The Catcher Was a Spy

This started out so strong. Based on a true story, I was so interested in how this Major League Baseball player who has to hide his from most people will navigate both his life as a spy during WWII as well as his personal life.... But it didn't go as deep as it could have. Maybe the casting of Paul Rudd was a little off too, but I think much of it is attributable to the script and directing. It felt like it stayed too surface level, and then when there were scenes of spy activity that could have been suspenseful, it was directed in a way to play for the joke or the levity of the scene.

If you're into WWII stories, historical biopics, etc. I think this is worth a watch, but I think it could have been better.

It reminds me of the Steven Spielberg, Tom hanks collaboration, Bridge of Spies, but did not hit me as hard.

World war 2 was the type of war that all good Americans wanted to be a part of, so no surprise that a Major baseball player (our fav pastime) wanted to get in on the action.

Moe Berg was an over the hill baseball player who happen to have went to college and became a master of a lot of languages. Right there, he sounds like the type of spy they make TV shows out of, which is why I think this movie is so good.

Paul Rudd was good at playing this type of spy too. I felt it to be believable in the situation. Possible not that important, but I like it none the less. Not exactly James Bond but Rudd used his overall charming and humorous persona to be the leading man this movie needs.

Good Watch.

I like Paul Rudd a lot. He's very likeable. I don't fault casting for why this movie wasn't as good as it could have been (as I've seen some other reviewers do). Ultimately, I think this movie falls short more because it didn't know quite what it wanted to be. Was it a serious historical drama about a spy with suspense set during war times? Kind of. In moments. But it also felt very light at times given the subject matter. It never went deep enough into it to make you care or for you to feel scared for the welfare of the characters involved.

What comes to mind when we talk about a spy films? Something like Mission Impossible, James Bond or a little different ones like Salt, Red Sparrow and so on... ?

Well there is a basic difference between spy fiction and the reality of spy trade-craft. Although the most exciting of the spy thrillers try to capture some of the elements of real world spying but those are mostly technical aspects which are adopted to give these movies a certain credibility; to make them believable to some extent.

Spy biopics like 'The Catcher Was a Spy' are different from these spy action thrillers because the titular characters are not out there to perform stunts. They are out there to gather real and sensitive information. Information which could decide the fate of a real war and a real man's life. The thrill in this movie comes from the grand scope of the mission and the conversely understated actions of a spy so as to avoid all attention. There are no guns blazing here.

This is Paul Rudd's classic regular guy performances at it's best. The real life Moe Berg was an anomaly. A sportsman with unexceptional career but a genius mind of sorts. Quite simply a good candidate for a spy in second world war but not of much use afterwards.

If you are watching this movie for the spy thrills then you might be disappointed. However, if you want to get a glimpse of what an American spy must have found out after talking to people like Werner Heisenberg about the nuclear weapons program of Nazi Germany, then it might be worth it.

I can compare 'The Catcher was a Spy' to a bit more contemporary spy biopic like 'Snowden'. Although completely different in tone and nature, both these spy biopics have something in common. They are about getting to know the mind of the person. Both these movies try to bring out the inner complexities of these people who are quite literally doing a job that demands them to be secretive, deceptive and yet charming.

There are going to be lovers and haters of this movie depending on your taste and how much you like to pick holes in the acting and plot. Picky people will find many in this movie.

With all the big name actors it had you would expect it to be at least good and for me it was, I enjoyed it and never once wanted to stop watching, for me that is a sign of a good movie.

Paul Rudd, who I don't always like as and actor was very good in this, the rest of the cast do a fine job, most are prominent actors who I expect to do well in any movie they are in.

The fact it is based on a true story can be either a benefit of hindrance depending on how the story is handled, this one was handled quite well in my opinion and while it will never win any awards it is worth watching.

Not a perfect movie, but good enough to watch more than once.