MOVIE REVIEWS

Go Back

Review by r96sk

Worst of this Disney trilogy. 'Angels in the Infield' is an even slower watch than 'Angels in the Endzone', as the gap grows from 1994's 'Angels in the Outfield'. I didn't enjoy this, it's a bland and predictable 87 minutes unfortunately. There is one thing I did prefer in this follow-up than in the other sequel, and that's the cast. Patrick Warburton (Eddie), David Alan Grier (Bob) and Kurt Fuller (Simon) are a marked improvement on the 1997 production. I've seen all three in other things which helps, but they are better than Jack Coleman & Co. - despite not doing anything spectacular. Elsewhere, Christopher Lloyd doesn't even show up in this one; to little surprise. The onscreen talent is the only positive thing to note, and it's only a relative one at that. It has a number of negatives, the main one being that it yet again fails to mix up the central premise - the sport stuff is as it is in the other two films, they could've at least switched it up a tad. Another downside is the plot that surrounds the baseball (which they revert back to, btw), it has some heart between Eddie and his daughter, Laurel (Britt Irvin), but it's a plain and obvious storyline that needed more development. It still isn't anything horrific, thanks to the cast and the (minorly) hearty narrative, but that's not to say it's a film worth watching... I certainly wouldn't recommend it.