Lots of spectacle, not much story. "Character development" mostly relies on your knowledge of the 1st movie, and everything else seems to only exist to set up a 3rd one. There's potential here -- and watching it is 100x better than staying out in the summer heat -- but it's pretty generic and soulless.
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Good doc about fastballs and the history of baseball pitchers who threw real hard. Standout segments are the discussion of rising fastballs and the story of the hardest thrower no one ever heard of. If everything else here went away, the movie would still be worth watching because those two bits are so good. Conversely, the Craig Kimbrell segment seems wildly extraneous; it's the shortest part of the movie (I haven't looked at the timecodes, but it *felt* really brief)…
Having seen (and enjoyed) the Titanic exhibit in Vegas a few weeks ago, I wanted to revisit this movie. Time hasn't really helped it; the effects aren't as impressive as I remember and Jack and Rose are, if anything, even more ridiculous characters than I thought they were. But, for some reason, I liked it more tonight than I did in 1998. If someone tells me it's their favorite movie, I think I get it now. Maybe sometimes filmmaking isn't just about the writing. #shrug
I think the distracting time-jumpy structure distracted the screenwriter most of all, because the characters here are all over the place. What's on the screen is actually pretty good, but it feels like a few scenes got cut accidentally and -- with three separate timelines going on -- no one noticed until it was too late. Pretty ballsy to start off with the central character demanding you pay close attention and then reward that attention with ... this movie.