Angels in the Infield

Angels in the Infield

When Eddie Everett was a rookie in 1992, he led the California Angels to the American League Championship Series, where they played the Boston Red Sox. When a rookie playing for the Red Sox hits a ground ball to Everett, he bobbles it and is unable to get him out, while the runners he let on base score. Losing a chance to make it to the World Series. Ever since then, Everett had never been the same pitcher, or the same person. Six years later, Everett and his wife are divorced, and he has barely kept contact with their thirteen year old daughter, Laurel. However, at a game where the Anaheim Angels are playing the fictional Arizona Crimson Devils, and the Angels lose, his ex-wife says that she is taking a job in Boston and is leaving Laurel with him. When he takes her back home, she realizes that her father's life isn't at all what she thought it'd be. He can't get over losing that game his rookie year, and she prays that he can get a second chance.

When Eddie Everett was a rookie in 1992, he led the California Angels to the American League Championship Series, where they played the Boston Red Sox. When a rookie playing for the Red Sox hits a ground ball to Everett, he bobbles it and is unable to get him out, while the runners he let on base score. Losing a chance to make it to the World Series. Ever since then, Everett had never been the same pitcher, or the same person. Six years later, Everett and his wife are divorced, and he has barely kept contact with their thirteen year old daughter, Laurel. However, at a game where the Anaheim Angels are playing the fictional Arizona Crimson Devils, and the Angels lose, his ex-wife says that she is taking a job in Boston and is leaving Laurel with him. When he takes her back home, she realizes that her father's life isn't at all what she thought it'd be. He can't get over losing that game his rookie year, and she prays that he can get a second chance. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Angels in the Infield torrent reviews

Rachelle G (us) wrote: This epic masterpiece film is the epitome of survival and what family really means. It is the ultimate display of human connection and courage. I was immediately blown away, captured like never before and totally stunned by every single second that passed in Beasts of The Southern Wild.

Sheridan P (br) wrote: Sweet story of discovery, acceptance, and love - of self and by your "one"

Mila B (us) wrote: Incredible energy and music, but that is where the charm ends. Predictable and trashy.

Milo S (nl) wrote: Gay cinema, much like the gay man, is often let down by it's own contrived melodrama.

Roger Y (nl) wrote: What a Wes Anderson movie?Since I start watching this movie?I can't pause because it is so interesting.Can't believe this is he second time direct a movie?

Dimitri B (au) wrote: De enige 2 die beter is dan den 1

Ken T (kr) wrote: Uh, no...This was not even a possible SyFy "B" movie. This movie had it all bad acting, bad dialogue, and the special effects were something to be detested. The only thing it had going for it was the ladies were cute...Not gorgeous or beautiful, just cute. A waste of an hour and 27 minutes...

Ida K (ag) wrote: It's been quite a while since I've seen this film but I remember boo-hooing at the end. I'm quite the cat lover.

Jon A (au) wrote: Has not aged well. Lots of comedy Europeans, Vctor Mature sending himself up and the inimitable Peter Sellers make for an entertaining romp but the whole thing does feel horrendously dated.

Charlie M (gb) wrote: Classic perfect film. Old film that is entertaining enough for modern filmgoers to enjoy throughly. For those who may want to watch the film more studiously pay attention to how the film deals with its major themes (race, class, war).

Nathan S (gb) wrote: Why so much hate? Yes there are some flaws in the movie like: how Colin Ferrell has an Irish accent and how the movie isn't 100% accurate on the life of Alexander, but so what? I bought the Final Cut which is probably the best version just because it was more well put together. I liked how it wasn't in chronological order so throughout the movie you were thinking about these plot holes that would later be filled it. If they made the theatrical cut like that and if Colin Ferrell lost the accent than the film would have been more praised. They practically should have just gotten the Final Cut, trimmed it down 30 minutes to an hour, and there you go! Then critics would have praised it more and then viewers would have praised it more and then Oliver Stone would be even more praised. If only, if only.

Jacek H (ru) wrote: This movie brings nothing new to the genre it represents. It copies many ideas of other projects and doesn't do anything good with them. It is overrated.

Smashproplaya (mx) wrote: Acapella is not good for film

Violet S (us) wrote: This movie was above all things, just chill. An awesome chill.

Joe (gb) wrote: Sort of a spoof of High Noon. Probably one of the greatest forgotten gems of the 80's. Forgotten, likely, because the cast doesn't include any of the hevyweights (Broderick, Estevez, Ringwald, Howell, Sheedy, Lowe, Cruise et al), and it wasn't directed by John Hughes. It does, however, have a story that's still watchable today.

Noah H (de) wrote: Another pretty forgettable film. Come to think about it, what movie am I even reviewing right now?