AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

edwagreen Baseball films, especially those of the 1940s and 1950s were so good, and this film is no exception.As the cantankerous manager, the always excellent Paul Douglas has a role made for him. When a woman reporter is assigned to find out what's wrong with the Pittsburgh Pirates, she aptly comes to the conclusion that Douglas, who is irascible and making life miserable for the players, is the major cause of the teams woes. Janet Leigh is that reporter and any romantic attachment that forms between the two is really inane due to the vast age difference.Did anyone really recognize Spring Byington as Mother Superior? They really did an excellent job in disguising her.The picture deals with the coming of belief of angels by Guffy (Douglas) and he finally shows his humility in his actions, not only to the players but to an orphan girl, Donna Corcoran, who first sees angels when her orphanage brings her to a game.Keenan Wynn steals his acting scenes as a vicious sportswriter, out to get Guffy. He will do anything to attain his objective and even goes to accusing Guffy of insanity.Bruce Bennett as the dying pitcher, given one more chance in the show down game with the Giants, is memorable as well.

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.

Robert Germinsky I was taken by this movie the first time I ever saw it. That was so long ago, I can't even remember when. Paul Douglas as Guffy was superb. Angry, contrite at times, not quite sure what is happening with the angels, but in the end, he is willing to believe. The baseball scenes are pretty realistic. I enjoyed the shots of Forbes Field, as it was always one of my favorite places to watch a ball game. Donna Corcoran and Janet Leigh were both excellent playing their parts. However, the best performance (and most overlooked), was that of Keenan Wynne as the commentator. He played his part so perfectly that you forget this is only a movie. You really wanted to throttle him, the way he denigrated Guffy and the rest of the team. Excellent acting job on his part. James Whitmore did a great job as the voice of the angel, taking no "guff" from Guffy. I enjoyed the scene where Guffy lets his old and tired pitcher (Bruce Bennet) stay in the game, because Whitmore informs Guffy that "We are recruiting him (Bennet) next season." All in all, this was a terrific baseball movie. Yes it was predictable and at times a bit sappy. Having said that, the film was still well done and is certainly a fine movie for family entertainment.

smithy-8 "Angels in the Outfield" (1951) is the one of the best and most original comedies ever made. It is about a baseball manager (Paul Douglas) who loses his temper too much until he hears an angel's voice (James Whitmore), who makes a deal with him. He and his other angels will help the baseball team win games if the manager stops losing his temper. When the deal is set, the manager's life changes. It is a lovely movie to watch. The movie should have been nominated with Academy Awards for the major categories. It was totally ignored. Paul Douglas and Bruce Bennett, as the aging baseball player, should have been nominated for best actor and best supporting actor. They have something in common; both of them made another great movie in their long careers: Douglas made "Letter to Three Wives" and Bennett made "Mildred Pierce". "Angels in the Outfield" was perfectly cast. Another outstanding performance was by Kennan Wynn in his best role and best movie. Mr. Wynn should have been nominated for best supporting actor, too.