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.

This film tells the story of a catcher turned spy's secret mission in Europe int eh Second World War.

The story is captivating throughout. Paul Rudd's mysterious character has a charm and has complexity which draws you to him. He is magnetic and makes you emphathise with him. I enjoyed the film a lot.

In an intriguing story about an intriguing true life individual.

He was very ably supported by a very talented cast.

Interestingly. I'd only recently seen the 1946 film "Cloak And Dagger", starring Lilli Palmer and Gary Cooper, which touched on the same issue of an American spy going to Italy and Switzerland in an effort to prevent the nazis from developing a nuclear weapon.

But this story was much more than that, looking at various facets of the fascinating life of Moe Berg.

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.