Sony Pictures video: Moneyball trailer
New York Post video: 'Moneyball' hits it out of the parkhttp://youtu.be/BPPiM0Tn2nE
CBS Sunday Morning video: David Edelstein reviews Brad Pitt in Moneyball movie 9-18-11 CBS Sunday Morning
Since the Hurricanes play Kansas State on Saturday afternoon and the Dolphins play in Cleveland on Sunday afternoon against the Browns, I'll necessarily be seeing this film I've been waiting for for years -since first reading the Michael Lewis book "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" in hardback- later today at the AMC Aventura 24 down the street at the Aventura Mall.
The Washington Post
‘Moneyball’: Why it’s this year’s ‘Social Network’
Posted at 09:08 PM ET, 09/22/2011
By Jen Chaney
and a VERY dissenting review:
Movie Review: Moneyball
By Conor Glassey
September 21, 2011
Moneyball is being billed as a sports drama, but really it's a mystery.The first question I couldn't figure out is: Why was it even made in the first place? When the book was released in 2003 it was polarizing but it was interesting and helped casual baseball fans gain acceptance and understanding of advanced statistics.Through no fault of its own, the book (written by Michael Lewis and published in 2003) hasn't aged well and the story just doesn't translate to the screen. The Moneyball concept has become trite and misunderstood over the years and this movie will only continue to make things worse.
Read the rest of the review with lots of good points about the finer points being dummied down for movie-goers:
FYI: In my opinion, actress Tammy Blanchard, who plays Scott Hatteberg's (Chris Pratt's) wife in the film, is an amazing mega-talent who ought to be starring in a a lot more big films than she is. Ten years ago, she won an Emmy Award for playing a young Judy Garland in a TV film titled "A Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows," which was only one of the best things I've ever seen on American TV. It was stupendous.
If you have never seen it and see it advertised on cable, watch it -you won't be disappointed!
Given the media contretemps that has surrounded Brad Pitt the past ten days since his comments to the Parade magazine Sunday newspaper supplement about ex-wife Jennifer Anniston, and his subsequent attempts to clarify them and undo any misperceptions, I wish that someone could explain to me just when and why it was decided that one of the unwritten job responsibilities of the American news media in the 21st century was being a suck-up for Anniston, and defending her from any and all criticism, no matter how valid.
It's unprofessional, and seems to especially be an epidemic among female journalists.
And it's equally true of their treatment of Julia Roberts.
Anniston is NOT Katharine Hepurn or Audrey Hepburn or Ingrid Bergman or Elizabeth Taylor.
She's NOT even Faye Dunaway, Jennifer Connelly or Natalie Portman.
Not be any stretch of the imagination.
Jennifer Anniston is famous for what she looks like, what she's wearing -or barely wearing- and whom she's dating.
There's room for that in an entertainment-consumed society, of course, but is her life in particular really so fascinating that it's deserving of the out-of-proportione attention she nets among the non-entertainment media?
That's just it -she's NOT that interesting.
And while no serious well-informed person who closely follows contemporary entertainment or the real inner working of 'Show Biz' harbors any illusions about what Entertainment Tonight is now compared to what it once was or at least aspired to be, with serious reporting in the 1980's on what was happening behind-the-scenes at the Hollywood studios, their over-the-top coverage of Pitt's comments seem very sexist and parochial in a way that is hard to fathom in the year 2011.
As he stated himself to NBC-TV's Matt Lauer, can't he just be happy he is with Angelina Jolie?
Does everyone immediately have to jump to Zero Sum theory and say that it's a reflection on Anniston?
He was unhappy, unfulfilled and didn't want to be married to Anniston anymore.
Can't you cut the guy some slack?
Besides, it's always been clear to me that he wanted to have a family sooner than Anniston and that cleavage created the same sorts of difficulties for them that it does for millions and millions of married couples with a lot less resources than Pitt and Anniston.
As I've stated her previously, Sharon Waxman's TheWrap has made a name for itself in Hollywood in part because it refuses to play the role of talent-friendly, hand-holding media stooge.
Months ago, she wrote a great blog column about actor Rupert Everett attacking the liberal Hollywood studios for their politically naivete and for defending and promoting stars like Anniston no matter how poorly her films do at the box office.
(You could throw-in Sarah Jessica Parker to that mix as well.)
I strongly suggest you read it.
Rupert Everett Lashes Hollywood as Homophobic, Jennifer Aniston as Protected
Published: January 01, 2011 @ 10:42 pm
By Sharon Waxman
Rupert Everett has given scorched earth interviews before, but none like the one he gave the BBC this week, criticizing Hollywood and its “powers that be” for shutting out homosexuals like himself and protecting favored movie stars like Jennifer Aniston.
Read the rest of the article at: