User reviews

As a baseball die-hard, this movie goes contrary to what I expect in a sports movie: authentic-looking sports action, believable characters, and an original story line. While "Angels in the Outfield" fails miserably in the first category, it succeeds beautifully in the latter two. "Angels" weaves the story of Roger and J.P., two Anaheim foster kids in love with baseball but searching for a family, with that of the woebegone Angels franchise, struggling to draw fans and win games. Pushed by his deadbeat father's promise that they would be a family only when the Angels win the pennant, Roger asks for some heavenly help, and gets it in the form of diamond-dwelling spirits bent on reversing the franchise's downward spiral. And, when short-fused manager George Knox (portrayed by Danny Glover) begins believing in what Roger sees, the team suddenly has hope for turning their season around--and Roger and J.P. find something to believe in. Glover in particular gives a nice performance, and Tony Danza, playing a washed-up pitcher, also does well, despite clearly having ZERO idea of how to pitch out of the windup!

I really enjoyed this movie as a young kid. At that age I thought that the silly baseball antics were funny and that the movie was "cool" because of it's about sports. Now, several years later, I can look back and see what a well designed movie this was. This movie opened my eyes as a small child to the struggles other children dealt with and real world issues. That kind of exposure is largely lacking in kids movies these days which I don't think is to our society's benefit. Sure the baseball antics seem really dumb now, but they drew kids in. No seven year old is going to ask to see a movie about foster children, but they will ask to see a movie about baseball. Disney realized this fact and took advantage of it to teach these children an important lesson about the world.

As a young adult the performance of Al and the other angels seems far less impressive, however I will give credit to the actors playing both children and Danny Glover who all did a fantastic job.

I saw this film on TV many years ago and I saw this film when I got this on tape. I thought that this was reasonably well done. It was not the best of all movies, but it was good enough. The movie has enough talent to inspire many people, especially younger kids. The acting was good, with Danny Glover leading the cast. The plot line was not very believable, but the script was well written. This movie can also be the interest of avid baseball fans. It does not directly apply to a action-packed sports movie. It directly applies to a nice film that you can watch with your family and learn some messages that are hidden in this film. Overall, the film was good, but not great. I give this a movie a 7/10.

Angels in the Outfield contains absolutely no unpredictable elements. The premise involves a young boy named Roger whose deadbeat father has all but abandoned him, saying that their being a family again is as unlikely as the last-place Angels winning the pennant. This prompts Roger to pray for the team and for a family. Suddenly, real angels jump in to help the inept team, and the coach of the Angels insists on Roger and his friend JP attending every home game.

I have now told you everything you need to know to figure out every plot turn in the movie. Yes, it is THAT predictable. Combine that with some unbearably goofy comedy, and you have what would appear to be a complete waste of 90 minutes.

But appearances aren't everything, and Angels ends up being more than the sum of its parts. While every part of the movie stays true to formula, the acting and directing never descend into mediocrity, and this infuses the film a with a sincere heart, a sense of joy that allows us to care for the characters even though we know exactly what's going to happen to them.

To be sure, there are many better films out there, and adults would almost certainly want to spend their time watching one with a bit more maturity. But for those looking for a movie they can enjoy along with their children, they will find Angels worth their time.

Although I don't usually go for relentlessly heartwarming fare like this, I happened to catch the 1994 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (AitO) on cable one Saturday morning just as it was starting. Being an Adrien Brody fan, I was curious to see what Brody was like as a youth of 21 (20 when he filmed it, I suppose) in this early role as Danny Hemmerling, utility infielder for the California Angels (in the 1951 original, the hard-luck baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates. The name change is a nice touch, since it turns the title into wordplay). I decided to give the flick a chance, and it turned out to be a pretty painless, even amiable experience, with a decent balance of laughs, tears, sweetness, and baseball-based excitement. Also, my 7-year-old daughter liked the angel effects! :-) Directed by Mike Nesmith's frequent collaborator William Dear, AitO is the story of Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a foster child who prays real hard after his ne'er-do-well dad (the convincingly sleazy Dermot Mulroney) sarcastically says they'll be a family again once the last-place California Angels win the pennant. Soon Roger starts seeing real angels at the Angels' games, led by Christopher Lloyd, whose usual zany, eccentric irreverence keeps AitO from plummeting irretrievably into The Schmaltz Zone. Crusty manager George Knox (Danny Glover in world-weary, exasperated mode) is a hard sell, but once the team starts winning, he believes Roger's angel sightings, and soon Knox has Roger and his cute li'l pal and fellow foster kid J.P. (the adorable Milton Davis Jr.) at every Angels game for good luck. Knox even starts toning down his own temperamental outbursts and profane language, as much to appease the angels as for the kids' sake, resulting in a funny bit when he starts dressing down an umpire in his usual way but starts editing himself as he goes along. Predictable obstacles ensue, such as obnoxious sportcaster Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) trying to make trouble for Knox because of the angel angle. Sure, it all works out fine for our heroes in the end, but they're so darn amiable you don't mind! :-) Baby-faced Brody has a couple of good lines (I especially like his exchange with Glover about the emotional impact of the National Anthem at a ballgame) as well as a cute bit where a pretty blonde angel massages his shoulders before he goes up to bat. Brody isn't the only future star in AitO's lineup: his teammates include Matthew McConaughey and Neal McDonough, and of course, young Gordon-Levitt went on to co-star in TV's 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN as well as such films as 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The always-amusing Taylor Negron and Oscar winners (but not for this film :-) Brenda Fricker and Ben Johnson lend able support. If you're a baseball fan who wants to rent a movie appropriate for the kids and check out some notable young actors before they became stars, AitO '94 will do nicely.

I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.

A middling family movie from Disney based on a 1951 original. Danny Glover is the gruff manager of a failing baseball team whose fortunes take a miraculous about-turn after a young fan prays for spiritual intervention in the mistaken belief that their winning the pennant will reunite him with his deadbeat father. It's both predictable and forgettable, but worth watching for an unusually star-studded cast.

Foster brothers Roger Bowman (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and J. P. (Milton Davis Jr.) live in a foster home under the care of Maggie Nelson (Brenda Fricker) and routinely catch California Angels games from a tree outside the Stadium despite the teams losing streak under team manager George Knox (Danny Glover). Roger as a ward of the state rarely sees his father (Dermot Mulroney) and when Roger asks when they'll be a family again, his father replies sarcastically I'd say when the Angels win the pennant." Which Roger takes literally. Roger prays to God for help in getting the Angels the pennant and much to his surprise his prayers are answered as literal angels arrive to help the Angels win. A chance encounter with George Knox results in Roger telling him of the angels which Knox initially brushes off, but following review of the footage finds things he and his players can't explain. Knox makes an arrangement with Roger so he and J. P. can attend all the games as well as tell him when the angels are on the field.

One of many youth targeted sports films released throughout the 90s, Angels in the Outfield is a loose remake of the 1951 Paul Douglas movie of the same name. A passion project for producer Joe Roth, Roth had been behind other hit baseball movies of the time such as the Charlie Sheen vehicle Major League and the 1993 film Rookie of the Year. The movie was released to okay if unspectacular box office not matching the returns of Rookie of the Year or The Mighty Ducks but it wasn't an outright flop either. Critical reaction tended to skew negative as well. Angels in the Outfield when taken on its own is just kind of corny and dumb, but as a remake of the original it doesn't measure up at all.

While the original Angels in the Outfield was a baseball movie with fantasy elements, at its core it was a character piece where Paul Douglas' Guffy McGovern overwent a fundamental change in his character. While the fact we never see the angels in the original film could be construed as "cost saving", it left a good amount of ambiguity as to how much the "angels" in the movie were responsible for the team's winning streak versus Guffy simply being a better person and less draining of a presence for his players. The 1994 version of Angels in the Outfield switches perspective so its now about the story of the orphan who comes into contact with the team's manager and the angels are front and center as rendered with very dodgy effects that haven't aged gracefully. The original film had the players getting "hunches" that could've been theirs but we were never told, but the presence of the angels has been upped considerably with the angels now doing physically impossible feats whose only explanation is that they're magical in nature. I don't think there's anything inherent wrong with the notion of an update of Angels in the Outfield, but it would be difficult to do it well as the closest in spirt you've gotten to the original would probably be Field of Dreams and the remake of Angels in the Outfield isn't interested in subtlety or nuance and is instead more interested in slapstick and "mess" humor we saw with the emergence of Home Alone and the various Nickelodeon properties that defined the decade. The movie switches between maudlin melodrama and hackneyed slapstick and it doesn't do either element justice and when it does something that was in the 1951 film it's of considerably less impact than it was in the original.

Angels in the Outfield is slickly produced and inoffensive mediocrity. It's a film that's simply there to occupy space until it ends. There's no attempt to refine the weaker points of the original film and instead it's just watered itself down into a passionless product designed to pander to an unselective audience. Just watch the original.

I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film.

Roger Bomman (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his friend J.P. are staying with foster mother Maggie Nelson (Brenda Fricker). His father leaves him behind after his mother's death telling him that they would be a family again when the California Angels win the pennant. That may as well be when-hell-freezes-over since coach George Knox (Danny Glover)'s team is hopeless basement dwellers. Hank Murphy (Ben Johnson) is the owner. Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) is the broadcaster trying to get Knox from an old grudge as players. David Montagne (Taylor Negron) is the team's new public relations. Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is the aging pitching star. Roger prays to God for help and angels are sent to help the team. Al (Christopher Lloyd) is head angel and Roger is the only person who can see them.

The story is functional but there are a few problems. It's more compelling if a bad team wins because they improve. It's less compelling if angels come and help them. There is less drama that way. There are a few interesting actors as players. Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey don't do much. Neal McDonough plays an idiot pitcher badly. He's no comedian. Tony Danza is the bigger star back then. Danny Glover is way too unlikeable. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quite an actor even as a kid. He keeps the movie interesting for the most part.

That was definitely the case with Angels in the Outfield. It was on TV last night and I believe I hadn't seen the film since my sophomore year in high school and I'm now in my 4th year of college. Although the film has many flaws, it is just so touching that you can't help but sit down, watch it, and enjoy yourself. It is also hilarious. Danny Glover's ranting is just so over the top that you can't help but laugh out loud at him at most time. It adds to the film and I'm sure it's exactly what the director wanted. You actually feel for the characters in the film even though the development isn't the best. A must see. I highly recommend.

8/10

Although popular at the time, hardly anyone today remembers the original Angels in the Outfield, or even realizes there was one. The 1994 Disney remake has taken its place in the hearts of millions of kids, and while I'm still partial to the original, I really liked watching the modern version. I especially appreciated the modern touches that made the story more accessible for '90s kids.

For example, instead of an orphanage (prevalent in post-war years), the featured children are in a foster home. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his best friend Milton Davis Jr. Live with their foster mother Brenda Fricker, and their greatest hobby is to go watch the Anaheim Angels play baseball - even though they always lose. Little Joey's deadbeat dad, Dermot Mulroney, says that the day they'll be a family again is "when the Angels win the pennant". It's flippant, of course, but Joey takes it to heart and prays for help. In another slight difference from the original, it's the child who talks to the angels, not the coach. I prefer the original way, but I understand the change; kids in the '90s would be more likely to invest their interest in a movie where the onscreen kid talks to angels, rather than the grumpy coach who yells at everybody.

Speaking of the grumpy coach, the soft-spoken, husky-voiced Danny Glover we all know has disappeared! He loses his temper at every scene and berates the stupidity and lack of talent of his ball players. But it does look like everyone had a blast making the movie; so no harm, no foul. The ball players only have a little bit of screen time each, but I'm sure you'll recognize them: Tony Danza, Matthew McConaughey, Adrien Brody, and Neil McDonough. It's funny that they all had such small parts back in 1994, and now two of them have won competitive Oscars - while Danny Glover never has.

In a nutshell, if you've never seen either of the versions, I'd recommend picking which setting appeals to you. If you like the charm of black-and-white movies, start with the original. If you think you'd appreciate the more modern special effects and familiar faces, start with the Danny Glover version. It's pretty funny and still has a heartwarming ending synonymous with Disney movies.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie will not be your friend. In almost every scene, there's a handheld, swirling, or "active" camera movement, and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

This film is way better than my expectations. The message is very positive, as it reminds us that we just have to believe in ourselves for miracles to happen. The story moves me to tears! It is also funny to see Matthew McConaughey and Adrien Brody in non speaking support roles, and a young Joseph Gordon Levitt.

THE GOOD - Overall, a nice-feeling fantasy film with good kids and some decent special-effects. Although geared toward kids, adults will get laughs out of this, too. It's nice to see two unspoiled kids in a 1990s movie. They are both very appealing, especially the ever-optimistic "J.P." (Milton Davis Jr.) whose motto was "It could happen!"

THE BAD - There is a prayer scene where the kid doesn't know whether to address God as a man or a woman. (Well, you knew Disney was going to have some Liberal propaganda.) Danny Glover overacts something brutal in this film and the baseball player who is the star, played by Tony Danza, doesn't have a clue how to throw a baseball much less portray a Major League pitcher. Is that the best actor they could find for this role?! Come on, let's have some realism. That sort of thing went out with the end of the classic-age era.

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

I really like the concept of 'Angels in the Outfield', 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.

Schmaltzy family baseball movie about a down-and-out team that gets revived by a couple of down-and-out foster boys. Lot of young stars on the team.

At first you think another Disney movie, it might be good, but it's a kids movie. But when you watch it, you can't help but enjoy it. All ages will love this movie. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and now 8 years later I still love it! Danny Glover is superb and could not play the part any better. Christopher Lloyd is hilarious and is perfect for the part. Tony Danza is so believable as Mel Clark. You can't help, but to enjoy this movie! I give it a 10/10!

This is a clean movie about a baseball team that is down on their luck,and a young kid wishes for help for the team. Being as the team is the Angels, actual angels come to help the players play better. As the film progresses and the team wins more games each player and coach start to believe in themselves. For once, the good team ends the game not with heroics at the plate but with the pitcher snagging a line drive. Overall the movie was predictable but a great movie to watch with a family. Watch at least once-it is worth the effort to catch it. It is especially recommended for families who may not be able to have a lot of time to spend together.

The original *Angels in the Outfield*, with Paul Douglas and Janet Leigh, is not a children's movie. It deals with the problems of middle-aged men facing physical decline and isolation, and deals with those topics well. In a sense, it is like a more serious version of Bernie Mack's also very good *Mr. 3000*.

This movie is clearly directed at young children/boys, but that makes it rather disturbing.

To begin with, the child who sees the angels is a young boy, not a young girl as in the 1951 original. Indeed, there are no women of any age in this movie with any interest in or knowledge of baseball. The middle-aged woman who runs the temporary foster home doesn't want a ticket to a baseball game; she has no interest in it. In the original, however, the mother superior of the orphanage where the little girl lives is also a baseball expert, to the point that she amazes the Pirates' manager (Douglas). So, while the newer movie is more open racially - there are black and latino characters - it's definitely regressive in terms of its presentation of women. The one woman we see is always busy sewing or doing other 19th century women's tasks.

The apparent racial inclusiveness is also largely superficial. The latino players make fun of one of their group who is dumber than a doornail. It is the white boy, rather than the latino or the black one, who gets to see the angels. Etc. Glover's manager, though well acted, never reflects on the issues that will be posed by his adoption of the white boy, not just racial but because he is a single man. In the original, his equivalent, Douglas, is very concerned about such issues.

Then there is the issue of performance-enhancing drugs. Early on Glover's manager says that Danza's character messed up his career by taking too many drugs. Later we learn that, when they were both playing for Cincinnati, Glover's character had encouraged Danza's to take them. Still later we learn that Danza's character is going to die a young death because of chemical abuse. But he is not the only one. There are a few scenes in the Angels' locker room where the players are shirtless. I'm sure they were there in part to please the mothers in the audience. But those muscular physiques are way past what normal, in shape athletic men look like. They too, the movie seems to suggest, are on steroids.

Yes, the move clearly warns against their use with Danza's character's early death. But is that really an appropriate subject for a movie aimed at pre-teen boys?

The movie is also about the failure of early middle-aged men. Glover has failed to turn the Angels around. We learn from the *nice* announcer that the nasty announcer had failed as a manager as well. The white boy's father has failed as a father bigtime and abandons his son to the state. Danza's character has failed his teammates. The list goes on. What is this movie telling young boys?

And then there are the angels. In the original, no one but the little girl, who sees them, and the manager, who speaks with one of them, believes in them. Not even the mother superior wants to believe in them. But in this movie, by the end, thousands of people believe in them. I guess that's good if you're a fundamentalist, but what does it tell little boys about how to overcome their problems in life? In the original, the aging pitcher triumphs over fatigue and physical pain to pitch one last game for himself and his team, even though there are no angels helping him. He learns to believe in the ability of men to triumph over their weaknesses and bad breaks. The white boy learns something very different in the remake.

I could go on - I have with friends - but you get the idea. Yes, there are certainly some funny moments in the picture. But if you watch it with your young sons, ask them afterward what they got out of it. You might be surprised.

One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.

At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.

Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans.

This is one of the movies I watched as a kid. Interestingly, during this era the film was made there were a lot of movies which came out with this kind of theme, of a losing team where someone or something helps that team become a winning team. The most memorable film of that category is probably "Space Jam" which came out a couple of years later, and I heard it is still the highest grossing basketball movie.

This movie is probably the first movie we are familiar with that the famous actor Joseph Gordon Levitt. He has come a long way since then, and has become like every girls dream. I wonder what happened to the other kid, J.P.? I haven't heard any clear answers. Joseph Gordon Levitt would much later star in a movie with Tony Danza, they even talked a little about this movie in their interviews, but I wish he'd talk more about what it was like working in this movie.

I recently saw this movie on my parents old VHS tape, and while I remember it pretty well since I was a kid, it mostly just seemed like a cheesy movie and a waste of time. Some of the movie seems serious, I mean it's a movie that involves foster kids, and some of the scenes that don't involve baseball or angels are a little serious. But, the movie seems incredibly cheesy and too focused on an individual character. I mean the movie involves a losing baseball team with a manager George Knox played by Danny Glover who can't take always being on a losing team. Then, we have a couple of boys Roger and J.P. who are in a foster home. As we'd see from the trailer, Roger asks his Dad, "When Are We Going To Be A Family Again." The father replies, "The Way I See It, I'd Say When The Angels Win The Pennant." Now looking at that movie from an adult perspective, it sounds like a sarcastic remark, like why would you believe it? But, Roger takes his fathers words literally and prays for the California Angels in a somewhat funny prayer. The Angels start to help out the California Angels, and that is the main plot of the movie, which is obviously the title.

Let me tell you, while this movie might have wanted to leave a good message of believing in God and miracles, it doesn't do it in a religious way. I mean the angels are lead by Al the boss angel played by Christopher Lloyd. We only see the angels at the ball park, except in one scene. Every scene the angels are in, are cheesy scenes and they do not seem like they are holy, they mostly seem there for comic relief for a film with a somewhat serious tone in some scenes. I mean, it's interesting to think that angels would help a losing team become a winning team with the most bizarre methods. But, the angels weren't in the more serious scenes where what Roger really wanted was his father back. Also, how a prayer would be answered about a losing baseball team becoming a winning baseball team, but not about all the other problems in the world, almost making Roger's problems seem like they're at the center of the universe.

I give this movie credit, it still is somewhat inspirational. But, I wouldn't say the movie is too exciting or too fast paced. I'd say it is mostly just a cheesy movie about angels helping a baseball team win so a boy could get his father back, and again the angels weren't holy.

This movie's message, isn't as inspirational as a more recent movie about the surfer, Bethany Hamilton, "Soul Surfer." That movie was truly inspirational, and not in a cheesy way. It also isn't as inspirational as a recent religious movie about a boy who sees heaven, "Heaven Is For Real." So, I'm sure everybody who sees this "Angels In The Outfield," could agree that the angels didn't seem holy, and were mostly cheesy. I don't really remember laughing at this movie except in a couple of scenes.

What else I want to say, is I've recently seen another kids movie of a losing team becoming a winning team called "Underdog Kids." While that movie was pretty cheesy, I actually enjoyed it somewhat, because I felt like that movie left some really good messages, and probably better messages than "Angels In The Outfield" when "Underdog Kids" doesn't talk about angels. So, I'd recommend that movie.

Also, the funniest book I've read IN MY ENTIRE LIFE is a book around the same age as "Angels In The Outfield" called "The Toilet Paper Tigers," a 1993 book by Gordon Korman. The book is about a low budget little league team of misfits, and a coach who doesn't know how to coach baseball. But, the coach's niece the same age as the boys finds ways to annoy the boys into making them become a winning team. Some of the boys secretly like her. That book would seem to make a better movie than "Angels In The Outfield," of course if it had the right director. It seems like a better story and more exciting. I'd definitely recommend that book.

"Angels In The Outfield," entertains me somewhat, but I wouldn't recommend it. I feel like this movie has too much emphasis on angels helping a losing team in cheesy ways, and a boy in a foster home in mostly ways that aren't inspiring, losing the movie's entertaining factor. Watch another Disney movie the same age as this instead, "Blank Check." I feel like that one is way more entertaining. I give Angels In The Outfield A 6 for some entertainment, and a movie I enjoyed when I was a kid.

I know that actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. "Angels in the Outfield" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes.