![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Holmes and Moneyball
Jan. 27th, 2012 12:32 pmSince I liked Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, somewhat against my expectations, I rewatched the 2009 RDJ Holmes movie, which I hadn't liked at the time. Nope--still hate it. I've gotten used to the characterization, which is unrecognizable to me as Holmes, despite the fact that each individual part (drug addict, boxer) is part of Holmes canon, the aggregate is somewhat more buffoonish than I ever thought of Holmes. That being said--it is entertaining. I've just decided to think of it as a historical movie verse Iron Man Holmes pastiche, and then it's fine.
But the plot is so bad. Sooooo bad. Round about the time they start talking about Satanic orgies I kind of lose it. And if you're going to do a, everyone thinks it's supernatural but oh no it isn't! plot line, the physical explanations need to be very concrete. (A la Baskervilles.) In this case, the explanation is just as handwavy as the magic was. It wasn't magic it was...a magical compound! That's undetectable except in a copper tub! Gag me. If you want me to feel the plot has that logical click that makes it Holmesian, you need to actual convince me that there is such a compound by, you know, naming it. And not being wrong.
(This setting aside that the ACD stories themselves do occasionally get very handwavy, but I don't think it's too much to ask that the first film of an adaptation not reflect the worst parts of ACD's writing.)
I also watched Moneyball. It was a very good book, and a very enjoyable film. That said, what the fuck nomination for Jonah Hill. Most of the scenes he is in, the role he is playing is the silent fat nerd in a room full of jocks. That is why he was cast--that is the point of the character. To visually embody the complete break with business as usual for baseball. I mean, he has a few scenes of import, but I'd characterize Jonah Hill's job in those as managing to not fuck the movie up with his presence. He doesn't add much--but at least he doesn't detract.
That movie is good for three reasons. 1) The book (I don't care at all about baseball and really enjoyed it). 2) The script. It managed to include some of the radical statistical models without getting bogged down in them, and gave more of a dramatic narrative than the book had, largely by adding scenes with Billy Beane and his daughter, which gave the character stakes. 3) Brad Pitt. He does a very good job, and matches the description of Beane in the book incredibly well. And this is one case where having someone who looks like Brad Pitt playing a real person isn't patently ridiculous, since one of the underlying themes of the movie is how the establishment baseball system was completely wrong about Beane's actual abilities because of his looks.
So anyway--very good movie. I'd recommend it to anyone, even if they dislike baseball. And it's an underdog sports team story that doesn't end the way every other underdog story does.
But the plot is so bad. Sooooo bad. Round about the time they start talking about Satanic orgies I kind of lose it. And if you're going to do a, everyone thinks it's supernatural but oh no it isn't! plot line, the physical explanations need to be very concrete. (A la Baskervilles.) In this case, the explanation is just as handwavy as the magic was. It wasn't magic it was...a magical compound! That's undetectable except in a copper tub! Gag me. If you want me to feel the plot has that logical click that makes it Holmesian, you need to actual convince me that there is such a compound by, you know, naming it. And not being wrong.
(This setting aside that the ACD stories themselves do occasionally get very handwavy, but I don't think it's too much to ask that the first film of an adaptation not reflect the worst parts of ACD's writing.)
I also watched Moneyball. It was a very good book, and a very enjoyable film. That said, what the fuck nomination for Jonah Hill. Most of the scenes he is in, the role he is playing is the silent fat nerd in a room full of jocks. That is why he was cast--that is the point of the character. To visually embody the complete break with business as usual for baseball. I mean, he has a few scenes of import, but I'd characterize Jonah Hill's job in those as managing to not fuck the movie up with his presence. He doesn't add much--but at least he doesn't detract.
That movie is good for three reasons. 1) The book (I don't care at all about baseball and really enjoyed it). 2) The script. It managed to include some of the radical statistical models without getting bogged down in them, and gave more of a dramatic narrative than the book had, largely by adding scenes with Billy Beane and his daughter, which gave the character stakes. 3) Brad Pitt. He does a very good job, and matches the description of Beane in the book incredibly well. And this is one case where having someone who looks like Brad Pitt playing a real person isn't patently ridiculous, since one of the underlying themes of the movie is how the establishment baseball system was completely wrong about Beane's actual abilities because of his looks.
So anyway--very good movie. I'd recommend it to anyone, even if they dislike baseball. And it's an underdog sports team story that doesn't end the way every other underdog story does.