Angels in the Outfield

A smooth-swinging fable that lays solid wood on the issues that matter. [15 July 1994, p.F]

Despite its heavy use of romantic sentiments, Angels in the Outfield is a heartwarming fairy tale that left me with a happy feeling. [22 July 1994, p.29]

But as a neo-Dickensian Disney exercise in old-fashioned sentiment this has a certain charm and a sense of human decency that tended to win me over. Read full review

Angels in the Outfield has a lot going for it, beginning with the engaging performances of Glover and Gordon-Levitt in the lead roles. [15 July 1994, p.8]

The plot in Angels in the Outfield plods some, enough to make younger kids fidget. Once the premise is established, the movie relies on a noisome reporter threatening to expose the celestial help to add suspense. The humor is aimed squarely at kiddies and is of the nerdy-guy-sits-on-a-tray-of-nachos variety. [15 July 1994, p.G4]

Fans should enjoy it; parents won't suffer too much. Read full review

At Angels‘ end, Al tells Roger, ”We’re always watching.” That’s more than audiences will say about this disappointing movie. Read full review

The baseball action isn't very interesting because the angels (led by Christopher Lloyd) manipulate the outcomes. And the human interest stuff is canned and unconvincing. Read full review

This remake of the 1951 family fantasy is strictly minor league, struggling mightily to balance heartwarming sentiment with sporty sight gags, yet never getting beyond second base. Read full review

The term “crowd-pleasing” is frequently overused, but it applies to this — the latest in a line of so-so baseball movies, which serves up its corn so unabashedly it’s hard to take offense at its sappiness. Read full review

Angels in the Outfield may not be a great baseball movie, but it is a cheerful line drive as a story about having faith when the world seems stacked against you. Read full review

There's nothing really awful about Angels in the Outfield." But it never becomes more than an efficient, by-the-numbers reworking of the 1951 baseball fantasy about cellar-dwellers turned pennant-winners with a little supernatural help. [15 July 1994, p.41]

Perfectly harmless fluff. [15 July 1994, p.D28]

Tepidly tolerable to under-8s. [15 July 1994, p.5D]

For this Disney remake of a saccharine 1951 baseball comedy, the targeted age group has been lowered to around nine. That means plenty of mustard-squirting slapstick and not very much of the beauty and drama of the actual game [15 July 1994]

A big dripping scoop of marshmallow sentiment topped with whipped-cream spirituality. [15 July 1994, p.C10]

The kind of saccharine exercise that ought to do wonders for the cause of atheism. [15 July 1994, p.03]

The sap in this movie rises almost as high as the Angels. It's a special kind of kiddie sentimentality: fantastical and self-congratulatory. Read full review

So syrupy-sweet in its depictions of the game, angels, orphans, children's wishes, and estranged parents, that it may be all you can do to keep from taking a Louisville Slugger to the projectionist. Read full review

It's funny for young kids, extremely non-critical moviegoers and possibly people with a catatonic medical condition. But it's painfully idiotic for anyone else. Read full review

By the time the last out is called, the movie's shamelessness far outweighs its charms. Aimed at the minors, it's in a bush league all its own. Read full review

Any time Disney tries their hand at live action, though, the results are usually pretty poor. Just not this bad. Read full review

A dreary, old-fashioned kids' baseball fantasy. Read full review