Angels in the Endzone (1997)

Angels in the Endzone (Dir: Gary Nadeau, 1997).

More spiritual shenanigans with the heavenly bodies last seen in Angels in the Outfield (William Dear, 1994); on hand here to help out failing football team the Westfield Angels. Unlike its predecessor this, the first of two sequels to Walt Disney Pictures' modest box office hit, bypassed cinemas; instead premiering on ABC's The Wonderful World of Disney TV series in autumn 1994. 

Following the untimely death of his father, promising player Jesse (Matthew Lawrence) quits his high school football team to hang with a bad crowd. Little brother Kevin (David Gallagher) prays to the heavenly angels to aid the ailing Westfield Angels, in the hope that their success will inspire Jess to return to the team. Industrial strength schmaltz is applied liberally to a predictable plot in which the only real surprise was that I made it to the end credits. 

Perhaps I am being a little harsh on Angels in the Endzone. The lazy cultural stereotypes, forced slapstick and stodgy sentiment is something that will likely bother its intended young audience far less than it does a jaded, so-called movie reviewer like myself. It is by no means difficult to watch, but I do find the mix of saccharin and spiritualism a bit of an acquired taste. 

In its favour is a likeable cast. Returning from the first movie is Christopher Lloyd as head angel Al, doing his lovable eccentric bit as a kind of divine Doc Brown. It is certainly no stretch for the star but he makes more of an impression here than in ...Outfield and shares some nice scenes with youngster David Gallagher. Veteran Paul Dooley also impresses as weather beaten Coach Buck; so good is his performance that it is a shame it is not in a better movie. As it is, Dooley and Lloyd are easily the best reason for watching. 

To say Angels in the Endzone is a better movie than the first is not saying much. But a less cloying concept, thankfully free of orphans, and a darker second half ultimately makes for  more palatable viewing than its predecessor. Following the same narrative beats as Angels in the Outfield, it is fair to assume that if you liked that movie you will enjoy this one too. Angels were definitely smiling on fans of the franchise as a third movie Angels in the Infield (Robert King, 2000) inexplicably followed. None of the series is, as yet, available on the Disney+ streaming service, perhaps giving some indication of their limited appeal. By all means give them a look if you stumble upon them but I wouldn't necessarily recommend tracking them down.

Angels in the Outfield (1994)

Angels in the Outfield (Dir: William Dear, 1994).

Walt Disney animation was enjoying a long awaited renaissance in the 1990s, with features such as Beauty and the Beast (Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise, 1991) and Aladdin (Ron Clements & John Musker, 1993) achieving popular and critical success on a scale little seen since the golden age of the 1930s/40s. Over at Disney's live-action department it was a different story. Formulaic comedy and kid's sports movies dominated a release schedule only occasionally punctuated by big hits such as Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (Joe Johnston, 1989) and Cool Runnings (Jon Turteltaub, 1993). Fantasy baseball movie Angels in the Outfield was the studios' attempt to hit a home run in the busy summer blockbuster season of 1994. 

With his mother dead, young Roger (Joseph Gorden Levitt) is already residing in a foster care home when estranged dad (Dermot Mulroney) tells the boy they will only be a family again when no-hoper baseball team the Angels win the pennant. Roger's prayers are answered when a group of angels, lead by Christopher Lloyd, intervene to secure the team their most successful season. Team manager George Knox (Danny Glover), while skeptical about the heavenly help, befriends the kid, becoming a surrogate father of sorts to the abandoned boy. No spoilers are necessary in this review, as the movie's outcome is obvious long before the final inning.   

A remake of a vintage MGM production, also titled Angels in the Outfield (Clarence Brown, 1951), Disney's take adds kid appeal by way of an extra dollop of saccharine, making an already sticky concept even gooier. Indeed, the combination of angels, orphans and cloying sentiment is a little hard to swallow and may leave a lump in your throat for the wrong reasons. The cliches come quicker than a fastball in a movie photographed through a soft-lens golden hue as if it were perpetual sundown, while some laboured comedy and a predictable plot would have seemed out of date when the original version was released. 

What makes the picture watchable is the surprisingly starry cast. Pre-stardom Joseph Gordon Levitt, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey appear alongside veterans Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd and Ben Johnson. TV sitcom star Tony Danza contributes a sensitive performance as a washed-up ballplayer while, as the beleaguered boss, Glover invests an earnestness into his performance that the picture really doesn't deserve.  

The fantasy baseball movie had become something a sub-genre of its own by the mid '90s; in the previous decade both The Natural (Barry Levinson, 1984) and Field of Dreams (Phil Alden Robinson, 1989) achieved considerable artistic and commercial success. While a moderate box office hit, Angels in the Outfield was almost universally panned by critics and three decades later is an almost entirely forgotten entry in the Walt Disney Pictures canon. It did, however, spawn a mini-franchise of sorts, with sequels Angles in the Endzone (Gary Nadeau, 1997) and Angles in the Infield (Robert King, 2000) debuting on ABC's The Wonderful World of Disney television series. 

With an unexpected subject matter from a company that largely avoids spiritual symbolism in its product, the movie is, perhaps tellingly, one of only a few 90's Disney movies yet to make it to the Disney+ streaming service.  Its talented cast means that Angels... is not entirely unwatchable and it has a undeniable weird appeal. Check it out if you must, but be wary that a strong stomach is needed to digest all that sugary sentiment.

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Battleship Potemkin (Dir: S M Eisenstein, 1925).

A hack like me is nowhere near good enough a writer to properly do justice to Sergei Eisenstein's epic of silent cinema, Battleship Potemkin. Besides which, so much has already been written on the subject that it would be virtually impossible to bring anything new to the discussion. However, since I proclaim to be a movie reviewer, I would be failing my own craft not to at least give it a go. 

Battleship Potemkin is a dramatic reconstruction of the mutiny of the Imperial Russian Navy ship Potemkin and events surrounding the 1905 Russian Revolution. Commissioned by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the incident, the movie is an early example of film as political propaganda. So powerful was director Eisenstein's film that it was banned by governments, including the UK, in fear of evoking similar protests among the proletariat. 

To claim Battleship Potemkin is possibly the most influential movie of all time is no exaggeration. Through use of dramatic editing, Eisenstein pioneered the technique of montage most notable in the scenes of maggoty meat, the much imitated Odessa steps sequence and, my personal favourite, the symbolic awakening stone lion. 

Almost a century after its initial release, Battleship Potemkin is still an incredibly powerful piece of movie making. The juxtaposing of images to create dramatic tension feels palpably modernist and literally changed film editing forever. Pioneering the docu-drama before the term 'documentary' had been coined; its influence on the British film industry and the subsequent realist movement is immeasurable. 

Battleship Potemkin arguably rivals the likes of Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) and Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) for the title of Greatest Movie Ever Made. It is a monumental motion picture that should be cornerstone viewing for those with even the slightest interest in film. If you have seen it, you know what I am talking about. If you haven't I recommend you cancel all further engagements and watch it immediately. Once you have done that I suggest you seek out the writings of a proper film historian who can offer an appropriate appraisal of this masterpiece.