HARDBALL (**)
The experience of watching HARDBALL is like trying to locate an archeological find. It's tedious and requires patience, and its treasures are buried deep. But most of the time, we barely scratch the surface. I found it discouraging to find a promising story handled so badly.
The plot centers around a gambling addict named Conor O'Neill (Keanu Reeves of THE MATRIX) who just loves to wager on the Chicago Bulls (these days, I'm not sure which is a surer bet, the Bulls winning when Michael Jordan was around, or the Bulls losing now that they've been dismantled). After losing a bet, he searches in desperation to find a way to really 'earn' money to pay off his loanshark-related debts. A friend to whom he is indebted offers (more accurately bribes) him to coach baseball to inner-city youths from the projects (a euphenism for slums) for $500 a week.
I think we can safely predict what will happen next, since this storyline has been recycled from other 'sports-where-loser-kids-turn-into-winners' movies (THE BAD NEWS BEARS, THE MIGHTY DUCKS, THE LITTLE GIANTS, etc.). We will see these youths banding together against all odds, to win it all. Along the way, the coach will overcome his personal demons, pay off his debt, and get the girl (most likely a teacher) who has cared for the kids while in her keep.
Despite its familiar yarn, this movie had a lot going for it. Instead of portraying cute (and some of them are, especially G-Baby) smart-mouthed tykes, we see young boys trying to survive living in violent conditions by participating in sports. We see where they live, the hopes of their mothers to get a good education. Watching them play on the field against other children are some of the movie's best scenes, reminding us that the beauty of sport is not about the competition, but about having fun (something we all need to be reminded of). Though some of these youths' words may be considered vulgar, what do we expect young boys living in the projects to say? 'Gosh' and 'Darn'?
While viewing the movie, I was struck by the film's possibilities. I saw so many angles which the story could have been told from. There's too much of O'Neill's story and not enough of the kids. We could have seen this from the eyes of the children, their mothers, even their teacher. We could have seen how each of them lived and how their lives culminate to a championship game on the baseball field, or how their families, their communities, unite to watch their children's joy at play. But instead, we get to see what a jerk O'Neill is, how he kicks his habit, gets the girl, and helps the kids.
Read that last sentence for a moment. How does he help these kids? They get better, but the movie doesn't show how they do it. He doesn't talk any strategy, aside from making his star pitcher remember a beat that helps him relax. He has rapport with his players, but what do they see in him? A deadbeat? A gambler? A guy who barely cares until the end (maybe just a guy who will treat them to pizza if they win)? He's an addict, but suddenly he quits cold turkey? He barely shows any concern for the team during most of the film, but he misses them out of the blue once he faces leaving them?
And then there is the matter of romance. Diane Lane (THE PERFECT STORM) and Keanu Reeves have good chemistry. They have a nice scene where he blurts out, "You like me!" It was like a breath of fresh air from a tiresome chain of events. The movie needed more of those moments, but their relationship is window-dressing in a cakemix full of cliches. What does her character see in O'Neill anyway (despite him being played by Mr. Reeves)? She imparts, "I came here to see what they see in you... they're never wrong." Well, so did I, and there's a first time for everything.
Keanu Reeves is a mystery to me. Why is he a Hollywood superstar? I admit that he is a hardworking actor who is more skilled than he seems to be (blame it on his monotone voice). Yet he is only effective when a movie doesn't concentrate on him, as it does here. Consider THE MATRIX and SPEED where the centerpiece consists of action and special effects. Even in THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE where he gave some of his best work, the eye of the hurricane was Al Pacino. Whenever he is the center of attention (SWEET NOVEMBER and THE REPLACEMENTS), the movie suffers. His performance in here requires someone constantly edgy and nervous, but the movie relies on his likeability. He delivers, but becomes bothersome as a result. You can't be annoying when the film needs you to be liked. Heck, the movie could have centered on his addiction, but the movie needs us to take its word for it.
You can probably tell that I'm a bit upset about HARDBALL. I don't know who should be blamed, or if blame is at all necessary. This film had an opportunity for power and poignancy, but its telling has been fumbled. In the film's final scenes, I was moved to tears by heartbreaking events (it is these scenes that are really worth seeing, especially O'Neill's speech), though they are obviously manipulative. If that ending had been placed after a worthwhile direction, we could have had one of the best films of the year here. A great example of such a movie is Hoop Dreams (the best sports movie I've ever seen).
It should be noted that this movie was based on a book. Though I haven't read it, I doubt that it could seem as fabricated as this film. Looking back at the film, I wish I could cut many sequences out and show them to you. Its best scenes are so touching that its frustrating that one has to delve through so much nonsense to get to them. But such is the work of archeology.
Note: Though HARDBALL is marketed as a family film, please be aware that there is a very disturbing event near the end that may scare young children
Posted by FLIPCRITIC at May 10, 2002 12:00 AM