Back to reviews index

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR. Directed by Daniel Stern; written by Sam Harper; produced by Robert Harper for Twentieth Century Fox. Starring Thomas Ian Nicholas, Gary Busey and Amy Morton. Rated PG.

***

More reviews by —

TITLE:

RATING:

  • 5-star movies
  • 4-star movies
  • 3-star movies
  • 2-star movies
  • 1-star movies

DIRECTOR

CATEGORY

Rookie of the Year is a little long on the "Gee-Whiz" factor, and a little short on resemblance to reality. But, then, that's probably what its creators were aiming for, given the subject matter and the intended audience.

The cast is appealing, especially Nicholas as the title character. He's a really cute kid, with some actual acting range, and a truckload of infectious good humor.

Henry (Nicholas) is an enthusiastic Little Leaguer with more spirit than skill. That is, until a broken arm that heals a little funny gives him a 100+ mph fastball. Through some contrived maneuvering, he doesn't use his new talent to make the Little League World Series, though, but the real thing. And as a pitcher for the perennially disappointing Chicago Cubs, no less.

As an indication of just how unrealistic the script is, let me tell you that Henry's mysterious pitching ability is one of the most believable things about the movie. Or, maybe, it's just the plot point that the cast takes the most seriously.

I don't want to sound too negative, here, because Rookie of the Year is in many ways a delightful family movie. But it is very predictable and more than a little hokey, things I believe moviegoers should be warned about in advance.

What actually bothers me more than the hokiness, though, is the movie's pace. It's pretty slow at first; then picks up steam when Henry becomes accepted by the Cubs; then kind of runs down again toward the end. It doesn't help that Henry's Cub teammates are pretty much faceless (except for Busey, who does a good job as an almost-over-the-hill pitcher).

If they had been given more personality, Henry would have had something to play off, and the story could have progressed more smoothly.

But, for the kids in the audience and some of their parents, too, these criticisms fall into the minor irritation category, rather than being movie-spoilers.

July, 1993

Back to reviews index