IMDb > Moneyball (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Moneyball More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 32: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 314 reviews in total 

Yes! a good sports movie.

Author: santiagocosme from Spain
10 June 2015

First of all, I am not a baseball fan, so I guess my opinion should count a little. In fact, I am not even aware of the rules of this sport. But you know what? I really enjoyed Moneyball. Being based on a true story, you just know that there has got to be a good enough reason for that story to be turned into a movie.

In Moneyball, you don't get to see that much baseball action though, for it shows you the other side of the sport. You get to see the bureaucracy and the extent to which a GM needs to go to be able to compete with wealthier teams. His new approach when recruiting players make him a few enemies along the way, and the majority of his staff seems uninterested in helping him make a good run for the title. His only help (in fact the source of his inspiration) comes from a young economist from Yale who has zero experience in baseball, but both of them are about to embark on a journey that will change the history of baseball forever… At least that's the impression I got.

As a result, the movie is one of those that leave a long lasting feeling. Most of us will relate to the protagonist and feel that sometimes, all you need in adversity is to see things from a different perspective, especially when the big fish is way bigger than you…

Was the above review useful to you?

Not a fan of baseball or statistics but I liked this a lot

Author: juneebuggy from Canada
26 November 2014

Well colour me surprised, I went into this expecting to be bored silly despite Brad Pitt and the Oscar nominations. I'm just not much of a baseball movie fan though so I figured I'd give it half an hour (because it was on TV) and bail. But somehow this held my interest despite the fact that (yes) its about baseball, odds/statistics and v-e-r-y slow moving.

I can't even explain why I liked this? Well the amazing performances helped. Led by Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill as Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane who turns baseball on its ear when he reinvents the Oakland A's, by employing unorthodox scouting methods and statistical data to place a different sort of value on the players he picks for the team.

This did make me realize just how disposable the players are. Brutal. Oh, and apparently it's is based on a book, undoubtedly a very dry, heavy on statistics and number crunching, audience specific book. Kill me now! 09.13

Was the above review useful to you?

An interesting and well acted film.

Author: oscar-35 from working in Movieland
20 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*Spoiler/plot- Moneyball, 2011. Oakland California's baseball team, The A's (Athletics) has an ambitious new your general manager who was a player also. His name is Billy Beane. The film plot is about his magical plans and unsuccessful attempts to assemble a World Series winning baseball team on a lean budget by employing computer-generated analysis of each team player and to acquire new players in the yearly baseball draft.

*Special Stars- Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Phillip Seymour Hoffan, Robin Wright.

*Theme- Audaciousness and courage makes the trailblazer unique.

*Trivia/location/goofs- Oakland CA. The A's won the AL west again in 2012 with the lowest payroll in Major League Baseball and a record setting 54 wins by rookie pitchers. The season has been informally called "Moneyball 2" by fans and the press. Bennett Miller told a screening audience that A's assistant GM Paul DePodesta did not wish to have his real name used in the movie, but was very generously helpful during its making. While the filmmakers had no obligation to change his character's name (to Peter Brand), they did so willingly. The Oakland A's set the new American League record for consecutive wins, with 20. The all-time Major League record is 26, set by the New York Giants in 1916, including one tie. Without ties, the record belongs to the 1935 Chicago Cubs (21 straight wins). First baseball movie to be nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award (Oscar) since Field of Dreams (1989) twenty-two years earlier.

*Emotion- An interesting and well acted film for those people now really into professional sports or baseball. The pacing and themes are heroic and enjoyable to experience. This film shows the personal battle of a general Manager of a pro baseball team that came up through the school of hard knocks as a player.

*Based on- Based of Professional baseball trends.

Was the above review useful to you?

A good dramatization of the sport story

Author: Johan Dondokambey from Indonesia
20 June 2014

The adaptation of the sport story is good. The acting is good, worthy of a class A list of actors like Pitt and Hill. Seymour-Hoffman also did a great job, despite the short in-frame time.

I like the coloring choice for this movie. It helps to maintain the sowed-down and rather dark mood, despite having many shots done about daytime activities.

The pace is built well, quite a fast one for a relatively long story. It helps to convey fittingly a story of an entire season into one movie. The acting of the supporting roles of the athletes are also quite good.

Was the above review useful to you?

Really well constructed movie that isn't made simply for the fans of the genre

Author: RyanCShowers from United States
15 August 2013

I was raised in a family where softball was everything. Not being a crazy sport movie buff, I was reluctant to watch Moneyball, but it's different from most sports movies. We don't get pointless montages of the players training or team mates having altercations. Instead, we are told the story of a coach piecing together a team and doing so with little to nothing. It's a different approach to a sports movie, and yes, it's pretty predictable, but what Moneyball does, it does well. Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are dynamite in their leading characters, the film is boosted by the crisp editing, and the topic of financial difficulties. With so much running time I wish we would've seen more of the skimmed scenes shown in montages in Act 3; but regardless, Moneyball is just a really well constructed movie that isn't made for simply the fans of the genre.

Rating: 7/10

Grade: B+

Was the above review useful to you?

A Good Baseball Story

Author: Uriah43 from Amarillo, Texas
17 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've always been partial to a good baseball movie and this one certainly fits that category. Essentially, this story is about a small-market team (the Oakland Athletics) which cannot compete with teams like the New York Yankees who are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the best players around. Recognizing this the general manager, "Billy Beane" (Brad Pitt) hires an unknown adviser named "Peter Brand" (Jonah Hill) from the Cleveland Indians who specializes on finding undervalued talent. Against severe criticism from his scouts and coaching staff they deliberately bypass well known players in search of inexpensive athletes who have been largely overlooked in the process. At any rate, rather than give the story away I will just say that this film does a fine job in showcasing the risk that Billy Beane took to stay competitive. I thought both Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill did excellent jobs in their respective roles. However, I would have liked to have seen more baseball and less of the personal drama in Billy Beane's life as it took away from the overall feel of the movie. But in any case this was a good movie that should appeal to those who like a good baseball story.

Was the above review useful to you?

Math and baseball together

Author: Treyroo from Saratoga Springs, NY
24 November 2012

With the best players playing the right way, a team is assured a victory. But if the best players are too expensive, do you simply take who you can get and give in? Or have you been overlooking quality players simply because conventional wisdom said you should?

Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) is General Manager of the Oakland A's and after losing the last game of the season against the Yankees, three of his star players leave for more lucrative contracts. He'd hoped to match their offers, but the owner couldn't afford it. Then, while looking for a trade at the Cleveland Indians' headquarters, he noticed his counterpart appeared to be taking direction from someone he'd never seen before. After the meeting he approaches Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill), the one person he didn't know in that meeting who seemed to be calling the shots. Brand and Beane soon have a rapport and before long Brand is Beane's second-in-command despite serious resistance from the rest of the staff in the Manager's office who feel Brand is a threat to the team and the game itself.

Sabermetrics has had wide-reaching and long-lasting effects on the game of baseball from supposedly ending the Red Sox losing streak to posthumously exonerating fabled great "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. The story is interesting and Jonah Hill acting way outside his comfort zone is, to say the least, adequate. Brad Pitt also plays his part well as he often does, regardless of the material. That said, at two hours and thirteen minutes, the film feels too long. I don't say that because I believe all movies should be shorter than this, but I do believe this one should've been shorter.

Was the above review useful to you?

I guess starting pitching and Miguel Tejeda really didn't matter…just give me a team of Hattebergs, Mabrys & Bradfords and we'll win 100 games?!?

Author: Twins65 from Lindenhurst, IL
5 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First off, I've never read the book. I am really familiar with it, as it's been talked about pretty much non-stop in baseball circles since it came out, but I don't know how much starting pitching was addressed on the page. I'd like to also consider myself well versed in the thinking of Bill James and his ideas on winning baseball. Hell, I think I bought one of his Bill James Abstracts almost 25 years ago, so his whole OBS strategy is fully ingrained in my consumption of winning baseball.

That being stated, and even though I'm pretty sure this has to have been touched on already, how the hell can the stellar 2002 Oakland A's starting pitching BE COMPLETELY IGNORED in this movie? Their top three starters (Tim Hudson, Barry Zito & Mark Mulder) collectively went 57-21, with 675 combined innings and ERA just under 3.0. And this was at the height of baseball's so-called STEROID ERA!! Granted, starting pitchers' win-loss records at times can be somewhat misleading, as you need consistent run support, solid defense, and great relief pitching to end up with a winning % like that. Still, these guys solidly pitched approx. 46% of the A's innings for the SEASON in which they won 103 games, and weren't mentioned here at all. I guess they did show the back of Hudson's jersey once, as he was the starter in that wild game where they won their 20th straight, but that's it! Zito even won the AL Cy Young Award in 2002, which helped him eventually procure a ridiculous contract from SF which he'll never come close to living up to, but I digress.

Anyway, the movie-makers decided to only champion the role-players, who in fairness, really stepped up and delivered solid seasons. But Tejeda's MVP season ("performance enhanced or not") was also ignored. You can't ignore a shortstop who plays all 162 games, hits .308 with 34 homers and 131 ribbies!! YOU JUST CAN'T!!

All said, MONEYBALL is a well-made movie which ultimately came up short, just like the A's did in 2002.

Was the above review useful to you?

Only for team sport fans, probably...

Author: Bene Cumb from Estonia
28 August 2012

I am not into sports, baseball is totally unknown to me and random short clips about this game have not increased my interest. I decided to watch Moneyball due to several Academy Awards nominations and some great actors - but the result is mixed and so-so feeling.

Brad Pitt is good as usual, but he has had more interesting and complex parts (e.g. in Burn After Reading or 12 Monkeys or Inglorious Basterds). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Robin Wright are too briefly on screen. Jonah Hill does good acting, but his part is often numb. The other performances and just average and some characters add nothing to the logic of the plot (Pitt / Beane's family, for example).

As for the script, it is slow at times, and the ending is too protracted and odd. Additional points from me because of real events and characters.

Thus, it seems that Moneyball can be enjoyed by basketball fans, in the USA, above all. In my country, the movie got rather poor audience.

Was the above review useful to you?

Interesting, even for the non-baseball fan

Author: vincentlynch-moonoi from United States
9 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I write this as a person who is not a baseball fan. That's not to say I dislike the game, I just don't pay much attention to it. So I come to bat (yes, I know, dumb pun) as a movie fan, not a baseball fan.

I struggled through some parts of this film because of not knowing some of what they were talking about as they sat around the table discussing which players to buy. But having that understanding is only helpful, not required to enjoy this film. Because what this film is about is having a different person take a look at some thing (in this case baseball) from a different perspective. And, as a retired school principal, that's a concept I do understand.

Frankly, the other thing this movie is about is Brad Pitt. Most of the actors and actresses Americans have adored have a persona that shows through in almost all of their roles. Take Cary Grant. We went to the movies to see Cary Grant...not specifically the character he played. During an interview, Dean Martin was once asked something along the lines of, "It seems like you're always playing Dean Martin." To which Dean replied, "Who do you want me to play -- Laurence Olivier?" No, we went to Dean's film to see Dean. But when I think back to some of Brad Pitt's most memorable roles, I can't find the same old Brad in each one. He's always been different. He's been the character. I don't see a connection in persona between Benjamin Button, Heinrich Harrer, Tristan Ludlow, and Billy Beane. In each film he is a different person...and most important of all, he is BELIEVABLE. And that's what really makes this film work.

In terms of the rest of the cast, Jonah Hill deserves special note. What a fine and atypical performance. On the other hand, Philip Seymour Hoffman is an actor I usually don't want to like, but usually end up respecting for his performances. This time I was not impressed. Was he supposed to play a slug? Recommended, though perhaps not as great as I had been led to believe.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 32: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history