MovieChat Forums > Rookie of the Year (1993) Discussion > Awful movie

Awful movie

posted 18 years ago by tammo65
38 replies | jump to latest

I used to like this movie. I had not seen it in awhile, but I had fond memoried of "pitcher has a big butt" and all that nonsense. When I saw it again, I realized how terrible it is. Yea it's a kids movie, but kids movies can be good too, and this sucked. That face that Henry has whenever he is smiling makes me want to kick him in the face. Same thing when he looks scared, and any other time he makes any facial reaction to ANYTHING. I CAN'T STAND IT.

And other things. If he was such a Cubs fan, how did he not recognize the manager when he came to the door. How did the Cubs win the World Series (as indicated by the ring he has at the end) after losing their closer and one of their best starters. Why does Henry walk the first two batters at the end and decide to pitch to the big home run threat. Why does the second base runner fall for the trick after the first one did. Why is Daniel Stern so annoying in this movie, and what is with Henry's annoying absurdly ridiculous faces!! THE FLOATER!! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!?!?!

It's just upsetting, realizing that a movie that I liked when I was younger is garbage. Sorry to rant

[–] Colette07 18 years ago

I just finished watching this movie for the first time in about ten years. I found that I enjoy it just as much now as I did during my childhood. This is a movie that's not supposed to make sense! It's just supposed to make you happy! Sure, it's no The Natural or Bull Durham, but it's not supposed to be. It's a kid's movie, for God's sake.

It's really all about willing suspension of disbelief. I watch movies to escape from reality for a couple of hours, to take a little vacation from the world, if you will. I don't look for what's wrong with the film, the mistakes, what doesn't make sense, what would never happen in real life. I get absorbed into the film, live vicariously through the characters, look for what I DO like, simply enjoy the experience. Even with a dumb little movie like this, there's still a lot to like about it.

Tammo65, if you hated Rookie of the Year so much the second time around, why are you here wasting your time talking about it? Accept it and move on with your life, dude, watch something you've never seen before, find something you like, then go to THAT page and talk about why you liked it. Give the rest of us a break. Nobody likes a complainer.

[–] ManlyKubrick 18 years ago

I agree about the faces the kid makes.

[–] arz-4 18 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly. When I was younger, I thought this movie was good. I watched it recently and was annoyed by its stupidity, particularly by Henry, "the floater", etc. The only reedeeming quality is Daniel Stern's character who is slightly amusing. Also Gary Bussey is funny per se, but I don't believe that says anything about his ability or the movie...he's just funny to laugh at.

On the other hand, "Little Big League", which came out about the same time and was similar, I still love to this day. Less farfetched, better acting, less stupidity. It was fun as a kid, and it remains fun. I would call it the better of the two for sure.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ferrell19 18 years ago

I agree. I used to like this movie alot. Then it came on recently, and I realised just how dated and cheesy this film is. I might have to watch it again but what was with that 'touching' moment when the kid looks to his mom and says "It was you?!" Then she says "Yeah, it was me." I'm sure it makes sense but the delivery was painful!

I grew up liking The Sandlot, and still love it.

[–] TheyKilledTheGiggler 18 years ago

I think somebody needs some funky buttlovin'.

Do you believe in Jesus?
Yes, Sir I do
Well, You're gonna meet him
*BANG*

[–] bng_crosby 18 years ago

When it comes to the baseball stuff in the movie, I get kind of ticked. But once I get passed that, I find it entertaining. And how many Cub fans think that the owners are really that stupid?

[–] senorjuez 18 years ago

When I saw the championship ring at the end, this film could then be categorized as a sports fantasy. We all know the Chicago Cubs will NEVER again win the World Series. Their last championship was in 1908. They haven't even played in the World Series since 1945.
Their best chance was in 2003, but we all know how that turned out. Many predicted that 2006 would be their year because the two other teams which had comparable championless longevity-Red Sox, White Sox-each won it all over the previous two years. If the Cubs don't get into the playoffs this year, it will guarantee that at least a century will have passed since their last world championship. That is why films like this are a necessity-so the fans don't give up hope.

[–] cac5017 17 years ago

yeah you should be sorry to rant. leave it alone and take it for what it is. i don't deem this movie to be garbage and i watched it as a kid. its a timeless classic. anyone who knocks on this and acknowledges that it used to rock, is someone who doesn't remember their childhood. how can you say something you used to like just now all of the sudden sucks because you think your taste in movies has evolved. well mine too for such movies as the fountain, science of sleep, lucky slevin, inside man, etc), but i still stay true to my roots of lost boys, goonies, and rookie of the year.

[–] Fats_Mattumbo 17 years ago

Question : "If he was such a Cubs fan, how did he not recognize the manager when he came to the door"

Answer: Well, that's true, but he's just a kid.

Question: "Why does the second base runner fall for the trick after the first one did. "

Answer: Well....he didn't. They didn't even try the trick on the second base runner.

Question: "Why is Daniel Stern so annoying in this movie"

Sort of an Answer: He's playing the annoying pitching coach. It probably wouldn't be too funny if he did it like a normal....not annoying person.

Question: "Why does Henry walk the first two batters at the end and decide to pitch to the big home run threat"

Guess: I imagine he didn't know what to do....he was probably pretty surprised after losing his ability to pitch.

Question: "...what is with Henry's annoying absurdly ridiculous faces!!"

Explanation: He was 12 or 13 when they made the film, and he probably did as well as anyone his age could've.

Question: "THE FLOATER!! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!?"

Answer: There was a pretty useful link somewhere else in the thread that explained it. If you haven't seen it already it's: http://www.thebaseballpage.com/features/2000/eephus.htm

Declaration: "It's just upsetting, realizing that a movie that I liked when I was younger is garbage. Sorry to rant"

Response: It's ok.

[–] tammo65 17 years ago

Well first off, this is my first time I started a thread, and I'm glad it got at least some sort of response. I'm not much of a poster.
Just saw this again after a long time, so if it pleases the audience, I will rephrase some of my original statement.
First off, sorry for any grammatical errors. There's no rephrasing those. But I do promise to feel very self conscious every time I write anything from now on.

I feel I have the right to come on imdb and complain about a movie. It is its purpose. What's the point of a forum if everybody were to go to the movies they liked and just praise them for their brilliant blah blah blah? I chose this movie because it was something that I grew up thinking it was a great movie. When you get into random debates with your friends, such as "top 5 baseball movies" or "top 5 movies involving kids with supernatural abilities following a freak accident that seemed harmless at the time," rookie of the year gets brought up every once in awhile. And previous to watching it again, I whole heartedly supported that position. But then, I watched it again.

And I do understand it's a kids movie. Can't kids movies be good too? It might be the recent wave of computer animated kids films have risen the bar so that old favorites have lost their luster, but I have seen some of my old favorites and still loved them, or at least saw the old jokes that I enjoyed and enjoyed my previous enjoyment. The thing is that I didn't see why I had always regarded this movie so highly, and it was a little upsetting. And henry might have been very young actor, but were there no dakota fannings of the day or sixth sense kids?

And I'm sorry to act like a baseball snob. I don't really think I am, but I can understand the point. But to a fairly knowledgeable baseball fan, I was unaware of any pitch called the "floater" and it seemed like a bit of a stretch.

And I know that I'm supposed to "suspend my disbelief" but I also think that a movie sets its own standards. So, this movie suggested that a kid could break his arm and it could somehow tighten so he could pitch in the major leagues. Okay, I believe it. Besides that, there is no stretch that is asked. Anything else that is out of place is not justified and takes away from the movie. Things such as how could someone, like henry, who supposedly loves baseball, know so little about it? And not things such as the existence of the floater pitch, but more like him not knowing he would have to bat ever, or who was up next in the batting line up, or anything like that.

And and AND my organization, the Anti-Semites of America (or the ASA), unanimously decided that we should hate all movies with Daniel Stern or anybody like him. However, I do love Woody Allen movies, but don't tell anybody or else I'll get kicked out. Then they will take away my badge (yea, we get badges not cards)

[–] mark_ward1 17 years ago

I was eighteen when this film came out and I only watched it because my younger brothers rented it. All I can say is that, thoughout the entire movie, I wanted nothing more than to punch Henry's stupid teeth out.

Do relief pitchers usually sit in the dugout? NO!

The people who wrote this movie couldn't even take the time to watch a few MLB games. A twelve year old real Cub fan could point out all the baseball flaws in the film.

As the original poster said, this is the Rookie of the Year discussion board, not the I LOVE Rookie of the Year discussion board.

[–] acidkiller47 17 years ago

Question: "...what is with Henry's annoying absurdly ridiculous faces!!"

Explanation: He was 12 or 13 when they made the film, and he probably did as well as anyone his age could've.

Luke Edwards was 14 when Little Big League came out.

[–] KillYourShadow 17 years ago

Tammo, I just watched this movie and I have to say that I agree with you 100 percent. That kid annoys the piss out of me. His goofy face, his ridiculous little stupid jokes that he makes every other sentence while looking directly at the camera. It all makes me want to crack him with a baseball bat or hit his 400 mph fast ball right back into his face.

Ignore the smoke.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]