September 29, 2020

Boring, mainly thanks to its copied main premise from the first film of this remake trilogy.

<em>'Angels in the Endzone'</em> is a lame watch. I do appreciate the switching up of the backstory for the sporting events, but even then they don't exactly create a fresh, new plotline or anything - it's hearty, but something we've all seen before. The simple change from baseball to American football isn't sufficient.

The overall acting, though a … read the rest.

Boring, mainly thanks to its copied main premise from the first film of this remake trilogy.

<em>'Angels in the Endzone'</em> is a lame watch. I do appreciate the switching up of the backstory for the sporting events, but even then they don't exactly create a fresh, new plotline or anything - it's hearty, but something we've all seen before. The simple change from baseball to American football isn't sufficient.

The overall acting, though a big drop from the 1994 production, is actually pretty solid, even if none of the cast particularly stand tall in my memory. Christopher Lloyd is again underused, not that I blame him for not committing fully to this - the cheek to put him on the cover, by the way. Of the main, more used cast members, Paul Dooley is probably the standout.

A disappointing sequel to <em>'Angels in the Outfield'</em>. Here's hoping for an improvement from <em>'Angels in the Infield'</em> - I'm an optimist!

show less