There is a moment in “Moneyball” that will always stick with me.  In the scene, a character is being offered a contract to play professional baseball for an unrevealed amount of money by MLB talent scouts.  If not the MLB, the character also has a full ride scholarship to Stanford sitting on the table.  The scene takes place in a kitchen, amongst a standard, common looking middle class home, with parents sitting beside their son trying to figure out what the best choice is.  The sense of realism – everything from the unfamiliar actors at the table, to the matter of fact way in which the scouts make their offer made all the big business, flash, and politics of sports become washed away in light of a confused looking young man deciding the fate of his life.

“Moneyball” centers on real life player and manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), a former player turned General Manager who has a tough job – how do you construct a winning team on a budget of millions?  Wait, that didn’t come out right…Relative pennies is more like it.  Though the Oakland Athletics had roughly 40 million to spend, their competitor’s budgets are much larger (Which really puts the whole concept of professional sports into a new perspective for someone like me).  For example, the Yankees had well over 100 million.  Trying to “buy” players with great contracts wasn’t a luxury the Oakland Athletics had.  In comes Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale graduate who has a far different theory than what the classic thinking represented in constructing a team, a theory that fits with the A’s budget.  Brand relied on statistics in a very specific, mathematical way.  Unfortunately, he was up against veterans who wanted to see guys with the great all around fundamentals.

“Moneyball” has all the constructs of a great sports film – a likeable, but flawed hero, big odds and various oppositions, and the chance to overcome those odds with a ragtag group of individuals who become a team.  Except that, the focus of “Moneyball” is different than most sports films – it’s not about the team, it’s about the General Manager. “Moneyball” has strength in its different focus.  Watching the GM spar with scouts, run deals on the phone, and chastise his players feels different than most sports films.

Unfortunately, the amount of things surrounding Billy Beane’s story cloud some of the focus.  Characters come and go with such frequency, that it can become a bit confusing.  In one scene we are introduced to Beane’s ex-wife (Robin Wright), but then she is gone for the rest of the film.  Ultimately, this is Beane and Brand’s story about how they changed the game, and this narrative arc – including an emotional apex in the form of Beane’s daughter (who is way too good a songwriter for her age) – is what carries the film safely into home despite its frequent temptation to be too distracted.

This is a well acted and directed film, perhaps because much of it felt authentic.  The look of the film isn’t too clean, with overblown slow motion shots or too pretty looking men.  The film shines brightest when Hill and Pitt are together in the room, and their chemistry is a brilliant match – Hill’s without the swagger, good looks, and experience of Pitt, whereas Pitt is without the sharp thinking of Hill (whose signature dry humor is perfectly in tow).  However, their opposites attract approach is quite a strength.

Also a huge highlight in the film is Chris Pratt.  Though Pratt is perhaps most well known as Andy Dwyer, the goofball/dumb guy in “Parks and Recreation,” here he is played straight, slightly scared, and matter of fact.  His performance was an unexpected highlight.  Of mild disappointment is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who felt underutilized and one note, but my guess is that it may just be the character he was playing.  The whole film feels directed in a very simple manner, which is consistent with Bennet Miller’s previous feature film, “Capote” and is completely the right feel for the film.  Keeping things in a realist tone enhanced the story being told.

But if I am to be totally honest, “Moneyball” had me at “Written by Aaron Sorkin.” This is another great screenplay with Sorkin’s name on it.  Also co-written with Steve Zaillian (whose credits include “Schindler’s List” and “Gangs of New York”), it is frequently hilarious and does its best to document the year of the Oakland Athletics through the eyes of the business of the game.  Some of Sorkin’s trademark dialogue is there, though it does make the brilliant dialogue in “The Social Network” feel that much more contrasting, given it was his previous feature.  It’s always amazing to me to see how different directors and screenwriters team up to create their stories.

“Moneyball” is the perfect guy movie, even if you’re a guy who doesn’t follow sports.  In fact, as someone who personally doesn’t watch much sports (because I’m too cool for them), it made some of its key true life moments that much more suspenseful.  I had no idea about any of the back story or what was going to happen next.  And this is the kind of guy movie that ultimately anyone can like, so fellas – don’t feel bad about asking your wife to see it if she typically hates sports, and ladies who don’t like sports, there are many great reasons to see the film outside of baseball.  I strongly recommend it as one of the best dramatic films of the year, which features great acting, a great screenplay, and great direction.  It has all the ingredients of a sports classic for its unconventional focus and simple aesthetics.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets some nods during awards season.