September 28, 2020

Certainly enjoyable enough, could've been far greater though.

I really like the concept of <em>'Angels in the Outfield'</em>, I just don't feel like they constructed anything other than an alright production with it unfortunately. I can see what they were attempting to do with it here and there, especially in a few moments, but it doesn't get away from being a silly baseball flick by the end; not that that's a negative, it's just underdone tha… read the rest.

Certainly enjoyable enough, could've been far greater though.

I really like the concept of <em>'Angels in the Outfield'</em>, I just don't feel like they constructed anything other than an alright production with it unfortunately. I can see what they were attempting to do with it here and there, especially in a few moments, but it doesn't get away from being a silly baseball flick by the end; not that that's a negative, it's just underdone that's all.

The cast is, mostly in retrospect, phenomenal. Danny Glover is top notch as George, as is a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Roger. You also have Tony Danza (Mel), Neal McDonough (Bass), Adrien Brody (Danny) and Christopher Lloyd (Al) all involved. Not a bad list at all, though I would've loved to have seen more of Lloyd who is very underused - his role, if more prevalent, could've raised the film up massively.

With all the silliness of the plot, there is still a nice amount of heart in there - which is entirely predictable, but I appreciated it nevertheless. Who knows, perhaps the two made-for-television sequels will nail the premise better? We shall see.

show less