« Prev | 37 of 59 Episodes | Next »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 reviews in total 

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Occasionally very funny, but contains unfortunate problems

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City
7 August 2006

Not as good as the first film of the trilogy, Angels in the Outfield (1994), but nowhere near the dire mess of the second, Angels in the Endzone (1997), Angels in the Infield is a moderate success that even shows occasional flashes of brilliance.

The film works best when all involved concentrate on being funny. Director/writer Robert King and co-writer Garrett K. Schiff's teleplay has a lot of hilarious moments, especially in the hands of actors Patrick Warburton, as a down-on-his-luck pitcher for the (now dubbed) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and Kurt Fuller, as his eager beaver agent. There are smaller roles that are just as good, such as Peter Keleghan's, as a cynical and smarmy broadcaster, and some that are not as good as you'd expect them to be, such as David Alan Grier's, as the angel who must lend a helping hand this time around. But overall, when King's directorial timing is on and he's not being too toddler-style silly (but even those few moments almost work), this is the funniest film by far out of the trilogy.

The problem is that far too often, his timing isn't on. It's hard to pinpoint the exact source of the pacing problems--they probably stem from a confluence of factors, but sometimes we travel through a wide morass of unfunny, somewhat weak sentimental material, sometimes scenes just go on too long, and sometimes the dramatic "beats" seem to be following a broken metronome--quite a few times my wife or I felt the urge to push the actors into their next lines or actions.

Of course, the film isn't exactly original--the first film was a remake of an MGM vehicle from 1951, and as another Angels film where baseball is the sport of choice and the driving force is a child trying to win the love of a father, this has a large number of parallels to the 1994 gem. But as a sequel, especially, it doesn't have to be overly original. It's familiar enough to fit the series (whereas the second film was almost too different), while still fresh enough to hold your attention. King infuses Angels in the Infield with a successful, more irreverent attitude--not too far removed from two other films that featured Warburton to great effect, The Emperor's New Groove (2000) and its sequel, Kronk's New Groove (2005). He also adds a nice, new dramatic twist, and features a lot of attractively stylized sets and cinematography.

It's a shame that those pacing problems are present. Without them, this could have easily been the best of the series. I'm anxious to see what King might have in store for us as a director in the future.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Best of the series.

Author: SanDiego from The Beach
11 April 2000

Third in a series of Disney movies based on the 1951 classic film "Angels in the Outfield." Perhaps the best of all, "Infield" is warm (thanks to Patrick Warburton as a fading baseball star trying to reconnect with his family), charming (thanks to Brittney Irvin as his lovely but lonely daughter), and funny (thanks to David Alan Grier as her Guardian Angel). Patrick Warburton looks like Jim Belushi with Steven Seagal's squint. A large man, he has the build of a professional athlete, but exhibits a sensitivity that is unusual for this type of film. He plays the part of a pitcher with the Anaheim Angels who because of an error in the final play of an important game ends up losing his confidence, his wife, and his daughter. Brittney Irvin is a delight to watch as his daughter who comes to lives with her estranged father. I last saw her in the TV film "Angel on Pennsylvania Avenue" (in which the "angel" was President Hoover) and she also played the part of Nan in the TV show "Little Men." Her delivery and reactions are so un-Hollywood (as most teen performers of the Aaron Spelling variety are today). She could be your sister, but she's really cute, and she's not your sister. More importantly she can act and we care about her. She believes in her failing father first, which is an important faith in family; then she believes in her guardian angel, a regaining of faith she had almost lost and is trying to regain. Her confidence in her faith infect those around her (especially her father's agent) until they can't help in believing in the guardian angel and themselves as well. David Alan Grier is always funny. A nice bit has David popping up all around Brittney (as a hot dog vendor, an older woman, a baby). David plays an angel on the second string of Heaven's Baseball League who was once an up-and-coming pitcher himself. God sends him to Earth not only to help the girl and her father, but to answer his own prayer of getting one more chance to play real baseball. The entire cast is wonderful including the smaller roles such as the pitcher's wife who shines in each of her scenes (attractive Rebecca Jenkins has a talent for broad comedy and slapstick), the Devil (yes, he shows up too as guardian to the Crimson Devil's, the Angel's rival team), the pitcher's agent, and the girl's ballet instructor. Whereas the girl's father and guardian angel ("in-training" she says, he hasn't his wings yet and is a bit rusty in baseball) are failing at their sport, she is failing in ballet. Her guardian angel does double duty by trying to help her become the lead in the ballet recital (by channeling himself into the entire company in a Debbie Allen type of dance routine). Old-fashioned, syrupy, predictable? Yes, but it is done so well, with primarily new faces, giving very good performances, one has to concede that anything done well is well done. Originally broadcast on The Wonderful World of Disney, look for it soon on video or the Disney Channel.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

S0 bad, it's funny.

Author: Kenneth Louis from SF Bay Area, CA, USA
13 September 2004

This movie was obvious one of the cheap movie of the week filmed in Canada so I could also be broadcast there. The story was supposed to take place in LA and about and the Anaheim Angels. You could totally tell it was Canada since no attempt was used to make Canada look anything like Southern California. "Angel Stadium" was actually SkyDome. They didn't get the rights of any other MLB team so the "bad guys" were fictional baseball teams. I encountered this "movie" while channel surfing and it so bad that I couldn't watching the whole thing and laugh at it for it's low production values. You can totally tell that some guy at Disney wanted to rehash Angels in the OUTFIELD and put very little effort into it. At least in Angels in the Outfield it was filmed in California, in an outdoor stadium with real grass, the Oakland Coliseum, pre-Mt. Davis. So bad, it's funny, trust me.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:


Author: Mickey Knox (alwaysmetallica@k.ro) from Brasov, Romania
7 November 2002

This is one of the worst comedies I have ever seen. Except for some rare funny gags, it all fails, from all points of view. The story is simply ridiculous, even for kids looking for "magic", and most scenes are pathetic and not interesting at all. The lead actor - the one playing Eddie - is worse than Steven Seagal - and that's not easy to accomplish, but he succeeds brilliantly. Avoid this movie, it's a waste of your time. Vote: 2 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

it sucked

Author: oz_cullom (oz_cullom@yahoo.com) from Nashville, Tennessee
16 July 2000

it sucked because of the simple and obvious fact that the real Anaheim Angels play on natural and NOT on artificial turf and because of that it it was hard to enjoy the film,oh well that's what you get if you for filming outside the states(as far as the particular movie is concerned)

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 10 people found the following review useful:


Author: Melissa Alice from USA
13 April 2000

Brittney Irvin (from the good family show, Little Men) did well acting in this movie... But I was very disappointed in how they twisted the Bible and how they portrayed angels and the devil. It was very erroneous and misleading.

There were some slightly funny parts, but I am greatly disappointed in the movie!

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history