It sure has been a while since I have written anything on here and I have seen many films that I would like to review. The first of these is going to be about the film Moneyball (2011). I'm sure plenty of you have heard of it or possibly even went to go see it since Brad Pitt teamed with Jonah Hill which no doubt intrigued many viewers.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I suppose I should start with the good since I have plenty bad to say and I may forget about this section.

The best part of the movie is definitely the casting. Not only was it unexpected but the choice of pairing Pitt with Hill was perfect. They both embody their characters wonderfully and extremely believably through 95% of the film and the other 5% is the director's fault so the reputation of Pitt and Hill can only grow after watching Moneyball. The compliments on casting doesn't stop with just these two though. Many of the players for the team had flushed out characters that responded to many of the situations and dialogue in expert fashion. I cannot recall any acting (save Kerris Dorsey's) that I wasn't pleased with.

That's about all the good stuff I have to say.

The aspect I probably disliked the most was the cinematography which kills me because I really love Wally Pfister's work on every collaboration with Chris Nolan. However I am sure that Bennet Miller (the director) was the cause of this dirty, documentary style cinematography so I'll blame him instead of Pfister. When the film started I thought they were using the world's first home video camera and possibly the world's first home cameraman because of all of the grain and terribly jagged rack focusing that happens. Half of the time that more than two people are in a scene the focus puller decides to focus on the person who isn't talking rather that have the audience actually look at the person who is. That kind of stuff doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't we want to look at the speaker? They become the focus the second their voice pierces the speaker. This problem was not just with dialogue. Towards the end of the film the audience is watching as Pitt is driving alone. It would make sense to be able to focus on him since he was in every scene of the film but instead we look outside his window to trains and factories. Why? I don't get it. Those things had no place in the film and don't add anything to the scene or beat of that moment.

Next I have to talk about the music. I am positive that if I were cruising by myself and I had this score playing that I would have no issue with it but the cues and cuts are what catch me off-guard. This gave me the same impression the camerawork did; amateur. The music cuts at the wrong moments resulting in awkward sittings when the moment isn't awkward at all. Luckily this problem didn't persist but I have to lump the daughter's singing into this category. Her voice wasn't too terrible and I understand that the song had a metaphorical meaning to the situations Pitt's character found himself in but it is a dumb song that seemed like a last resort fallback decision. It may just be my aversion to child actors and musical numbers but I felt this just didn't work for the film in any regards. 

Sadly the writing was also an issue. I expected a complete knock out result from two brilliant writers but the collaboration of Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian proved to be less that adequate. It was clear to me which scenes Sorkin wrote most of and which scenes Zaillian wrote most of and I hate to say it but it played against the film. Sorkin's wit outweighed Zaillian's heart because...well...the heart was barely there. It seemed as if Sorkin ramped the pace up to a good moment and Zaillian failed to follow through and this happened more than once. I kept getting excited and then let down and I got tired of it. This repetition also made me question how strong of a character arch there really was. We don't even really find out what Pitt's true goal is until near the end. This could have been a very interesting way to get the audience to look back on the whole film and force them to analyze it but there isn't much to analyze. Pitt's arch is a knoll at best. Hill's arch is also nonexistent. He is the same person at the end of the film as he is at the beginning, the only difference is that someone listens to him now. That also could have been a very interesting arch which made the audience cheer but instead we leave with, "oh.....that's nice." I am a big fan of both Sorkin and Zaillian (who couldn't be with their track records) but this script is a let down that pushes and pulls in all the wrong places, glued together by hope, and torn apart by the naked eye. I loved Pitt's and Hill's characters but their journey is a let down at best.

In the end this film CAN entertain but when looked at through a magnifying glass it falls apart. If your friend owns it then give it a watch, I'm not saying you will not like it at all. Somehow this film has pleased a lot of people so there's statistically a good chance of you liking it. But when this film is broken down it does not hold together.

5/10 on my scale.