I’ve been a bit skeptical of the “Moneyball” movie for a long time. I worry that it will be too impenetrable for mainstream audiences and too simplified and Hollywood-ized for baseball freaks, thus leaving everyone disappointed. I’d like to be pleasantly surprised, but I’m not holding out super strong hope.
Our own Aaron Gleeman is going to see “Moneyball” before it comes out and we’ll have a review of it next week, but I just read a review that suggests that it may be good. No, it’s not a review that says “Moneyball is really good!” It’s a review that says “Moneyball was better than expected,” but it came from a guy who starts his review thusly:
“There’s nothing that interests me less than sports movies … I’m a British guy who pretty much hates all sports and couldn’t show less interest in them if I tried. Seriously, I’ve tried. Anyway, for those of you have never seen a baseball game before, I can tell you that they are excruciatingly dull. They are in no way as dynamic as they seem on the big screen. The big screen cuts out all the f—— waiting. Baseball is a game made up of waiting… And I thought cricket was bad.”
Despite that, the guys gives an overall good review. Not great. He thinks it’s kind of boring. Says “You haven’t seen this much brooding since Twilight. ” Calls Aaron Sorkin’s script is like “The Social Network, minus the brilliance.” Lots of faint praise in this piece, but he likes the actors and thinks there’s good chemistry between them and is generally entertained and comes off with what can be called a slightly warm feeling towards the film.
Given how much this dude hates baseball and sports in general, am I crazy to think that it might actually be pretty decent?