IMDb > The Avengers (1998) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Avengers
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Avengers More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 12 of 45: [Prev][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [Next]
Index 448 reviews in total 

Pretty good, considering it's story

Author: johnsteede from Washington, USA
24 March 2001

I liked the movie, and it's kind of a pity what happened to it. The cats was good, with Ralph Fiennes from Schindler's List, Uma Thurman from Les Miserables, and Sean Connery. The costumes and sets were unique, with many details, the plot was a new concept (weather as a terrorist weapon), and interesting effects. Originally, the film was 2.5 hours or so but was edited down to about 1.5 instead. With that much cut down, it would probably mean that parts of the storyline were lost, and the characterization was toned down. The film also wasn't reviewed before hand in America, thus trashed here.

Was the above review useful to you?

Can be enjoyed if not taken too seriously. Quirkiness a plus.

Author: ai dee from New Zealand
18 March 2001

Apart from the technical effects, the other strength of this movie is that it recaptures the quirky eccentricity of the original series featuring Emma Peel, but is otherwise nowhere near as good. Not a movie one would want to see again. But disengage your critical faculties and it's enjoyable enough. Particularly recommended for teenage boys (e.g., my son!).

Was the above review useful to you?

Ralph, what were you thinking?

Author: Nocgirl72 from Phx, AZ
15 February 2001

I am a big fan of Ralph Fiennes and have enjoyed most of the movies I have seen him in so I thought I'd rent this one to check it out even though I was forewarned it was bad.

Well, it was bad. REALLY REALLY bad. The movie is so laughable it is so silly, unoriginal, and there are numerous errors I spotted in the film. I have a feeling post production ruined much of the movie as I understand the original running time was almost 2.5 hours and it was edited down heavily to just 90 minutes.

It is unfortunte that such a talented cast-Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, and Sean Connery was wasted on this mess. Ralph looked gorgeous,as usual though and he is the only reason I sat through 90 minutes of torture. A big Razzie for this one. 2/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Waste of Talent

Author: geraldv from Winnipeg, Canada
11 January 2001

James Bond meets Willy Wonka. The original series looked like a Scotland Yard documentary compared to this movie. Sean Connery should hold on tightly to his Oscar and hope none of the Academy has seen this junk.

Was the above review useful to you?


1 January 2001

This movie adaptation of the classic UK TV series "THE AVENGERS" fails on every conceivable level.Those,like me,who failed in convincing people after THE ENGLISH PATIENT that Ralph Fiennes was a stiff,wooden and boring actor were able to prove we were right in the end as Fiennes was useless in the role of debonair adventurer John Steed and showed conclusively how unwise it is nowadays to cast British actors in heroic roles.For every Pierce Brosnan we have to endure the likes of Fiennes,Hugh Grant,Jude Law and Ewan MacGregor to name but four.None of those mentioned could punch their weight against a formidable screen presence such as Sean Connery as Fiennes tried to do here.Uma Thurman was little better as Emma Peel and had no screen chemistry with Ralph the Plank at all. I would be surprised to see director Jeremiah Chechik assigned to a major project ever again.There are mistakes that can be atoned for in the course of time but not in the case of a dud on the level of THE AVENGERS,one of the worst movies of its type ever made.

Was the above review useful to you?

Bad... BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!!!!!!

Author: Keyser Soze-12 ( from Birmingham, AL
17 December 2000

What's the point of writing this review? Everyone ever born hates this movie, so there's no one to convince here. Why you ask? TO HAVE FUN WRITING IT!

On the good side: the actors really try their best. Connery is simi-funny. Uma is in leather, grrrrrr. And th cinematography is pretty good. Oh, and Big Ben is blown up.

On the bad: I think I can sum up the movie in a very simple, short idea. If an alien race, coming in peace, were to arrive on Earth millions of years after we blow ourselves up in some world war, they might find some movies and some equipment to play them. If the aliens are normal beings, with tastes similar to us, and they found The Avengers and watched it, they would think humans were crazy, stupid, and worthless creatures. And after being subjected to this mind numbing "movie", they would then seak out any remaining humans and probe them till their is nothing left to be probed. This is saying a lot because they are not a violent race and they came in peace.

In conclusion, The Avengers has some good parts. It looks rather pretty. And Uma Thurman is in a tight leather outfit. That's it folks. This movie tries to be artistic, and it comes off being insane. If anyone, ANYONE says this film is a work of art and is underrated, then seak out these people and probe them.

2/10 (it's that high due to Uma, otherwise, it would be a one)

Was the above review useful to you?

What a waste

Author: centropolis from la jolla, CALIFORNIA
28 November 2000

This was a waste. A giant waste. Waste of time, waste of talent(yes, you read right, there were talented people involved with this film), and a BIG F---ING WASTE OF $60 MILLION BUCKS!!! Well, where do I start? Ralph Finnes is very talented, Uma Thurman(Uma was cloned in the movie, maybe in real life also, because this doesn't seem like the one in the awesome Pulp Fiction), cinematographer Roger Pratt(Batman, 12 Monkies), porduction designer Stuart Craig(Dangerous Liaisons), editor Mick Audsley(High Fidelity, The Grifters), costume designer Anthony Powell(all 3 Indiana Jones, The Ninth Gate), and most of all Jim Broadbent(Topsy Turvy) who was obviously smoking something when he accepted this role. Sean Connery is no villian!! The real villian here is producer Jerry Weintraub, who is the brilliant mind behind such breath-taking(not) films such as Soldier with Kurt Russell, Vegas Vacation with Chevy Chase, and The Specialist with Sylvester Stallone. His apprentices in this is a no one named Don MacPherson who wrote this trash, and director Jeremiah S. Chechik(Diabolique w/ Sharon Stone). This film is a mess. I feel bad for the talents wasted here. Don't see this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

What the hell happened?!?!?!?!?!

Author: Kiwibob ( from Auckland, New Zealand
23 November 2000

Dear God in Heaven what the hell happened with this film?

I got to see this movie for free and I still felt short changed... considering that they had a great cast to work with and a whole lot of cash to throw around SOMETHING WENT TERRIBLY WRONG HERE!!!!!

This film playesd like a Simpsons version of the Avengers... I mean Big Ben being hit by lightning ands EXPLODING?!?!?! WHAT EXPLODED HERE PEOPLE?????? Big Ben has been hit by lightning thousands of times over the years (as have most of the worlds taller buidings) and seems to have survived quite well thank you.... did Sean Connery find out a way to blow up iron?

I hear that the two and a half hour version of the film made more sense(it sure could not make any less)... but I don't want to watch it to find out.

Was the above review useful to you?

Ridiculous waste of time

Author: Neal Klein from TX, USA
18 October 2000

Many negative comments I have read on the film center on a comparison between the TV series of the '60's and this ... film. Taking this movie on its own (ahem) merits, one can see how weak and poor it really is.

Don't try to figure out motivation. Too much of the film ended up on the cutting room floor to leave coherent explanations for DeWynter's reasons for doing what he does. The clone of Emma Peel is a loose end we never really understand. (It's simply another contrivance, like so much of the plot of this movie.) And the chemistry between Fiennes and Thurman is difficult to believe.

Sadly, the cast is a very talented assortment displaying no talent to speak of. Fiennes and Connery deliver their lines with the strength of a TV movie. And while Uma Thurman makes an attempt at actually acting (with a passable British accent), her performance is underutilized by the laughable direction.

And I haven't even compared this to the original TV series. When that is made, you can see this piece of trash for what it really is.

Emma Peel is not a weak or easily intimidated character. The director of this movie thought otherwise. John Steed is not a flat, joyless robot. Apparently, Ralph Fiennes had to interpret Steed in this way as to make him less likeable. The sets did not emphasize the loopy eccentricities made famous in the series. Instead, the feel of the story is incongruous and annoying. And it's revolting if you loved the original series.

I was astonished to see this film being sold in stores for $8 (pre-viewed). Word of mouth made certain it was one to avoid. And to save your time and minimize your revulsion, don't even rent it. Watch the original series and rejoice in that original atmosphere and clever campiness.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great film

Author: Peter W. Owens ( from Maine
27 September 2000

Apparently I'm part of the minority of film-goers who actually liked this movie. Par for the course, since I'm somewhat eclectic in my tastes. Anyway, I thought this film was excellent. It shows, for once and for all, that one does not need a 40-billion-dollar mega-blaster and trillions of rounds of ammunition. Sometimes, the movie points out, the simplest things work the best; I liked the fact that there was a sword-fighting scene, the fact that Uma Thurman's character took out the baddie without using a fancy wristwatch or wristband-laser-gadget. (I want to say, for the record, I love Bond movies, but sometimes the simpler ways are just as good.) The simple humor of tea time and such is a good reminder that, in the grand scheme of things, it's not only important to fight for something, but to occasionally take time out to appreciate-truly appreciate-what one is defending. Tea time, crumpets, and such, to a non-Britisher like me, is showing that you can have a good time without the typical American idea of "let's get drunk and screw." The humor was ideal; cat and mouse, understated with a delicious sense of wanting more, yet being strangely satisfied with the status quo. I absolutely fell down laughing when I saw "Alice" bring a tommy gun out of her handbasket on the bike. It was a gentle spy story, which is a refreshing change of pace with, as I said before, simplicity beating out an agent with a machine gun.

I actually will be so bold as to hope for a sequel.

Long live the Avengers. Mrs. Peel, you're needed!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 12 of 45: [Prev][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history