September 30, 2020

Worst of this Disney trilogy.

<em>'Angels in the Infield'</em> is an even slower watch than <em>'Angels in the Endzone'</em>, as the gap grows from 1994's <em>'Angels in the Outfield'</em>. 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 m… read the rest.

Worst of this Disney trilogy.

<em>'Angels in the Infield'</em> is an even slower watch than <em>'Angels in the Endzone'</em>, as the gap grows from 1994's <em>'Angels in the Outfield'</em>. 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.

show less