"The Wonderful World of Disney" Angels in the Endzone (TV Episode 1997) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
The simple change from baseball to American football isn't sufficient
r96sk29 September 2020
Boring, mainly thanks to its copied main premise from the first film of this remake trilogy.

'Angels in the Endzone' is a lame watch. I do appreciate the switching up of the backstory for the sporting events, but even then they don't exactly create a fresh, new plotline or anything - it's hearty, but something we've all seen before. The simple change from baseball to American football isn't sufficient.

The overall acting, though a big drop from the 1994 production, is actually pretty solid, even if none of the cast particularly stand tall in my memory. Christopher Lloyd is again underused, not that I blame him for not committing fully to this - the cheek to put him on the cover, by the way. Of the main, more used cast members, Paul Dooley is probably the standout.

A disappointing sequel to 'Angels in the Outfield'. Here's hoping for an improvement from 'Angels in the Infield' - I'm an optimist!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Familiar story but entertainment for the whole family
michaelzstuff3 January 2004
Angels in the Endzone is a very good family movie, Christopher Lloyd, Paul Dooley, and Matthew Lawrence .... give reasonably good performances. Angels is probably not the best made football movie ever made, but it has some funny sequences and serious moments. Disney actually did a good job with this one, watch it with the kids.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
First movie?
ericstevenson5 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Of all the heat people might give Disney for direct to video animated sequels, they don't do well with live-action ones either. This is basically "Angels In The Outfield" with football. Christopher Lloyd is the only actor from the original movie and he's probably the only good thing. I really do miss seeing those other talented actors here, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt. There's this one annoying guy who's constantly betting on the losing team. Why doesn't he just try the other team?

The actual team is called the Angels and their opponents are called the Devils. How explicit. We don't get any scenes involving the law or anything which really was a big part of the original films (the 1951 version is what I'm also counting). The movie is mostly just boring. There's no team that makes it professionally and thus much less tension. The ending is the exact same too. *1/2
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Once again, the kids are smarter than the adults.
mark.waltz30 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Charming but predictable, this direct-to-video sequel of the Disney remake of "Angels in the Outfield" (itself an MGM film from the 1950's) is a mild family comedy distraction, the type of thing that Disney did with a punting donkey back in the 1970's ("Gus"), yet perhaps a bit more schmaltzy because it focuses on pathos rather than punchlines or slapstick. The story focuses on high school football player Matthew Lawrence, the only hope of his losing football team oh, unfortunately quitting because he's grieving over the death of his father.

Younger brother David Gallagher has the gift of seeing angel Christopher Lloyd, returning from the previous film, reminding me of Sid Caesar from "Grease". Mom Lynda Boyd rolls her eyes at Gallagher's fantasy and somehow he ends up in therapy where the wacky Lloyd interferes, seemingly making a pass at Boyd after taking over his therapist's body. It's obvious where this is going, just a matter of time before Lawrence rejoins the team and the dead dad (played by Jack Coleman of "Dynasty") shows up.

Yes, the big heart of this film is indeed touching, but it gets a little sentimental after a while, mainly stolen anytime that Lloyd is on screen or young Sean Amsing as the enthusiastic exchange student. The writing for him is very cliched, especially when he doesn't know where a jockstrap goes or puts his football uniform trousers on backwards. But he gives a sweet, heartfelt performance, and every time he's on screen, he steals the scene. Veteran actor Paul Dooley plays the coach, perplexed by things that he can't see that appear rather strange to him. Normally I find juvenile comedies like this cloying (there is one thing with Gallagher crying that really is), but for the most part, this is a lot of fun.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A sensitive story
zparticles18 October 2003
I actually saw this before its predecessor ("Angels in the Outfield"), so maybe that makes me biased, but I enjoyed it more. Like "Outfield", it's a really sensitive story about trying to overcome a loss in life. Matthew Lawrence and David Gallagher are great as the two brothers, as is Paul Dooley as the football coach. Another great Disney Channel movie that leaves you feeling good inside.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent sequel
cfrate20 June 2007
It's rare that a sequel is as good or better than the original, but "Angels in the Endzone" is certainly that. It's the story of a boy who loses interest in football after his father dies, but regains his love of the game with help from on high. A fine cast featuring Christopher Lloyd and future "Hero" Jack Coleman headline this film that, while less lighthearted than "Angels in the Outfield", is more emotionally satisfying.

The director coaxes very believable and heartwarming performances from the younger stars, and the football sequences are much more believable than most bigger budget films.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed