Angels in the Infield

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.

This version is alright!

One of the best angel movies made by Disney and is dumb with many laughs!

i love this movie its the reason why i wanted toe do bally.

A film I did not see as a child. I finally gave in to complete the trilogy of angels sports movies. Though this probably is the worst of the three and has a really weak first 30 minutes I felt that it got better at the end. However, it still was pretty boring and felt so uninspired. Overall, saying that you have seen Angels in the infield makes you wonder if you had any expectations to see something you would be blown away by.

The final part in the "Angels" trilogy released by Disney in the 90's. David Alan Grier takes on the role of lead Angel, as the Angels return to help the fledgling baseball team once again. Laughs are to be had here, but its a shame that Christopher Lloyd did not return to finish off the series. This film is actually better than the 2nd film and closes off the trilogy nicely. I wouldn't go on to say that this could have ushered in a new series of "Angels' film, I'm glad it ends here. David Alan Grier does a fine job in his role and makes you laugh, but it does feel like he is only copying off of Lloyd's work. I would say to go see this over the 2nd film Angels in the EndZone, as this is a much more fitting sequel, even without Lloyd. 3 out of 5 stars

A cute family film, not quite as good as its predecessor "Angels in the Outfield", but still fun to watch.

Well, I wish Disney would stop "ruining a good thing". I loved Angels In The Outfield, and I was dissappointed that they would try to make another "angels" movie. This one was not all that great, or that well done. It was a fun movie, don't get me wrong, but the concept wasn't any different from the first movie, and it was sort of like watching the same movie with a few new faces all over again. I wish Disney would have left well enough alone and would not have made a sequel to this movie.

HORRIBLE! Its not the crappy acting, or the shitty plot... the whole thing is OBVIOUSLY filmed in the skydome, yet, in the overhead shots, its Edison Field in Anaheim... WHA?????

not nearly as good as the first.