richard-1787
It's hard to believe that this movie was directed by Clarence Brown, who gave us such masterpieces as Garbo in Anna Karenina, Gable and Shearer in Idiot's Delight, and a very moving adaptation of Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust. Be that as it may, this a a generally flat film, with no real sense of pacing. The actors are all fine - indeed, much better than their material - but they can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.Which is not to say that there is nothing of value here, however. The last part of the movie, which doesn't build a lot of tension, nevertheless shows the main character doing something very decent. It could be developed a lot more effectively, I suppose, but there's something very satisfying about that. (I won't go into details, because I wouldn't want to ruin it for anyone.) Yes, this movie is worth watching. It's not close to being a great movie, but it won't waste your time, either.-------------------------I watched this again tonight on TCM. The basic plot - a baseball manager's conversations with angels - is pure fantasy, and not that interesting. It is also very much a repeat of the 1947 20th Century Fox hit Miracle on 34th Street, especially in the final courtroom scene, where, this time, various witnesses are called in to prove the existence of angels, as opposed to Santa Claus. For that, Miracle was a much better movie than this.But where this movie is interesting is its recreation of baseball in the late 1940s/early 1950s. The Pittsburgh "fans" turn downright vicious when they fear leaving an aging pitcher in will cause them to lose the game they need to win the pennant. There are other touches here and there that come off as very real, despite the fantasy of the main story line.As I wrote last year, you won't waste your time watching this movie. Some of it is blatant emotion manipulation. But there are interesting elements in it as well.
disdressed12
i thought this was a very touching heartwarming comedy/fantasy/baseball movie that's suitable for the whole family.sure it's a bit predictable and maybe a bit sappy,and hokey,but not overly.it's good quality entertainment that might just warm your heart.and there's nothing wrong with that.i chuckled quite a bit.i think i even had a tear or two in my eye.this is one of those feel good movies that will lift your spirits if you're feeling down.Janet Leigh and Paul Douglas are great together and Donna Corcoran as eight year old Bridget White is adorable.overall,a very good heartwarming film that the whole family can enjoy.for me Angels in the Outfield is an 8/10
moonspinner55
Baseball and fantasy combine to make exceptionally comfortable movie partners here, as the hot-headed, foul-mouthed (for 1951) manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team learns to clean up his act after he and his losing team receive Divine Intervention on the playing field. Potentially sticky premise gets some heavenly assistance of its own, with Paul Douglas just about perfect in the lead. He's supported by a fine cast, including Keenan Wynn, Janet Leigh (looking lovely), as well as Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, and Bing Crosby in smart cameos. The whimsical script is surprisingly witty, and the direction is straightforward and never too mawkish. Remade by the Disney people in 1994, with one major difference: in this one, you don't see the angels. *** from ****
bkoganbing
Before the New York Mets came along, the Pittsburgh Pirates were the first name in baseball for flat footed futility. At the time that Angels in the Outfield was made the Pirates had a long term lease on the National League cellar. In fact the only reason the Pirates drew any crowds at all was the presence of the premier slugger in the National League, Ralph Kiner. One shudders to think where they might have finished without him.But that's reality. In this film some heavenly help is granted the Pirates, presumably by a long suffering Deity who's maybe a Pirate fan. That is on condition that manager Paul Douglas clean up his act. He's told that by unseen angel James Whitmore.As it turns out Douglas is not the only one getting celestial visitations. He only hears angels, but little Donna Corcoran sees them behind every Pirate player on the field. When reporter Janet Leigh writes the story all kinds of complications ensue.Even without the special effects of the 1994 remake, Angels in the Outfield still maintains an innocent charm that is irresistible to baseball fans of a perennial losing team. After all we found out in Damn Yankees the kind of outside help they've been getting to stay on top. Nine years later the Pirates were in fact World Series winners, humbling the mighty Yankees in seven games. And for thirty years after that the Pirates were a contending ball club. They're back in the doldrums that Angels in the Outfield portrays. Maybe time for another heavenly assist.
AD
