian set this behind the scenes in the world of filmmaking, which also relies on teamwork? That would have secured them some Oscars for sure. But that might happen anyway. (01.01.2012)