Angels in the Infield (2000)

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Not as good as the first film of the trilogy, Angels in the Outfield (1994), but nowhere near the dire mess of the second, Angels in the Endzone (1997), Angels in the Infield is a moderate success that even shows occasional flashes of brilliance.The film works best when all involved concentrate on being funny. Director/writer Robert King and co-writer Garrett K. Schiff's teleplay has a lot of hilarious moments, especially in the hands of actors Patrick Warburton, as a down-on-his-luck pitcher for the (now dubbed) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and Kurt Fuller, as his eager beaver agent. There are smaller roles that are just as good, such as Peter Keleghan's, as a cynical and smarmy broadcaster, and some that are not as good as you'd expect them to be, such as David Alan Grier's, as the angel who must lend a helping hand this time around. But overall, when King's directorial timing is on and he's not being too toddler-style silly (but even those few moments almost work), this is the funniest film by far out of the trilogy.The problem is that far too often, his timing isn't on. It's hard to pinpoint the exact source of the pacing problems--they probably stem from a confluence of factors, but sometimes we travel through a wide morass of unfunny, somewhat weak sentimental material, sometimes scenes just go on too long, and sometimes the dramatic "beats" seem to be following a broken metronome--quite a few times my wife or I felt the urge to push the actors into their next lines or actions.Of course, the film isn't exactly original--the first film was a remake of an MGM vehicle from 1951, and as another Angels film where baseball is the sport of choice and the driving force is a child trying to win the love of a father, this has a large number of parallels to the 1994 gem. But as a sequel, especially, it doesn't have to be overly original. It's familiar enough to fit the series (whereas the second film was almost too different), while still fresh enough to hold your attention. King infuses Angels in the Infield with a successful, more irreverent attitude--not too far removed from two other films that featured Warburton to great effect, The Emperor's New Groove (2000) and its sequel, Kronk's New Groove (2005). He also adds a nice, new dramatic twist, and features a lot of attractively stylized sets and cinematography.It's a shame that those pacing problems are present. Without them, this could have easily been the best of the series. I'm anxious to see what King might have in store for us as a director in the future.

This movie was obvious one of the cheap movie of the week filmed in Canada so I could also be broadcast there. The story was supposed to take place in LA and about and the Anaheim Angels. You could totally tell it was Canada since no attempt was used to make Canada look anything like Southern California. "Angel Stadium" was actually SkyDome. They didn't get the rights of any other MLB team so the "bad guys" were fictional baseball teams. I encountered this "movie" while channel surfing and it so bad that I couldn't watching the whole thing and laugh at it for it's low production values. You can totally tell that some guy at Disney wanted to rehash Angels in the OUTFIELD and put very little effort into it. At least in Angels in the Outfield it was filmed in California, in an outdoor stadium with real grass, the Oakland Coliseum, pre-Mt. Davis. So bad, it's funny, trust me.

This is one of the worst comedies I have ever seen. Except for some rare funny gags, it all fails, from all points of view. The story is simply ridiculous, even for kids looking for "magic", and most scenes are pathetic and not interesting at all. The lead actor - the one playing Eddie - is worse than Steven Seagal - and that's not easy to accomplish, but he succeeds brilliantly. Avoid this movie, it's a waste of your time. Vote: 2 out of 10.

Brittney Irvin (from the good family show, Little Men) did well acting in this movie... But I was very disappointed in how they twisted the Bible and how they portrayed angels and the devil. It was very erroneous and misleading.There were some slightly funny parts, but I am greatly disappointed in the movie!