This movie was painful to watch

I am 67 and loved the movie. It is told from the point of view of a 12 year old's imagination, and it is magical. Field of Dreams was wonderful, even though Shoeless Joe and his father didn't really come back. It's make believe, but recalls an innocent time when the world was limited to the neighborhood, friends, and in this case the sandlot. Sorry you didn't like it, but it may be something you lack, rather than something the movie lacks. I bet you have problems with The Princess Bride movie also. Some parts of that are not really believeable. Although your post tries to rain on the parade of those who enjoy the film, the rain quickly turns to a drizzle, and then barely a mist for those of us with the heart and memory to savor those days of youth. I'm sorry you had such an unhappy childhood. Maybe you should stick to Bergman films.

Here is the thing about 'The Sandlot,'

As others have stated it is not meant to adhere to real-world physics and probability. It is a story told by an adult recalling a story from his past and often when this happens stories begin to take on a life of their own and fabrications work themselves into its telling to make it more interesting. The fact that it is set in what is it 1962(?) is unimportant although, it is important to realize that this story is told in the past-tense, the narration provides this context, things like the wardrobe and the price of the baseball at the drugstore give a general reference of time but again, it's not that important.

You seem to be a bit distracted by the plausibility of 'The Beast' having some unexplained super abilities. As I stated above stories like these told to children are exaggerated and the chase scene when the dog rips through a movie theatre screen or jumps through a window unscathed are all simply explained by this. The expectation of the dogs extraordinary ability is set up well early in the movie during the tree house camp out, this dog was legend to this group of friends as kids prior to their encounter with it, an epic and exaggerated chase could only provide credence to this legend. A more realistic chase where Benny hops the fence and everyone runs to their houses and locks the doors would be anti-climactic and certainly would have been much less fun.

As for the pop up sound effects this I chalk up to simply being a reality of the time, when television and movie studios thought that they livened things up and were a brand of comedy on their own. This trend didn't go away and transformed itself through the years (see the painful first episodes of Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night, laugh-track) it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I cringe as well when well-written script are tarnished with such obliviousness.

As far as the acting goes. Sometimes you take what you can get, not every kids movie gets brilliant combination casts like 'The Outsiders' particularly with writer who is a first time director. I think David Evans got a bit lucky however as the fairly green cast provided unrefined skill in acting and made it a bit more likable, these kids weren't going out to blow your doors away, they had fun making it and its final presentation presented itself that way striking chords of nostalgia in adults back when they were having fun on the baseball diamond or setting out on Little Rascal-esque adventures.

I don't know maybe I have just repeated a lot of what everyone else has said but I think when it comes down to is that this movie wasn't made to be an Academy Award winner and true to life in every aspect, just a fun "Remember When" story.

P.S. The Sandlot 2 (I wasn't even aware there was a 3rd) are abominations that never should have been made but the studio mindset is for profit and product recognition is a major draw (see The Hangover 2.) There are plenty of films that don't require and should not have sequels (e.g. Slap Shot) but if they can squeeze some more money off of a successful franchise and test new young actors mettle in the process for future films there is no harm, I see them as paid auditions for future roles and I refuse to watch them.

It's a fun kid adventure with a happy-end that's better off without overanalyzing
I dislike baseball and not a big fan of the rest, but it still scored a decent 6/10 from me

Top 1000 voter
www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=23949572 - vote history (OVER 9000 titles)

I think I've might have found one of the primary issues that you have with this movie. It's not necessarily that you didn't do the things that these kids do in the movie, it's that when you posted your message you were 16 years old. At this age, you don't relate to 11-13 year old kids. You think of them as children, which they are. You haven't had enough time elapse to reminisce fondly on your childhood.

You are growing up in a different era where kids don't play outside as much as they used to, but that's not the point. You will have memories of your childhood when you're in your 20's and 30's and those memories will be more grandios that they really were. That is the beautiful thing about nostalgic memories in general and this movie in particular.

You may not have played baseball with a tight group of friend as in the film, but I'm sure you have a group of friends that have similar interests. You've probably been in a situation in which one of your friends got themselves into a bit of trouble with their parents. They may not have "borrowed" an autographed Babe Ruth baseball, they may have "borrowed" a credit card autographed by their parents. We all knew an older girl that we all had/have a crush on, like Wendy the lifeguard in the movie. Most towns or neighborhoods also have exaggerated stories about mean old men/women, dogs, monsters, bullies, etc. that are all based on rumor...but everyone KNOWS they're true.

Finally, this film is not necessarily a coming of age movie. It's much more of a nostalgic, character driven movie to which we can all relate. We all knew an awkward new kid that's trying to fit in. We all knew the athletic kid that thinks only about sports. We've all known the "story teller" who tells tales so convincing they just HAVE to be true (and the stories get better every time he tells them). We all know a "ham", we all know someone that will become successful in business, and sadly someone that just doesn't adjust well to the world.

This movie is a nostalgic time capsule. I agree with you that the acting in this film wasn't the greatest, and that's OK. But I encourage you to view it again in a few years, I guarantee that you will have a different perspective.

I'm not going to flame you for not liking this movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously dislike it for reasons that you deem valid. That said, this is one of my favorite 'coming of age' movies. Stand By Me is another of my favorites. The two are similar only in that they involve an ensemble cast of talented middle school age boys portraying characters from the early 60s. The Sandlot is more of a tongue-in-cheek look at early 60s nostalgia while Stand By Me deals with more serious issues while still injecting some comic relief. The fact is, this movie isn't one to be taken seriously. It is told, both by the visuals and the narration, from the point of view of a 12 year old. I don't agree with the comparison between this movie and Stand By Me.

Well, can't he just beam up?
This is *reality* Greg.

[deleted]

I HATE trolling trolls, but I've GOT to do it with this one.

So the key point you missed (no offense, it's easy to miss) is that this is a story being told by an adult who is nostalgic about his childhood. It is, for all intents and purposes, a "fish tale".

"The idea of the supernatural dog was annoying in itself. How was a dog supposed to outsmart a large group of kids over and over? Once it escaped, why did it only chase down Benjamin Rodrguez and not the rest of the kids? How was it able to jump through a pane of glass and walk out unharmed? Once the boys freed the dog from under the fence, how could it have just taken a liking to them? Why was the dog hoarding kids' baseballs anyways?"

^That's because that's how Smalls remembers it. Obviously in a fish tale things get exaggerated, magic runs abound, and some parts are - to put it bluntly - outright lies. Remember the flashback scene where Ham tells about how the beast got its fame? Yeah that was Smalls the adult remembering that kid in town that told the best (albeit FAR from true) tale about the beast, the one that at that age everyone just barely believed, despite the fact that an objective observer would be able to spot the BS from a mile away. We all grew up with that kid, we all remember believing his BS despite how obviously false it is to us now. Relatability is one of the most important parts of what makes a good movie.

"Stand by Me definitely had NOTHING supernatural...It was this that made Stand by Me so believable."

King Lear had the supernatural. For all intents and purposes, that "poison" that knocked out Juliet only momentarily was - at the time - non-existent and - therefore - supernatural. The greatest story ever told (as it is proverbially called) contained the supernatural. Just like Aladdin, which you admitted in another posting you liked. Not to say one was better than the other, but you have to remember this is a fish tale, not a documentary.

"[T]he movie could have pretty much taken place during any time period."

Yup. That's what makes it such a great movie: relatability. Anyone who ever played baseball as a kid should be able to relate to this movie, regardless of the time period their youth fell into. Although the cloths, cars, musical score, "Henry Aaron" reference, their failure to mention Roger Marris in their obsession with Babe Ruth, and their apparent complete and total lack of parental supervision isn't a dead-give away.


"Perhaps one of the more major annoyances was the fact that the kids never really matured."

Well they didn't physically mature in "Stand By Me" either, so I'm assuming you're referring to the dynamicy of the protagonist. In this case, Smalls' dynamic is that he leaps from a totally repressed, friendless, depressed child, to one of the local boys, playing ball, getting into trouble, making and losing friends...the "coming of age" that happens at a younger time than most coming of age tales. Don't forget that Smalls went through a lot: death of his father, a big move, the remarriage of his mother. You have to picture this as an interview where Smalls recounts the summer that changed his life and made him who he is today (a ball-game radio announcer). The way you can see this is through the evolution of both the beast and Benny. The beast starts out as this iconic Goliath, and is progressively brought into a more realistic roll as Smalls' view of the beast and - more importantly - the world around him evolves. The same can be said of Benny: in the beginning he's able to hit a pop-fly RIGHT into Smalls' glove; in the end he's an aging, near-retirement professional ball-player who - in all likelihood - won't make the hall of fame, and didn't break any records, but pleased his fans nevertheless. Both become more believable characters as the story progresses and as Smalls' memory of his surroundings and general view on the world matures. That is his dynamic.

"If anyone remembers Stand by Me, there are several scenes when the kids start opening up to each other about their broken homes, their hopes, and their dreams."

Once again, you've missed the point of the story. Not every tale is "Hamlet". In fact, "Romeo and Juliet" is not "Hamlet". If you want to see kids growing up in the school of hard knocks, see "Boyz n the Hood" or "Fresh". Both came out around the same time as "Stand By Me" and "The Sandlot". In the case of "Boyz n the Hood", I think there was a lot more "breaking down" and "broken home" stuff than "Stand By Me"; frankly I think it was a better movie. You be the judge. The point is not every movie needs its characters to spend 25% of the movie crying.

I like this movie because it PRESENTS nostalgia, not because it IS NOSTALGIC. Nostalgic movies were those that you liked because you remembered them coming out at a time in your life about which you are nostalgic. Not the case for me. I love this movie as an adult because in my youth in some way or another I experienced almost every scene in this movie just the way Smalls remembers it; or at least that's how I remember it. I remember the games of sandlot baseball, the neverending game of football with the same 12 or so people at recess, the boxing ring that was the bus stop. Those summer days when you met up at the same place with the same people and did the same thing, getting into trouble (with little parental supervision, from my memory), sneaking out to the local swimming hole, and not coming home until WAY after dark when it was too late to keep playing whatever it was we were playing. I remember a lot more snow days and ice hockey fights, but that misses the point. I think the most relatable part, though, is that Smalls the adults' memory of what ACTUALLY happened is probably mired in nostalgia, and is probably riddled with lies and exaggerations, and we all know that's how we remember our childhood: riddled with lies and exaggerations. THAT'S why I love this movie: it portrays not youth itself but how we remember our youth, and how that memory evolves over time.

Well..."grim"...your name says it all! Sandlot was a wonderful and funny movie for adults and kids. Remember...it's a CHILDHOOD RECOLLECTION! As if any grown-ups didn't exaggerate when telling stories of his or her childhood. Things like big dogs and the history of a scary house become monsters and haunted houses! Your comparison to Stand by Me is ridiculus...it's apples and oranges. You also must be a glutton for punishment it you continued to watch a movie that was "painful" to you. Your "argument" against this movie was not even semi-plausible. Lighten up...enjoy a variety of movies for what they are meant to be. Try not to analyze a story to reality. I just pulled out my DVD and watched Sandlot again. You inspired me to. Great movie! Thanks for reminding me!