Angels in the Infield

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!

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.

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 movie SUCKS. This movie ruined my childhood, stole the idea from Angels in the Outfield (1994) and just completely messed everything up. I'm certainly DO NOT recommend this movie to anyone.

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.