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 guide
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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 46:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 455 reviews in total 

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Rather disappointing

Author: alangalpert from Virginia
29 April 2010

There are really only three good things about this movie: the opening credits, which are a psychedelic masterpiece; seeing Uma Thurman in a bright red "cat-suit"; and the radio-controlled dive-bombing attack hornets (or whatever they are). If "The Avengers" is a spoof, it isn't as funny or self-mocking as spoofs should be (e.g. "Austin Powers", or the first "Casino Royale"). If it isn't a spoof, it is pretty inane.

Ralph Fiennes is a good actor, but he was simply miscast. He is much too meek and lacking in panache for a Secret Agent (in the movies, anyway). The special effects at the end are fairly well done, even though most of what we see is a model.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

I'm terribly sorry, but I liked this movie

Author: revival05 from Sweden
5 June 2000

ok, so it might just be a leaf in the wind but it's not that bad.

It was quite odd and in many ways ve-he-ry funny. Now I am of course not talking about poor Ralph nor Thurman, I'm of course relating to HILARIOUS SEAN CONNERY!

I laughed my head off at his quotes: "Peel... Emma Peel", and "you all know who I am". Since this is an agent film, and he is the king of agent... well you know.

I'd give THE AVENGERS 6/10 and I really don't understand what's so bad about it. It sure is ten times better than many, many other movies.

Well, as Eminem should have said, if you don't like my taste...sue me!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

So nobody has a sense of humor anymore, is that it?

Author: Clint Walker from Illinois, USA
13 December 1999

I'm not going to spend a great deal of time trying to argue the point, but I like this film.

I'm too young to remember the original series all that well, but I do recall watching it in reruns when I was a little guy. And let me ask you, what young kid, on the cusp of manhood, wouldn't have dropped their jaws at the original Emma Peel?

Unfortunaly, I don't think that many other people my age feel the same way I do about the series, so I can understand why this bombed in theatrical release. But thanks to video, I hope this film will catch on as a cult hit.

What did I like about it? Well, I thought the campy tone fit the silly feel of the original series quite well; Also, the idea of an unbrella as a weapon of destruction just seems cool to me; Plus, Uma Thurman certinaly isin't Diana Rigg, but she's not exactly hard on the eyes either.

Please don't listen to the critics on this one. If you like Austin Powers or are just discovering the joys of the old spy flicks, you'll enjoy this one.

Just remember to try to find episodes of the original series as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Uma Goes to Camp

Author: oscarhopkins from United States
18 April 2005

By no means a classic, this film does, nonetheless, find its way into my collection, and refuses to be ignored. I've watched it an amazing seventeen times, and even I cannot fully explain the attraction. I'm not the world's biggest Uma fan (I understand he's into making bad Sonny Chiba knock-offs at present), and while I admit a weakness for Fiennes and Connery, it alone wouldn't save this mess.

And a mess it is, with unexplained ventures into the absurd and a less-than-steady plot pace. But the stars put forth effort and give truly noteworthy attempts with a flagging script. The plot may be wretched, but the dialogue is clever and engaging. If nothing else, perhaps this is what makes watching The Avengers a lot like getting a visit from an witty-if-awkward friend.

If you're into the series, don't expect the polish given to that British classic, but don't be too afraid, either. John Steed still gives evil the fine, English-leather boot.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A mess...

Author: shaun_lucas from Stafford, England
4 September 2003

...but only in its current form. "The Avengers caught the 60's surrealist vibe that surrounded the original TV series beautifully. It's a sincere pity that a few test audiences, who obviously didn't understand where the film was coming from, were enough to cause the movie to be butchered. As a result a total of 45 minutes of footage ended up being cut out of the film entirely. What we are left with is an almost incomprehensible mess, with many plot holes - how precisely does Mrs. Peel end up wearing the exact same black catsuit that her clone did in previous scenes, for instance? A release of the original cut is probably never forthcoming, and that is a real shame.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: rps-2 from Bracebridge Ont
29 August 2009

Hey... I liked it. I had seen some episodes of the old TV series but I don't really remember them. This movie is a monstrous put-on, a huge satire, a brilliant send up of the Brit way of life and of other adventure movies. There are some great sight gags --- tea from the dashboard? Bad guys in bunny suits? --- and some clever dialogue. I'm sure it's one of those movies where you'll find something new every time you watch it again. There is a bit of James Bond, Harry Potter and Batman. The effects are great. I've never been able to figure out just where Ralph Fiennes fits. But he's perfect in this role with the impassive face and the unruffled attire. And Sean Connery makes an interesting villain for somebody who usually is the good guy. Really surprised by the low rating.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Search the cutting room floor for clues

Author: jake87 from Westfield, NJ
18 February 2003

As it turns out, the one group of diabolical masterminds that `The Avengers' can't outwit is film editors.

Still, despite its well-documented flaws, this movie doesn't quite deserve the peasants-with-pitchforks-and-torches reception that it got from fans of the 1960s British TV series.

For those who come to it with no expectations, well, your expectations won't necessarily be exceeded, but there are some fun bits. The movie version is as mindless as typical Hollywood summer action fare, but no worse.

First, the good news: screenwriter Don MacPherson does draw on a wealth of wacky plot points from the series; like that show, the movie does have stylish fashions and sets; it doesn't take itself too seriously.

But the heart of the show was the rapport between Patrick Macnee, playing suave agent John Steed, and his various leading ladies. In Cathy Gale, the brisk, buxom Honor Blackman created a leather-clad woman warrior who was still a feeling person. With her fashion-model figure and classical theater background, Diana Rigg made Emma Peel the ultimate in intelligence and charm. Voluptuous Linda Thorson was perhaps too young, but she brought a combination of physicality and bubbliness to Tara King.

Macnee provided graceful support to these three very different actresses, and the show arguably reached its height during the black-and-white Diana Rigg season. While Rigg made an arch, androgynous Emma Peel, her chemistry with Macnee produced role models for female-male relations.

It's a difficult formula to emulate, and there may have been worse choices that Ralph Fiennes as the movie Steed. The Rock comes to mind. But while Fiennes is attractive and seems kindly off-screen, on-screen he generates all the warmth and charm of week-old bath water.

And while Macnee did as few stunts as possible _ as even a cursory glance at a TV episode clearly shows _ he at least looked formidable. Fiennes looks like a gust of wind would blow him away _ unfortunate, considering the film's weather-related plot.

In contrast, the athletic Uma Thurman creates her own special effect as Emma Peel. Her dangerous curves seem to defy the laws of physics, filling catsuits in ways that the underendowed Diana Rigg couldn't imagine, much less match.

And Thurman's Emma starts out well, with her early scenes providing much of Rigg's breezy playfulness. Alas, the more time she spends with Fiennes, the more she mimics his mumbling, diffident performance. As the scenes jump around almost at random, Thurman's version of Emma becomes equally fractured.

Sean Connery gives a one-note performance, and one wishes that only dogs could hear him. Of course, the choppy editing doesn't give him a chance at grace notes. The megalomaniacs on TV episodes were often eccentrics in a script filled with eccentrics, with highly personal grievances and plots.

The movie lacks those charming supporting characters, and in this underpopulated movie, Connery is the obvious bad guy right from the start. Still, even if the cast is adrift, there is some genuine feeling between the Steed and Peel characters. It's a pale copy of the Macnee-Rigg pairing, but one suspects there was a better movie here that got derailed on the Hollywood assembly line.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

You've got to be joking

Author: Robert M. Flaxman from South Orange, NJ
30 August 1998

It looked good on the trailers, and with Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, and Sean Connery how could there be anything too wrong with it? Has Ralph Fiennes ever been in a disappointing movie? Well, if he hasn't before, he certainly has now.

The dialogue was forced, the plot came out too rapid fire, and it's never really even explained who was who. There were some good special effects, but movies that think special effects can cover up bad plot are just wrong.

This movie was just bad. I'll give a D and I really wish I hadn't wasted even 87 minutes of my time.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Hugely enjoyable

Author: calumgordon from France
26 October 2008

I've just seen this on DVD, nearly 10 years after it was made. It cost me a pound, and, aware of it's dodgy reputation my expectations weren't high.'s great! Incredibly stylish, amazing sets, great acting and as light-hearted and witty as the original TV series.

The two leads are excellent, and contrary to what has been claimed, do indeed have a wonderful chemistry between them. I would argue that Ralph Fiennes is incapable of giving a bad performance, and Uma Thurman is rather wonderful too. Their dialogue is very well written with quips a-plenty. Sean Connery is hilarious, and obviously relished his role as the baddie, and Jim Broadbent is equally amusing. The plot is wafer thin and zips along splendidly. I wasn't aware until I read other comments here that the film was butchered by studio executives. If that is indeed the case, I add my vote for a Director's Cut. 90 minutes was definitely too short.

The initial failure of this film at the box office was undoubtedly due to its subtlety. Understatement and tongue-in-cheek humour have never been a premium on the other side of the pond, and I imagine that in Blighty the TV series is seen through such thick lensed rose-coloured spectacles that any movie version was bound to be heretical.

Which is funny - granted that Diana Rigg played the sexiest TV character in history and that Patrick McNee was perfect as John Steed, but anyone who actually watches these old episodes will be aware of their surrealness and complete inability to take themselves seriously (hats off to the writers). These are exactly the elements that the movie version captures so well. Hats off to Mr Chechik, the director (and Canadian - significant?) After so many turgid and gloomy blockbusters (Bourne trilogy, new Bond - entertaining but not exactly a barrel of laughs) it was fantastic to discover this lost classic. Watch it!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

It's not a bad movie at all!

Author: darkangel-5 ( from Budapest, Hungary
1 July 2003

I felt forced to write a comment on this movie, because I had previously found it on the top list of worst movies of all times. I still believe it was a nice try, good actors, good acting and lyrically beautiful! I guess most people who had seen this movie concentrated too much on the plot, which actually doesn't really exist, but the movie is not about a possible interesting plot. The movie Avengers entertain us in a different way, it is more like a theatrical piece on the big screen. I really enjoyed the spoken words in the movie, poems replaced conversations. And all this lingual beauty put in a colorful, amazingly well-made, painting-like cinematography. This movie is like indulging ourselves in the world of beautiful paintings and colors, and literature at the same time. So who cares about any plot?

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 46:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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