Comments on: “Moneyball” nominated for Best Picture

By: gyaneshwarsah

gyaneshwarsah — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:03:55 +0000

Nice Blog. I really like it. Regards, Hearing Aid Reviews

By: thehearingaidgenie

thehearingaidgenie — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:15:49 +0000

We are really impressed from main item you have discussed here. Thank for sharing such a great information. Keep it up... Regards, Hearing Aid Reviews

By: frug

frug — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:34:05 +0000

To be fair, all the Facebook founders did go to Harvard, and Beane was offered a full ride to Stanford…

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:30:21 +0000

In interests of total clarity. I didn’t see the movie and drew a lot of conclusions. I read a lot of film reviews. I don’t always let those sway what I see, but I use them as markers. I also went heavily from comments on this blog.

You guys wouldn’t lie to me, would you?

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:26:54 +0000

I read the book. While it is an excellent guide to the changes in major league baseball, I only found the stuff Michael Lewis wrote about 75% believable. I think the A’s general staff ran him around a bit to keep other teams off of the trail. The movie took Lewis’s interpretation and wrote a bunch of “drama” into it. Paul Podesta, Sandy Alderson, Art Howe and the entire A’s pitching staff are grossly mischaracterized.

For those reasons I thought the movie would be a waste of my time. Not violently against it, but not very interested.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:49:21 +0000

I guess you’ve never seen Sports Night or The American President.

Sorkin’s my favorite writer/director to ever come out of Hollywood.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:44:43 +0000

It was swept under the rug because if they showed how talented the team still was, there’d be less dramatic flare, and less people in movie seats as a result.

The movie must have been tough enough to film for a general audience, just altogether.

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:18:36 +0000

Don’t forget that “Atlas Shrugged” also came out this year. That one may win the Razzie for “worst film of the year” outright. I’d rather watch that new reality show called “The Republican Debates” than that garbage pile.

By: 1943mrmojorisin1971

1943mrmojorisin1971 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:49:45 +0000

Good not great seems to be the consensus about the movie, and I tend to agree. It was well done in terms of being adapted from a book I would have thought in no way could be made into a movie. The way Billy Beane’s playing career worked into the film was especially well done. I think it should win Best Adapted Screenplay.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:34:03 +0000

direwolf: thank you from doing your best to keep my friend from wasting two hours of his life. Bravo, give it few more months and the dinosaur sequences, all thirty seconds of them, will probably show up on YouTube. I find it hilarious that the Academy felt obligated to parade its faux sophistication by nominating this clunker, a film that actually set records for viewer walkouts and for arguments with theater managers to demand money back. So many, in fact, that theaters in places with a genuinely sophisticated filmgoing public - Cambridge, MA; San Francisco, Washington DC - put up signs in their box office windows spotting their customers fifteen minutes to bail on the film if they wanted their money back. A lot of that nominating vote, I suspect, was because the voters wouldn't be thought of as true intellectuals if they admitted they had no clue what Malick was doing. I took my 19-year-old son, who is an avid film fan with sub-specialties in classic Japanese and European films, to see this figuring that it was, after all, the great Terence "Days of Heaven" Malick and that a lot of the bad buzz was because pedestrian filmgoers just didn't rise to the occasion. Nope. it was a flat out bad film. Twenty minutes into it I had dozed off. My son nudged me and asked if I was actually enjoying it. I said no, but it's Malick so let's see if it goes someplace. It did: it turned off the road and parked itself outside a tire yard.

By: meyerwolf

meyerwolf — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:51:54 +0000

If you do decide to watch it, Bravo (don’t), be sure to have the remote nearby. I still have nightmares, sitting through that half-hour big-bang/dinosaur/… snoozefest in the cinema, unable to change the channel or at the very least fast forward through that part. Hair was pulled, I tell you.

By: merkleboner

merkleboner — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:43:28 +0000

Sounds a lot like Hugo, which was entertaining but full of boring nostalgia and unlikeable kids.

By: pkswally024

pkswally024 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:28:47 +0000

Money Ball was good not great. I had lofty hopes for that movie.

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:18:37 +0000

Agreed. If there was a ‘Best Secondary Supporting Actor’, he would be the man for sure.

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:14:34 +0000

Ok, I think I understand, but I’m gonna have to watch this movie to be sure…not sure if that was your intention! I’ve heard such mixed things about “Tree of Life” so haven’t been dying to watch.

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:11:49 +0000

Your book review reads exactly like the movie reviews I’ve read. I will avoid this flick like the plague.

By: butchhuskey

butchhuskey — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:04:21 +0000

There’s one more thing about Moneyball the movie I wanted to say and I think has been overlooked by nearly everyone. I think Kenny Medlock, the guy who played Grady Fuson was excellent and maybe even better than Jonah Hill (I only knew the actor’s name because I looked it up). I thought he was very natural at playing an “old school” baseball guy, and his speech about discounting what scouts have done for 150 years was one of the more authentic parts of the movie. To be honest, I had never heard of the actor before so I wasn’t sure if they had cast an actual scout with no acting experience in the role. Even though the character gets fired about halfway or so through the film, I thought he made a more convincing villain than PSH’s art howe. Well done, Kenny Medlock.

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:02:31 +0000

I'm a connoisseur. I accept no substitutes, especially pie. *spits*

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:56:45 +0000

Well, since only Craig was as masochistic as I was and sat through Tree of Life I figger I ought to pitch in my two dollars' worth and agree with him. Visually beautiful, like an air-headed, high-maintenance Hollywood bimbo ought to be. If you could find a way to condense all the boredom in that movie into a pill, you would make Seconal obsolescent. I would, however, give a best supporting predator Oscar to the therapsid who stepped on the sick little hadrosaur a couple of times and then decided not to eat it after all. I might want to give a special effects honorable mention to whomever edited Car Sagan's mystified face out of the Pillars of Creation shots from the inexplicably stupid and achingly pretentious "big bang" sequence. I don't believe in capital punishment but, for his utterly gratuitous performance in that film that would have embarrassed EdWood Jr., I would definitely sentence Sean Penn to life without parole going out on stage in front of elementary school parents' night audiences encased in a paper maché simulacrum of a fine chinaware théière where he would be forced to sing "I'm a Little Teapot" over and over again until he is pelted with overripe tomatoes and rotten eggs. My thanks, however, to the murdered toad for adding a touch of genuine pathos to that pretentious mess, and also to Jessica Chastain just for being there and providing something worth watching besides dinosaurs.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:49:13 +0000

True DAT! Well exchange the cake for pie and it’s perfect actually.

By: antlerclaws

antlerclaws — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:41:22 +0000

The guy that plays Ron Washington didn’t get nominated for saying, “It’s incredibly hard”? Travesty!

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:38:17 +0000

Dude, facebook movie was pretty much a masterpiece. It was hilarious, fairly accurate to the real story, never boring…I mean what more could you want out of it? The main character went to Harvard so he’s kinda gotta sound like he did right? What other nominations has Sorkin received from the Academy before Facebook movie?

By: El Bravo

El Bravo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:33:02 +0000

The best pictures nominees suck this year compared to most years. Moneyball has a decent shot b/c of the lack of competition if you ask me. I also think you are underrating Hill’s performance in Moneyball, Craig. His role is essential to the flick and his timing and lines are delivered perfectly throughout. Credit the writing, but credit the former fatty too, will ya?

By: yankeesfanlen

yankeesfanlen — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:28:41 +0000

Car chases and cake! Yum!

By: butchhuskey

butchhuskey — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:21:16 +0000

“There was a total absence of cake, women jumping out of the cake, and creative use of the “shower scene” with the women &/or cake.”

You have very selective taste in movies there, cur68

By: butchhuskey

butchhuskey — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:19:03 +0000

Well sometimes I do, yes. But for some reason Bridesmaids didn’t have me rolling in the aisles

By: sandpiperair

sandpiperair — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:15:21 +0000

Didn’t you just say (yesterday?) that you like juvenile humor? I figured you would have liked Bridesmaids. Maybe you only think it’s funny when men do it.

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:12:26 +0000

None of these movies had spaceships, spies, and/or hand to hand combat, car chases, shootouts or kung fu. There was a total absence of cake, women jumping out of the cake, and creative use of the "shower scene" with the women &/or cake. Its a world gone mad where this lot gets a nod as "A Best Picture". The best pictures have the stuff I mentioned. All else are for the weak minded and old people. Moneyball wasn't bad but it was no Major League. Mr. Jolie's best part in that movie involved when he was actually watching baseball as opposed to moping around with his silicone enhanced lips hanging out.

By: butchhuskey

butchhuskey — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:47 +0000

I agree that Midnight in Paris is undeserving of the praise it has been receiving. I enjoyed it because of Owen Wilson’s performance, but he was the only character that was interesting and wholly developed. The others are depicted with a singular trait: Rachel McAdams gets stuck playing the shrewish wife, Michael Sheen is the pompous intellectual, and her parents are Tea-Partiers that are unwilling to accept anyone else’s point of view. I also felt like a movie where a guy travels back in time and meets famous historical figures should be more magical and perhaps have a larger scope.Sure, the movie was whimsical, but the message about not living in the past seemed like an afterthought and was poorly executed. To sum it up, I thought it was a watchable film but nowhere near an Oscar worthy movie.

By: aleskel

aleskel — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:51:54 +0000

it’s some Aaron Sorkin nonsense – I felt the same way last year about The Social Network. Fine movie, but … Best Picture? What’s the big deal about it? I think the Academy just gets fuzzy over Sorkin because he’s all brainy and political and he writes all smarty-like and stuff.

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for Sorkin to write a character who DOESN’T sound like he went to freakin’ Harvard.