Eight Men Out | | Cast : | John Cusack | | Director : | John Sayles | | Studio : | MGM/UA Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | September 02, 1988 | | DVD Released Date : | May 08, 2001 | | Language : | Spanish (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | June 19, 2005 | | Summary | Anyone seen my Shoes? | Content
 | A textbook example of how to really screw up a good thing! I use it to start a discussion in class of what to do when difficult choices come up. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 28, 2005 | | Summary | No World Series winner here | Content
| Most baseball movies are pretty lousy when it comes to portraying the game as played on the field. But in this movie, that part is the best part of all; in fact, the baseball part of this picture might be better done than in any other movie. It's all about the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Factually it's as straight as an arrow: all the incidents - even the progress on the field of the games of the World Series - are factually acurate. But the movie never probes beneath the surface of the ball players. The scenes with the gamblers, the obligatory kids on the street whose innocence is stained by their heroes, and the players themselves act like a bunch of second-stringers with an amateur script. The movie is very flashy, but also very shallow. Disappointing. |
| Rating | | | Date | September 15, 2004 | | Summary | Yesterday. That was yesterday. | Content
| There will always be the question of importance between sports and money. Which is more important? Do today's players participate because they love the game, or is it because they are thrown millions of dollars to play? It is a question that will continue to be a part of our culture as long as million dollar contracts are signed. I couldn't help but think of this concept as I watched this film. In 1919 the players of a winning Chicago baseball team decided to throw in their chances of a World Series title just to earn some extra cash for their pockets. The results of this game lead to interrogations, an appointment of a baseball commissioner, and a decree that would punish these ball players for the rest of their lives. For those of us that were not around in 1919 to experience this event first hand, director John Sayles has decided to show us the events first hand through dry cinematography, horrific acting, and a drama that is lacking in ... well ... drama.
One of my favorite John Sayles films is Sunshine State. In it, Sayles takes characters and gives them so much emotion and spirit that you are literally pulled off your couch and glued to the television for the entire two hours. I wish this were the case for Eight Men Out. Sadly, where this film lacks is confident actors and a intense and knowledgeable screenplay. You could tell from the beginning that this topic was a passion of Sayles, but that he also had trouble directing it. It didn't seem to move as smoothly as some of his other work. I think one of the main reasons is due to the players that are under his lead. These are not dramatic actors, but instead some of the "hottest" talent that 1988 had to offer. I kept thinking that he was trying to compete with the 80s teen idols film that was released the same year called Young Guns. He wanted to have a film that brought those normally not interested in a film of this kind into the theater. Hey, it worked for me. John Cusack is not a dramatic character, while later in his career he reaches this level, at this point in his life he is still has that persona of a imaginative teen. This causes his "big" dramatic scenes to seem less and less relevant when they are presented. Charlie Sheen's accent faded in and out throughout this entire film, while D.B. Sweeney couldn't shake the cliché ways of his character's lack of education. Instead of being dramatic, I found myself full of laughter. I needed stronger actors to pull this film from out of left field.
Finally, for those seeking a gritty drama about the hardships of "rigging" a game, do not look in this direction. This is not an Oliver Stone film, this is John Sayles, which means that he is incapable of pushing any buttons. There were so many directions and dark alleyways that he could have taken us with this film. I wanted to know more about how these eight men won the trial, I wanted to know more about the confessions, I wanted to know more about the industry, but nothing was handed to me. I just had to deal with ignorant characters that were about to get five years in prison for their crimes, and nobody was worried. It infuriated me when the ball players walked into the courtroom and it was nothing but a joke and media frenzy. It seemed like they didn't care about the trial at all, so which left me no choice but to not care either. I dislike sports films immensely, and this film is one of the reasons why!
Grade: * out of ***** |
| Rating | | | Date | August 22, 2004 | | Summary | The Dark Side Of The Diamond | Content
| Unlike most other baseball films such as The Natural, Field Of Dreams, and A League Of Their Own, Eight Men Out examines one of the darkest moments in the history of the sport--1919's infamous Black Sox scandal, when eight players on the heavily favored Chicago White Sox agreed to throw the World Series. Thanks to a solid ensemble and a fine director, even though it centers on a dark time for Baseball, the film still ranks among the best the gere has to offer.
Based on Eliot Asinof's 1963 book of the same name, the film focuses on why the players--including the great Shoeless Joe Jackson, (D.B. Sweeney) who some might argue, belongs in the Hall of Fame just the same, Buck Weaver (John Cusack), and Hap Felsch (Charlie Sheen)--would purposely lose the most important game of their lives.
John Sayles (who also directed the equally compelling Lone Star) did a great job bringing the book to life. The shows us how money and exploitative labor conditions can destroy the purity of the game. These are lessons that should be heeded by MLB and evry other sport as well. The film may not have one star hogging the spotlight and ends on a bleak note, but I think in the end, that helps the movie turn out better. The entire cast works well together. Each one giving a very effective performance, making viewers feell like they are right there. The book's author Asinof and director Sayles also appear in the film in cameo roles.
Sadly, the only extra on the current DVD, is the theatrical trailer. I wish there were more, like a commentary or a few featurettes. Eight Men Out deserves it. Still, the film comes higly recommended just the same.
|
| Rating | | | Date | June 23, 2004 | | Summary | Sayles' masterpiece | Content
| It's difficult not to get your personal feelings called into play when watching an obviously slanted film like EIGHT MEN OUT. John Sayles, like Oliver Stone, is an obvious agit-prop master for the left or at least for labor in its battle against owners. But so are several others movie-makers. However, those others do not get the responses that Sayles has evoked because they don't have half the talent that Sayles possesses. There is no fence-sitting when watching his films, and that's because his visions and messages are clear, uncompromising and passionate. EIGHT MEN OUT is one of his highest achievements in those regards. In his analysis of the rigging of the World Series of 1919, Sayles targets White Sox owner Comiskey as the true villain. And I believe this is accurate, if not justifiable, at the very least. The Black Sox scandal, as it came to be known, was undoubtedly the lowest point in baseball history, but it could have been avoided. Had Comiskey treated his players as they merited, it is doubtful any of it would have come about. This is not to say that these athletes were angelic: Sayles goes to great lengths to show that several of them would be easily corruptible, such as Chick Gandil (played by the underrated Michael Rooker). Other players seem to want to do the right thing, but are pushed too far by Comiskey--specifically, Eddie Cicotte, as portrayed by Sayles' favorite, David Strathairn. The enigmatic Shoeless Joe Jackson (subtly played by D.B. Sweeney) is just plain too dumb to understand the implications of his involvement. As others have noted, Jackson wound up the series' batting leader. The real moral compass of EIGHT MEN OUT is Buck Weaver, played by John Cusack in what may have been the performance of his career. Sayles' Weaver is portrayed as the victim of the ultimate betrayal for not participating in the scheme. His teammates don't back him up. The courts do not defend him. The press lumps him together with the guilty. His only crime was not being a snitch. And for that, Weaver has basically been relegated to baseball history's limbo, in spite of an above-par career. Sayles does an admirable job in evoking a justified sympathy for Buck Weaver, and Cusack captures it beautifully. EIGHT MEN OUT is not a mere baseball movie. Like much of Sayles' work, it's a film about greed, and the desire of American owners to extract as much from labor as possible, without giving anything in return. P.S. -- Sayles does a great job of portraying writer Ring Lardner. I just wish he didn't sing! |
|
