"'Moneyball' hits it out of the park" says NY Post and Brad Pitt draws raves from critics, but is too much of Lewis book dumbed-down for moviegoers?

Sony Pictures video: Moneyball trailer

http://youtu.be/D1R-LwHbld4

New York Post video: 'Moneyball' hits it out of the park

http://youtu.be/BPPiM0Tn2nE

CBS Sunday Morning video: David Edelstein reviews Brad Pitt in Moneyball movie 9-18-11 CBS Sunday Morning

http://youtu.be/zsKdb_GjZmw

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.

See also:

The Washington Post

Celebritology blog

‘Moneyball’: Why it’s this year’s ‘Social Network’

Posted at 09:08 PM ET, 09/22/2011

By Jen Chaney

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/moneyball-why-its-this-years-social-network/2011/09/22/gIQAlgf1oK_blog.html

and a VERY dissenting review:

Baseball America

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:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/2011/2612387.html

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.

TheWrap

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:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/rupert-everett-lashes-hollywood-conservative-and-jennifer-aniston-protected-despi

-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetrics

http://www.thewrap.com/

Michael Lewis of Miami Today appears today on WQAM @ 4:30 pm re proposed Marlins Stadium -DON'T MISS IT!

On the chance that you haven't already heard, one of THE most well-informed individuals on the subject of the proposed Marlins Stadium, Miami Today publisher Michael Lewis, will be a guest of Jim Mandich on his daily WQAM radio show this afternoon at 4:30 p.m.

Lewis is that rare individual in South Florida who can actually speak to the issue from a knowledgable point-of-view, since he has actually read the entire contract, all the hundreds and hundreds of pages.

He can make both the logical and common sense argument against the stadium plan based on both the finances as well as the public policy ramifications. 

http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/090212/story-viewpoint.shtml

Yesterday on his afternoon program, after reminding his listeners about Lewis' appearance today, Jim posed a few logical questions that are entirely deserving of a thorough public response from the powers-that-be, people that have seemingly been in hiding, before a vote is cast on Friday.

Let me summarize those good points he made:

Who are the principals involved in the shell companies that are specifically mentioned  in the contract? 

What is their relationship to Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria?

Why does Loria's name never appear in the contract?

The Marlins are actually going to be receiving money loaned to them by the govt.: where is their collateral or supporting evidence of surety bonds, or even a recent, accurate appraisal or valuation of Loria's personal holdings, whether art or real estate?

Why is it that it took a year for the contract to be drafted, yet the County Commissioners were supposed to read it and make sense of it in two weeks? 

The irony of this awful deal is that with the possibility of actually having a convenient commuter train on the FEC tracks in a few years that quickly connects millions of people from Palm Beach County to downtown Miami, and with MLB always in

the default position that stadiums should be engines for real-not-fanciful economic redevelopment in their new neighborhoods, as was the case in San Francisco, which I saw ample evidence of for myself even months BEFORE the Giants stadium opened, in hindsight, the general area near the site of the old Miami Stadium, right next to the FEC tracks, would've made infinitely more sense than this awful mish-mash of a plan that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. 

You could hardly claim you need to build a $100 million dollar garage if you made it possible for people to literally walk across the street to the stadium from a train.

That's something I know about first-hand, from taking the "El' train from Evanston or Wilmette down to Cubs games at Wrigley Field, or from taking the MARC train up to Baltimore from D.C.'s Union Station.

Dozens and dozens of times.

Here are a few more things I've been wondering about that I've yet to see either mentioned or answered in local media coverage of the stadium deal, which I'm against, despite being a longtime and enthusiastic sports fan who was going to Baltimore Orioles spring training games at Miami Stadium 35 years ago, and was both a Dolphin, Hurricanes and Toros season-ticket holder for their games at the Orange Bowl before leaving for IU in August of '79 .

The number of Marlin game tickets and parking passes per game/per year to be given to the City of Miami, Miami-Dade County and any other South Florida governmental entity?

Where are those seats? Bleacher, reserved, box, suites?

Have the Marlins intentionally under-estimated value of those tickets and passes?

I ask because I was living in the Washington, D.C. area when investigations were conducted to see whether or not Abe Pollin, the Washington Wizards owner, intentionally mis-represented the costs of certain arena tickets so that they would be just under the lobbying "gift" limits, despite the fact that those tickets were clearly superior to similarly-priced tickets.

Pollin's goal was clear: he wanted D.C. lobbyists to buy LOTS of Wizards tickets.

By intentionally pricing tickets at the value the Wizards did, they made it easier for lobbyists to dole them out to whichever pols or influential city, county, and state employees the lobbyists wanted to influence, knowing that the gift recipients wouldn't have to publicly declare them.

Honestly, given South Florida government's sordid longstanding history of ethical problems, to me, that sounds EXACTLY like the sort of thing that would happen here!

Will existing city and county ethics procedures be changed to reflect this?

At each governmental unit that's given tickets, what official will decide who gets to use the tickets, or are they for the exclusive use of elected officials and their family and friends?
If for all employees, how will they be distributed?
Are individuals, including elected officials, limited to using a certain of tickets per season?

I'll be writing some things about the proposed stadium deal and the Marlins consistently awful marketing strategy over the next few days on my blog, much of which I've kept in draft form for months, and will also be attending the County's meeting Friday afternoon.

By the way, not that you'd know it if you'd actually gone to the Marlins broadcast partner's website, Fox Sports Net Florida, i.e. FSN Florida, but unlike last year, when the Marlins did NOT televise a single one of their spring training games back into their home market, this spring their games against the Twins on March 14th and March 23rd against the Astros will be televised at 1:00 p.m.

I've already spoken this morning to someone at FSN Florida and they will be updating their website to reflect this important fact.

Given their marketings miscues, last year, the only way I could see Marlin spring training games via TV was by watching the other teams' telecasts to their home market via DirecTV.