For Love of the Game

1999 "Billy Chapel must choose between the woman he loves and the game he lives for."
6.6| 2h18m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 17 September 1999 Released
Producted By: Universal Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A baseball legend almost finished with his distinguished career at the age of forty has one last chance to prove who he is, what he is capable of, and win the heart of the woman he has loved for the past four years.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Hollywood Suite

Director

Producted By

Universal Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Mike LeMar Great story line and acting. I like how the movie describes the realism of a major league pitcher: a fundamentally- fantastic player but with a far-from-perfect record. I like how the movie climactically wraps his career up after all the ups and downs he's been through with a potentially perfect game to show the world who he is. I would've rated this a 7 (a rating for a solid movie) if it wasn't for the following conversation Billy has with Jane. Jane: "So, how does this work? When you're AWAY, I do MY own thing and YOU do YOURS? What I do has nothing to do with what YOU do and vice versa? And none of this 'Why didn't you call me?' crap?" Billy: "You said that perfectly." Then when they're away from each other, he becomes interested in having his masseuse over to hang out, Jane suddenly shows up and flips out, and he goes, "Well what about the deal?" Jane: "What deal??" Billy: "Ya know, you do what you do, I do what I do." Jane: "You believe that??" She and the audience knew exactly what he's talking about because we're all watching the movie. Whether it's right or wrong is beside the point; she shouldn't have had that reaction, making him explain it, because we all know what he's talking about. A better dialogue would be to omit that and just go right to her coming back with, "You believe that??"
Lars Lendale ****************** ATTENTION SPOILERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ***********************The movie is supposedly a baseball movie and simultaneously a romance. The lone protagonists are Costner and Preaston, but the movie is actually exclusively centered around Costner. Which could be criticized for poor character development, but at the same time, besides Costner, the rest of the cast delivers meaningless contributions. Well first because the story is cheesy, much too clichè, to the point where you can actually fill in the lines because you know anticipate the dialogue. Then, the movie is really bailing water: it's not a sports movie, it's a bad romance because the relationship is not believable, it's only centered around Costner's flashbacks in the middle of a game. Wow, seriously ? And he manages fine until his hand and his shoulder give up, which for x & y reasons, is weird. In reality he would take a PCR shot but it would not enable him to throw so consistently well at his age. Costner is a chameleon, and I get that he did this movie to cover up for his divorce lawsuit. But this script is too uninspired and incoherent for him to lift it up to a decent level. The whole green eyed blond mom at 16 with a job that seems to pay well yet her job is not clear, since she is part time but doesn't have her own car, the sudden interaction between her daughter and Costner out of nowhere, the goofy Sunuski who keeps calling Costner 'chappy' (so overdone), the manager who steps down to a player's orders, the owner who sells the team because he doesn't believe in baseball which actually would be because the team stinks fails to reach the playoffs and it leads to bankruptcy, there are so many elements that make it unwatchable. It takes a lot of poise not get irritated by them.
Tony Smith The movie was about baseball. Billie told Mr Wheeler it's a great game. The romance with Jane is secondary, he only professes his love at the end of the movie. The no hitter is the movie. He plays and played it with character. you know sometimes a movie is just a story. The public makes it something more, deep feeling, artist meanings and other such crap. It's just a movie and a good one in my opinion. I'm told this must be ten lines to be posed. I have to pad a lot. Other posts complained of the acting, what do you want...they were acting. One movie mentioned was the natural, I liked it also. Another was bull durham. both were good, but I feel this was more realistic. Well I'm about done, not good at running up the score. Remember, my opinion
Brandon Igyarto (brandon-igyarto) I've watched this movie 2,000 times since it came out 13 years ago and let me tell you, it gets better with age. There are many holes to poke here of course (several sappy scenes that are, quite frankly, severely over dramatic) but there's plenty to love (including the iconic Vin Scully). The best stuff here is the wonderfully authentic NYC moments... Jane's car broken down on the FDR, their discussion on the risers at a north meadow field in Central Park (any New Yorker will recognize that), the shots of old Yankee Stadium (replete with the subway train rushing by the right field bleachers, ruining Billy's concentration), Bob Sheppard announcing the starting lineups (Gus Sinski, number 27, number 27), JFK and the inevitable delays, Vin Scully on the call... all of it priceless if you know what to look for.You couple that with a terrific score that peaks at exactly the right moment and you have a truly enjoyable film, one that hits the right notes at the right time.