(The Disneycember logo is shown, before showing clips from Angels in the Outfield)
Doug (vo): Somehow, I missed 1994's Angels in the Outfield when it first came out. Actually, that's a complete lie. I know exactly why I missed it. I was a cynical 13-year-old, and, by God, this is not a movie a cynical 13-year-old wants to go see. And now that I'm a cynical 41-year-old, it's still not the movie I want to see. It's cheesy, it's forced, it's lame. But I will say there are two things about it that stop it from being a forgettable, cornball film.
Story[]
Doug (vo): A little boy in California, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is obsessed with the California Angels, even though they're absolutely awful. After his mother passes, he holds out hope that his father, who clearly wants nothing to do with him, will return one day so they can be a family again. When the father jokingly says he won't return until the Angels win the pennant, the boy prays to God to make exactly that happen, and wouldn't you know it? Freaky as hell angels descend down from Heaven to...be terrifying. I don't like looking at these things. Their lead angel named Al, played by Christopher Lloyd, tells the boy that he's the only one who can see or hear them. The boy eventually gets around to telling the coach, played by Danny Glover, who, at first, doesn't believe him, but the more games they seem to keep playing, the more he brings them closer and closer as a good luck charm, and, naturally, he comes around to believing angels are helping out, too. But, oh, no. The story gets out there that the coach believes in angels and that they're helping out the team, which...the source is literally the little boy's even littler friend. I don't know how that's really reliable...and suddenly, he has to answer for this heinous crime, it might even cost him his job, which...I mean... (Chuckles) What? How many times have you seen superstitions in sports or people thank God or, yes, even claim there are angels helping them? This would not be that big a story.
Review[]
Doug (vo): But look, that's the kind of mindset I know this movie is not trying to have. I mean, by God, how many people are dying all across the world from war and hunger? But screw that noise, we're going to help this baseball team cheat like hell. But it's okay, they don't help them when they get to the pennant, 'cause...that's fair. You let them cheat all these other games, but the pennant? That would just be rigging the game. Like I said, though, I get that's not the way this film is supposed to operate. It's supposed to operate the same way this kid making this little prayer operates. It's a wish, it's a cute little fantasy, it's a kids' movie. And as those go, it's about as schmaltzy as you would expect.
(Various footage is shown, mostly focusing on the comedic moments)
Doug (vo): The jokes are pretty dumb, the effects are disturbing to look at. I have a similar problem with this kid that I did in Flight of the Navigator. I think he's just a little too old to believe in this. Oh, not the praying to God thing or anything, but that his father is legitimately serious when he says he'll return if the Angels win the pennant. Come on, you can tell that's clearly a joke, this kid would catch on to that. If he was about, say, the little friend's age, I would buy maybe he wouldn't put it together.
(Footage and stills focusing on products of the time is shown, as well as footage focusing on the special effects)
Doug (vo): However, there are two things that I do think really help it stand out. One is that, if Space Jam is a 1996 time capsule, this is definitely a 1994 time capsule. It was a lot of fun looking around recognizing stuff. Like, I think one kid had a Jurassic Park hat, there was a Crash Test Dummies poster in the background, another kid's wearing a No Fear shirt. Even just the kind of story and the way it's told feels very much like a 1994 movie. And that includes the half-assed effects for kids' films. Effects were pretty good at the time, but when it came to kids' films, they really did get the table scraps. There's one scene where the kid has to look up at the clouds and just wonder if he actually saw angels, and the clouds are choppy! How do you not have footage of just clouds?! It's Disney, they must have a whole library of clouds!
(Footage focusing on the actors and their performances is shown)
Doug (vo): But the other thing that really helps it stand out, and I wouldn't be surprised if this actually earned the film a little bit of a following, is its sincerity, particularly, the sincerity of the performances. Now, I'm not going to act like they all work. In fact, even some of the best ones start off a little cringy. Like, Danny Glover as the angry coach is actually so awkward and over-the-top, it kind of feels like that MAD TV sketch where they impersonate him doing his Lethal Weapon character. But when he has to turn around to be really truthful to himself and these kids and really honest and all that good stuff, he sells it really well. Brenda Fricker, I guess got typecast into playing the silver-hair angels. Yeah, in a film that's literally about angels, she's the one that seems the most angelic and kind. So many of the lines she has to read could have been delivered in such a more corny way, but she really does find that perfect balance. I'm really glad she got a big role in this. Tony Danza is very likeable and believable as the pitcher, and they even throw in a little bit of a bittersweet ending with him, and it was a little surprising. I guess I don't want to give anything away, but it was an unexpected turn in a movie where everything is pretty predictable, that I feel like could have gone even more corny, given how corny the rest of the film is. But I feel like they held back enough. Just hinting at it was the perfect amount. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is...good as the boy. Again, it's not like he has a ton to work with here, and this was pretty early on in his career, but he sells it okay. Some of the other characters are a little much, like the weird assistant who just seems to be a weird assistant, I don't know why he is that way. The best friend kind of says his lines a little weird. Christopher Lloyd, I know he's trying to come across as charming, but again, with some of the effects, he comes across a little bit more like Freddy Krueger. But it is kind of cool seeing some actors before they become big stars, like Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey.
Final thought[]
Doug (vo): Because of that, I can see somebody growing up with this movie and enjoying it fine, but I would say it's probably a movie you have to grow up with, or at the very least, have a memory of growing up with movies like this. For me, it's way too cheesy. It's just 100% not my thing, but I can definitely acknowledge the moments that are done well, and I really do believe the sincerity of this film is there. It just needed a better script, and I guess even a better idea. I mean, I didn't even know this was a remake. (The poster for the original Angels in the Outfield is shown) I never, ever realized that. And having not seen the original, maybe it's an idea that would work better back in the 50s. But I guess even as a corny 90s film just to kind of remember corny 90s films, there's an audience for this. Whether you see them in the outfield or in the depths of your nightmares, I get the feeling there's definitely a crowd out there who will like watching these angels.
(The scene showing the crowd waving their arms like angels' wings to support the team is shown)