The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Goodfellas 2

Wow, very underwhelmed by this one

Warning lights blinked at the 30 min mark to me, this is all a bit fast paced. I don't mind films with fast paces, I really liked them, but this film is 3 hours long, and it could only end badly, either A) it hits a speed bump and slows right down, loosing all momentum, or B) it keeps going that somewhere around the middle to start to loose interest because the film won't allow you to focus on anything.

So I was never invested in this one, does it mean it's bad, no, the film has a lot of good aspects, I like the story of the rise and fall of Vegas, the characters are good, although basically the same characters as the ones from Goodfellas, Joe Pesi plays the exact sort of character just darker.

That's pretty much Casino in a nutshell, it's Goodfellas but darker, more EXTREME!!! The violence is pretty bad in Goodfellas, so Casino has to beat it with heads in vices and baseball bat beatings. The characters where a bit twisted in Goodfellas, so Casino has to beat it with coked up mothers tieing their child to a bed while she goes on a drug binge. The pace in Goodfellas is pretty swift, so Casino has to beat it by going extra fast, and being extra longer.

I don't know where Scorsese was going a bit of a originality crisis or the studio was interfering and wanted lightening in a bottle again, but the similarities are a bit too strong that you really can't watch the film without saying "This was done better in Goodfellas"

However, acting was very good, I felt De Niro was phoning it in, but out of the main three he was the one with the least to do, Sharon Stone was really hard to watch (in a good way) and Pesi is playing the same role as Tommy in Goodfellas, can't complain, but still

The film is very well shot and I will always love Scorsese's direction no matter how bad the film is, I was just expecing a lot more from this film.

6/10

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Goodfellas 2

Wow, very underwhelmed by this one

Warning lights blinked at the 30 min mark to me, this is all a bit fast paced. I don't mind films with fast paces, I really liked them, but this film is 3 hours long, and it could only end badly, either A) it hits a speed bump and slows right down, loosing all momentum, or B) it keeps going that somewhere around the middle to start to loose interest because the film won't allow you to focus on anything.

So I was never invested in this one, does it mean it's bad, no, the film has a lot of good aspects, I like the story of the rise and fall of Vegas, the characters are good, although basically the same characters as the ones from Goodfellas, Joe Pesi plays the exact sort of character just darker.

That's pretty much Casino in a nutshell, it's Goodfellas but darker, more EXTREME!!! The violence is pretty bad in Goodfellas, so Casino has to beat it with heads in vices and baseball bat beatings. The characters where a bit twisted in Goodfellas, so Casino has to beat it with coked up mothers tieing their child to a bed while she goes on a drug binge. The pace in Goodfellas is pretty swift, so Casino has to beat it by going extra fast, and being extra longer.

I don't know where Scorsese was going a bit of a originality crisis or the studio was interfering and wanted lightening in a bottle again, but the similarities are a bit too strong that you really can't watch the film without saying "This was done better in Goodfellas"

However, acting was very good, I felt De Niro was phoning it in, but out of the main three he was the one with the least to do, Sharon Stone was really hard to watch (in a good way) and Pesi is playing the same role as Tommy in Goodfellas, can't complain, but still

The film is very well shot and I will always love Scorsese's direction no matter how bad the film is, I was just expecing a lot more from this film.

6/10

sorry to hear you didn't like Casino all that much

ironically enough i like Casino a lot more than GoodFellas. for whatever reason i've always found GoodFellas to be... i don't know... boring maybe? i've watched it like 2 dozen times (no idea why) and aside from like, 3 scenes i remember NOTHING from that film.

meanwhile for Casino i love the pacing and the whole Vegas setting. of course the film has some standard set ups and some of the "twists" aren't twists because we've all seen them before, but i always find the 3 hours just fly by in Casino. meanwhile the 2 (or 2 1/2) for GoodFellas seems unbearably long.

weird

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by jvince

The two leads are fantastic in this. Dubbing is a sacrilege, you gotta pick up the blu-ray. It is subbed and the PQ and AQ are amazing.

I will be getting it. Will give it a few weeks before I do though so I can watch it again same day

[SquidPuppet]

Kung Fu Panda 2

I dug it.

It was a lot more action based than the first, which I was OK with, but did not need. The story was still good so it held my attention. Now, if you are a kung fu fight scene junkie, this will certainly please you to no end.

The story transitions smoothly and effectively from the first film.

Animation was awesome. Natural terrain and architecture were authentic, detailed and beautiful. Voice acting stellar. Some of Jack Black's ad libs were funny as hell. PQ and AQ on the Blu-ray were great and the bonus features are plentiful and entertaining.

The reveal at the end that alludes to the very likely third film makes me believe that it could be the best of the bunch from a story aspect.

Film 4.25/5
PQ and AQ 5/5

[Romulus]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011, Tomas Alfredson)

Continuing my trek in 2011 films leads me to the spy thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (there are no comma's in the film title), based on the popular book by masterful spy novelist John le Carré. The film is follows George Smiley (Gary Oldman), who after being discharged, is brought back to the Circus (British intelligence agency) to investigate claims by Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) that a Russian mole exists at the top of the agency.

This is without a doubt one of the most complex and rich plots I've witnessed from a recent film. The film requires the upmost attention from the viewer in order to understand what is taking place. As is this case with other European films, this film hands nothing over to audience. One must put everything together themselves. This in itself can cause a problem for a lot of viewers, even ones who do pay attention the entire time. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy lives off the paranoia and tension that is built from the plot. However, the plot is so complex that a majority of it can be lost.

It's not that the scenes necessarily contain so much information that make it hard to follow, but more the flow of the narrative and the constant jumping around between characters. The film jumps from present to flashback, and without close attention, one wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. The film tosses in characters without a proper introduction and expects you know the names and backgrounds of them. That, too, can be quite aggravating. The biggest quality this film requires is patience. I can easily see people getting fed up with the film early on and quickly get lost, but if you patiently watch the film I feel that everything will start to take form and make sense.

It may seem that I'm giving the impression the film isn't good, which is far from it. Overall I really enjoyed the film, it is a fascinating story that requires patience and attention to detail, fueled with great performances by not just Oldman, but the entire cast. I actually believe that this may be one of Oldman's best performances of his career. Oldman is known for his over the top roles, but his subtle performance really exceeds here. Other standouts include Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, John Hurt, and newcomer Benedict Cumberbatch.

I can't imagine that repeat viewings of this film would make it any worse, in fact I imagine it would be the exact opposite. I probably won't view this again until it comes out on Blu-ray, but I feel that this will inevitably be film that grows over time. As for now, I'll rate a 4/5 but I expect this score will grow in the coming years.

4/5

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[/SPOILER]

Eager for the Blu-ray. Didnt play near me.

Seems to me that you miss out on a lot of films due to your location, correct? That's a shame. I think you'll appreciate this film a lot though. I have no idea when it comes out Blu-ray, but hopefully it isn't before too long.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Kung Fu Panda 2

I dug it.

[Show spoiler]It was a lot more action based than the first, which I was OK with, but did not need. The story was still good so it held my attention. Now, if you are a kung fu fight scene junkie, this will certainly please you to no end.

The story transitions smoothly and effectively from the first film.

Animation was awesome. Natural terrain and architecture were authentic, detailed and beautiful. Voice acting stellar. Some of Jack Black's ad libs were funny as hell. PQ and AQ on the Blu-ray were great and the bonus features are plentiful and entertaining.

The reveal at the end that alludes to the very likely third film makes me believe that it could be the best of the bunch from a story aspect.

Film 4.25/5
PQ and AQ 5/5

I didn't have a problem with it being more action based. It allowed The Furious Five to have more time in the movie, which is at least one thing this movie improved upon from the first movie in my opinion.

Also, I didn't spoiler tag the first line since it works as a review in itself.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Seems to me that you miss out on a lot of films due to your location, correct? That's a shame. I think you'll appreciate this film a lot though. I have no idea when it comes out Blu-ray, but hopefully it isn't before too long.

Yep. There are a couple really nice theaters here. But, since its only a couple, they focus on the mainstream moneymakers, which is understandable.

[Diesel]

Warrior

Ever seen one of those 'inspiring' movies about [insert sport here]? Yea well, you've pretty much seen this one as well...except that it has two main characters, so its a two-in-one movie like that. If you like those sorts of movies, check this one out.

It was worth the $1.99 I rented it for.

Solid is probably the best word to describe it as a whole.

Hardy was the best thing about it. He didn't say much at all for the entire film, but he gave a very strong performance.

Rating - 3.75/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

this film hands nothing over to audience. One must put everything together themselves. This in itself can cause a problem for a lot of viewers, even ones who do pay attention the entire time..

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011, Tomas Alfredson)

[Show spoiler]Continuing my trek in 2011 films leads me to the spy thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (there are no comma's in the film title), based on the popular book by masterful spy novelist John le Carré. The film is follows George Smiley (Gary Oldman), who after being discharged, is brought back to the Circus (British intelligence agency) to investigate claims by Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) that a Russian mole exists at the top of the agency.

This is without a doubt one of the most complex and rich plots I've witnessed from a recent film. The film requires the upmost attention from the viewer in order to understand what is taking place. As is this case with other European films, this film hands nothing over to audience. One must put everything together themselves. This in itself can cause a problem for a lot of viewers, even ones who do pay attention the entire time. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy lives off the paranoia and tension that is built from the plot. However, the plot is so complex that a majority of it can be lost.

It's not that the scenes necessarily contain so much information that make it hard to follow, but more the flow of the narrative and the constant jumping around between characters. The film jumps from present to flashback, and without close attention, one wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. The film tosses in characters without a proper introduction and expects you know the names and backgrounds of them. That, too, can be quite aggravating. The biggest quality this film requires is patience. I can easily see people getting fed up with the film early on and quickly get lost, but if you patiently watch the film I feel that everything will start to take form and make sense.

It may seem that I'm giving the impression the film isn't good, which is far from it. Overall I really enjoyed the film, it is a fascinating story that requires patience and attention to detail, fueled with great performances by not just Oldman, but the entire cast. I actually believe that this may be one of Oldman's best performances of his career. Oldman is known for his over the top roles, but his subtle performance really exceeds here. Other standouts include Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, John Hurt, and newcomer Benedict Cumberbatch.

I can't imagine that repeat viewings of this film would make it any worse, in fact I imagine it would be the exact opposite. I probably won't view this again until it comes out on Blu-ray, but I feel that this will inevitably be film that grows over time. As for now, I'll rate a 4/5 but I expect this score will grow in the coming years.

4/5

Hmmmm...... I am Actually watching this tomorrow but going of this review I might struggle with it

Still Watching though cause it has Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Goodfellas 2

[Show spoiler]
Wow, very underwhelmed by this one

Warning lights blinked at the 30 min mark to me, this is all a bit fast paced. I don't mind films with fast paces, I really liked them, but this film is 3 hours long, and it could only end badly, either A) it hits a speed bump and slows right down, loosing all momentum, or B) it keeps going that somewhere around the middle to start to loose interest because the film won't allow you to focus on anything.

So I was never invested in this one, does it mean it's bad, no, the film has a lot of good aspects, I like the story of the rise and fall of Vegas, the characters are good, although basically the same characters as the ones from Goodfellas, Joe Pesi plays the exact sort of character just darker.

[Show spoiler]That's pretty much Casino in a nutshell, it's Goodfellas but darker, more EXTREME!!! The violence is pretty bad in Goodfellas, so Casino has to beat it with heads in vices and baseball bat beatings. The characters where a bit twisted in Goodfellas, so Casino has to beat it with coked up mothers tieing their child to a bed while she goes on a drug binge. The pace in Goodfellas is pretty swift, so Casino has to beat it by going extra fast, and being extra longer.

I don't know where Scorsese was going a bit of a originality crisis or the studio was interfering and wanted lightening in a bottle again, but the similarities are a bit too strong that you really can't watch the film without saying "This was done better in Goodfellas"

However, acting was very good, I felt De Niro was phoning it in, but out of the main three he was the one with the least to do, Sharon Stone was really hard to watch (in a good way) and Pesi is playing the same role as Tommy in Goodfellas, can't complain, but still

The film is very well shot and I will always love Scorsese's direction no matter how bad the film is, I was just expecing a lot more from this film.

6/10

I don't really remember the violence level in "Casino," but I agree that it has good aspects. I think I gave it a higher score than you did, but it's not one I'd want to buy/rewatch (especially with Sharon Stone's constant screaming ).

Originally Posted by menaceuk

I will be getting it. Will give it a few weeks before I do though so I can watch it again same day

Sweet!

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Kung Fu Panda 2

[Show spoiler]
I dug it.

It was a lot more action based than the first, which I was OK with, but did not need. The story was still good so it held my attention. Now, if you are a kung fu fight scene junkie, this will certainly please you to no end.

The story transitions smoothly and effectively from the first film.

Animation was awesome. Natural terrain and architecture were authentic, detailed and beautiful. Voice acting stellar. Some of Jack Black's ad libs were funny as hell. PQ and AQ on the Blu-ray were great and the bonus features are plentiful and entertaining.

The reveal at the end that alludes to the very likely third film makes me believe that it could be the best of the bunch from a story aspect.

Film 4.25/5
PQ and AQ 5/5

Right on, glad you enjoyed it!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Right on, glad you enjoyed it!

[Show spoiler]Po's Dad was BIG!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[Show spoiler]Po's Dad was BIG!

[Show spoiler]He was decked out like a Buddhist monk or something. I'm intrigued to see where this goes...I predict he'll be at odds with Po doing/glorifying the Kung Fu.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

sorry to hear you didn't like Casino all that much

ironically enough i like Casino a lot more than GoodFellas. for whatever reason i've always found GoodFellas to be... i don't know... boring maybe? i've watched it like 2 dozen times (no idea why) and aside from like, 3 scenes i remember NOTHING from that film.

meanwhile for Casino i love the pacing and the whole Vegas setting. of course the film has some standard set ups and some of the "twists" aren't twists because we've all seen them before, but i always find the 3 hours just fly by in Casino. meanwhile the 2 (or 2 1/2) for GoodFellas seems unbearably long.

weird

Strange indeed

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Kung Fu Panda 2

I dug it.

[Show spoiler]It was a lot more action based than the first, which I was OK with, but did not need. The story was still good so it held my attention. Now, if you are a kung fu fight scene junkie, this will certainly please you to no end.

The story transitions smoothly and effectively from the first film.

Animation was awesome. Natural terrain and architecture were authentic, detailed and beautiful. Voice acting stellar. Some of Jack Black's ad libs were funny as hell. PQ and AQ on the Blu-ray were great and the bonus features are plentiful and entertaining.

The reveal at the end that alludes to the very likely third film makes me believe that it could be the best of the bunch from a story aspect.

Film 4.25/5
PQ and AQ 5/5

Still need to watch this one, from what I'm hearing I shall dig it

Originally Posted by Romulus

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011, Tomas Alfredson)

[Show spoiler]Continuing my trek in 2011 films leads me to the spy thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (there are no comma's in the film title), based on the popular book by masterful spy novelist John le Carré. The film is follows George Smiley (Gary Oldman), who after being discharged, is brought back to the Circus (British intelligence agency) to investigate claims by Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) that a Russian mole exists at the top of the agency.

This is without a doubt one of the most complex and rich plots I've witnessed from a recent film. The film requires the upmost attention from the viewer in order to understand what is taking place. As is this case with other European films, this film hands nothing over to audience. One must put everything together themselves. This in itself can cause a problem for a lot of viewers, even ones who do pay attention the entire time. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy lives off the paranoia and tension that is built from the plot. However, the plot is so complex that a majority of it can be lost.

It's not that the scenes necessarily contain so much information that make it hard to follow, but more the flow of the narrative and the constant jumping around between characters. The film jumps from present to flashback, and without close attention, one wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. The film tosses in characters without a proper introduction and expects you know the names and backgrounds of them. That, too, can be quite aggravating. The biggest quality this film requires is patience. I can easily see people getting fed up with the film early on and quickly get lost, but if you patiently watch the film I feel that everything will start to take form and make sense.

It may seem that I'm giving the impression the film isn't good, which is far from it. Overall I really enjoyed the film, it is a fascinating story that requires patience and attention to detail, fueled with great performances by not just Oldman, but the entire cast. I actually believe that this may be one of Oldman's best performances of his career. Oldman is known for his over the top roles, but his subtle performance really exceeds here. Other standouts include Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, John Hurt, and newcomer Benedict Cumberbatch.

I can't imagine that repeat viewings of this film would make it any worse, in fact I imagine it would be the exact opposite. I probably won't view this again until it comes out on Blu-ray, but I feel that this will inevitably be film that grows over time. As for now, I'll rate a 4/5 but I expect this score will grow in the coming years.

4/5

Pretty spot on review, I really liked the film when I saw it at the cinema.

Originally Posted by Diesel

Warrior

[Show spoiler]Ever seen one of those 'inspiring' movies about [insert sport here]? Yea well, you've pretty much seen this one as well...except that it has two main characters, so its a two-in-one movie like that. If you like those sorts of movies, check this one out.

It was worth the $1.99 I rented it for.

Solid is probably the best word to describe it as a whole.

Hardy was the best thing about it. He didn't say much at all for the entire film, but he gave a very strong performance.

Rating - 3.75/5

Hmmmm, from your review, it sounds like everything I predict from the trailer, but everyone has been telling me about how amazing this film is and unlike anything I'll see

Originally Posted by menaceuk

Hmmmm...... I am Actually watching this tomorrow but going of this review I might struggle with it

Still Watching though cause it has Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman

Should struggle to hard, I think wikipedia has a list of words that are used in the film with the meaning next to them if you feel a bit too unsure going in

[surfdude12]

The Double Life of Veronique

Film: 5/5
-surrealistic feel? check
-themes and plot which (a) defy logical explanation of the mind yet (b) convey instantly confirmable emotions to each viewer? check
-naked hot brunette? bonus check (note: only the first two checks above are mandatory surf requirements for kick butt films. e.g., Mulholland Drive, 2001, Tree of Life, etc)
-these themes on the human level of two people being interconnected (and beyond that: all things being interconnected) are so bad ass that they even duplicate Quantum physics principles, specifically Quantum Entangelemnt which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance":
"When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[7] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
-case closed. this movie kicks serious a$$.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

The Double Life of Veronique

Film: 5/5
-surrealistic feel? check
-themes and plot which (a) defy logical explanation of the mind yet (b) convey instantly confirmable emotions to each viewer? check
-naked hot brunette? bonus check (note: only the first two checks above are mandatory surf requirements for kick butt films. e.g., Mulholland Drive, 2001, Tree of Life, etc)
-these themes on the human level of two people being interconnected (and beyond that: all things being interconnected) are so bad ass that they even duplicate Quantum physics principles, specifically Quantum Entangelemnt which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance":
"When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[7] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
-case closed. this movie kicks serious a$$.

I never tire of Veronique either.

I'm not sure whether I prefer Irene Jacob in this or Three Colors Red. Both ask a lot of questions about the meaning of existence. She's brilliant in both and can convey a lot of emotion without saying a word.

It was good to get both on Criterion Blu last year.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

The Double Life of Veronique

[Show spoiler]
Film: 5/5
-surrealistic feel? check
-themes and plot which (a) defy logical explanation of the mind yet (b) convey instantly confirmable emotions to each viewer? check
-naked hot brunette? bonus check (note: only the first two checks above are mandatory surf requirements for kick butt films. e.g., Mulholland Drive, 2001, Tree of Life, etc)

-these themes on the human level of two people being interconnected (and beyond that: all things being interconnected) are so bad ass that they even duplicate Quantum physics principles, specifically Quantum Entangelemnt which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance":
"When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[7] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
-case closed. this movie kicks serious a$$.

Blind-bought it last year; I thought it was a gorgeous film, but a bit too slow for my tastes.

Still have it though and I may revisit it someday. Especially after quantum physics discussion. Man, quantum stuff usually goes way over my head, so I may have to give this film a lot more thought and concentration.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Blind-bought it last year; I thought it was a gorgeous film, but a bit too slow for my tastes.

Still have it though and I may revisit it someday. Especially after quantum physics discussion. Man, quantum stuff usually goes way over my head, so I may have to give this film a lot more thought and concentration.

It's one of those films that make you question your entire existence and the meaning of life (if you are that way inclined).

Gorgeous is the right word.

The music is a huge part of the experience too.

[Steve46]

Moneyball (Biography, Drama, Sport)
Directed by Bennett Miller
Starring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman



Sony Pictures | 2011 | 133 min | Rated PG-13 | Released Jan 10, 2012

Video:
Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Video resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Audio:
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
French: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1

Subtitles:
English, English SDH, French, Spanish

Discs:
50GB Blu-ray Disc
DVD Copy
BD-Live

The Film 4.5/5

Moneyball is a refreshing change from the usual type of sports movie. How many times have you watched the story of an underdog triumphing? How many movies introduce us to a controversial coach who is initially resented because of his methods and then revered by all when he succeeds? This story is certainly a celebration of success, but not in the typical sense.

It’s based on the true story of how General Manager Billy Beane (Pitt) employed a new way of thinking in order to enable the Oakland Athletics to compete with the likes of the New York Yankees. He did this with just one third of the payroll of that available to the Yankees.

Beane’s first move was to hire Peter Brand (Hill) – an economics graduate from Yale. Instead of relying on traditional scouting methods, Brand used statistical analysis to determine the true value of baseball players. Instead of paying huge salaries based on a players’ potential, he sought out value by considering players who were believed to have flaws. These might include injury or advancing age. Beane collaborated with Brand to assemble a team on a low budget. Departing stars were replaced with players who were a good fit for the team.

The reason Moneyball appeals to me so much is that I also rely on my own way of thinking rather than following conventional wisdom. That doesn’t mean I will ignore everything, but I will question the opinions of others and decide whether I agree. It’s something I have done my entire life and one reason I review movies. You might not agree with me, but at least you know that I’m not just repeating the opinions of others.

The dialog is intelligent and full of humor. Some of the scenes, such as Beane pursuing trades with other teams, are quite exciting. Pitt and Hill work well together and are in most of the scenes. One source of conflict is Coach Art Howe (Hoffman). He’s concerned about his own situation and future in the sport, and is reluctant to adopt Beane’s desired strategy.

I enjoyed Moneyball because it was different and the story was told in an appealing way. I won’t ruin the ending for those who don’t remember whether the A’s won the World Series, but I will say that the story doesn’t show a huge amount of baseball action. This is about the people behind the scenes and the way in which they affected the sport.

The 133 minutes race by and that’s always a good sign. I can imagine myself watching this movie several times.

Video Quality 4/5

Sony’s presentation looks great for the most part. There’s plenty of detail and depth. Colors appear accurate and well-defined. The only minor fault is the presence of noise in many of the scenes. It doesn’t ruin the experience, but it’s hard to dismiss it completely. The movie uses a few TV shots and some archive footage, and that’s clearly of lesser quality than the majority of the presentation. That’s purely intentional and no fault in the transfer.

Audio Quality 4/5

This is a story which relies more on dialog than anything else. It rises to the occasion when required, such as during baseball games, but it’s fairly subtle overall.

Special Features 3/5

The extras are in full HD and offer just the right amount of content for those wanting more information:

Blooper: Brad Loses It (3:11) – A scene in which Pitt can’t stop laughing at one of the lines delivered by Hill.

Deleted Scenes (12:05) – Three extended scenes which didn’t make the final cut in their entirety.

Billy Beane: Re-Inventing the Game (16:02) – A discussion about Beane’s impact on the game.

Drafting the Team (20:51) – A feature explaining the reasoning behind some of the casting decisions.

Adapting Moneyball (16:33) – Showing how Michael Lewis’s book was adapted for the big screen.

MLB 12 The Show Preview Trailer (1:21)

Previews

BD-Live

Overall score 4.5/5