Is Saving Wrigley Field Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (2021)

The Narrative Arc & Core Premise

Debuting in 2021, Saving Wrigley Field represents a sophisticated intersection of artistic ambition and genre-defining elements within the Documentary category. The primary thematic concern of the film is an investigation into Restoring and expanding a 100-year-old ballpark was no small feat. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a world where the traditional boundaries of Documentary are tested.

The screenplay takes its time to establish the stakes, ensuring that every character motivation is grounded in a psychological reality. The synopsis only hints at the depth: "Restoring and expanding a 100-year-old ballpark was no small feat. See what it took to ensure the future of the Friendly Confines was secure for the next 100 years. "Saving Wrigley Field" details the multi-year journey to preserve the magic of this beloved ballpark. Wrigley Field has played an important role in the development of professional baseball and has been the site of numerous baseball milestones, including Babe Ruth’s supposed “called shot” in the 1932 World Series, Gabby Hartnett’s “homer in the gloamin’,” Ernie Banks’ 500th career home run and Kerry Wood’s 20-strikeout game. Wrigley Field is the only Major League Baseball (MLB) ballpark still standing in which Jackie Robinson played and, in May 1943, it was the site of the final tryouts and organization of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, the first major women's professional sports league in the United States."

Artistic Execution & Performance Study

A film's resonance is often dictated by the strength of its execution, both in front of and behind the camera. Gary Sinise does an admirable job with the material provided, but one can't help but feel that a more daring directorial approach would have yielded a more impactful result. It is a competent but ultimately standard genre performance.

The direction by the visionary director is marked by a steady and professional hand. From a production standpoint, the film meets the high standards of modern industrial filmmaking. The sets are well-crafted, and the visual effects are integrated with a level of polish that ensures the viewer matches the director's intended level of immersion. While perhaps not groundbreaking, the execution is flawless. The pacing, over its 56 minute runtime, allows the audience to fully inhabit the space the director has created, making the eventual resolution feel deeply earned.

Critical Assessment: Why You Should Watch

Is Saving Wrigley Field truly worth your investment of time and attention? In an era of disposable content, this film makes a strong case for its existence. If you are a connoisseur of Documentary, then this is a worthwhile watch if you have a specific interest in the themes or the performers involved.

The film's ability to perfectly execute its genre requirements is why it has earned its 0/10 score. It speaks to a global audience while maintaining a distinct and unique voice, a balance that is notoriously difficult to achieve in the modern marketplace.

Philosophical Subtext & Directorial Vision

At a deeper level, Saving Wrigley Field explores the dichotomy of truth and perception. The 2021 audience is increasingly sophisticated, and the visionary director respects this by refusing to provide easy answers to the story's complex questions.

The philosophical underpinnings of the second and third acts suggest a narrative that is interested in more than just entertainment. It is an exploration of what it means to be human in an increasingly complex world.

Final Editorial Recommendation

Ultimately, Saving Wrigley Field is an interesting experiment that, while flawed, offers enough moments of creative spark to be worth a casual glance for the curious. Whether you are drawn to it by the star power of Gary Sinise or the critical acclaim surrounding its release, Saving Wrigley Field is a film that demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.