Performance & Direction: Angels in the Infield Review
Last updated: February 4, 2026
Quick Verdict: Hit or Flop?
Is Angels in the Infield (2000) worth watching? According to our cinematic analysis, the film stands as a ABOVE AVERAGE with a verified audience rating of 5.6/10. Whether you're looking for the box office collection, ending explained, or parents guide, our review covers everything you need to know about this Comedy.
Cast Performances: A Masterclass
The success of any Comedy is often anchored by its ensemble, and Angels in the Infield features a noteworthy lineup led by Patrick Warburton . Supported by the likes of David Alan Grier and Britt Irvin , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
Final Verdict: Is it Worth Watching?
Story & Plot Summary: Angels in the Infield
Quick Plot Summary: Angels in the Infield is a Comedy, TV Movie, Fantasy film that brings laughter through sharp writing and comedic timing, providing amusement while touching on deeper societal themes. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Explained: Angels in the Infield
Ending Breakdown: Angels in the Infield attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to comedy resolution.
The conclusion addresses the core thematic questions, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
Ending Analysis:
- Narrative Resolution: The story concludes by addressing its primary narrative threads, providing closure while maintaining some ambiguity.
- Character Arcs: Character journeys reach their narrative endpoints, reflecting the film's thematic priorities.
- Thematic Payoff: The ending reinforces the comedy themes established throughout the runtime.
The final moments of Angels in the Infield reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Who Should Watch Angels in the Infield?
Consider Watching If:
- You're a completist for Comedy films
- You're curious despite mixed reviews
- You have low expectations and want casual entertainment
Top Cast: Angels in the Infield
All Cast & Crew →










Angels in the Infield Parents Guide & Age Rating
2000 AdvisoryWondering about Angels in the Infield age rating or if it's safe for kids? Here is our cinematic advisory:
⏱️ Runtime & Duration
The total runtime of Angels in the Infield is 89 minutes (1h 29m). Ensuring you have enough time for the full cinematic experience.
Verdict Summary
Analyzing the overall audience sentiment, verified rating of 5.6/10, and global performance metrics, Angels in the Infield is classified as a ABOVE AVERAGE. It remains an essential part of the 2000 cinematic calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Angels in the Infield worth watching?
Angels in the Infield is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Comedy movies. It has a verified rating of 5.6/10 and stands as a ABOVE AVERAGE in our box office analysis.
Where can I find Angels in the Infield parents guide and age rating?
The official parents guide for Angels in the Infield identifies it as PG. Our detailed advisory section above covers all content warnings for families.
What is the total runtime of Angels in the Infield?
The total duration of Angels in the Infield is 89 minutes, which is approximately 1h 29m long.
Best Movies to Watch if you liked Angels in the Infield
How Angels in the Infield Compares & Where it Ranks
Critic Reviews for Angels in the Infield
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.
movieMx Verified
This review has been verified for accuracy and editorial quality by our senior cinematic analysts.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.
Useful Links
More with Patrick Warburton
View full filmographyPart of the Angels in the ... Collection
Explore the full watch order, ratings, and collection details.
View Full Franchise








