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 15 of 46: [Prev][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [Next]
Index 456 reviews in total 

Uma'st Be Joking!!

Author: Croftman from Cardiff, Wales
27 February 2000

How did this incompetent Director get the job? A lot of people seem to be blaming the Editor as well; but I say thank god that before any more of this dross took up minutes of my valuable life, it thankfully became consigned to the Cutting Room floor!!

The film tries desperately to be silly, more like the later, Tara King TV series episodes than those featuring Emma Peel. To make this work, a certain amount of TALENT must be employed! -Pity nobody told anyone. Not the worse film I've ever seen, -that honour still belongs to Independence Day. But a close second! The only marks to give this film are skidmarks!

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Xophianic from Pennsylvania, USA
4 February 2000

I wasn't all that interested in watching this movie, but I decided to anyway since it was one of the only ones that week there that I hadn't seen yet. I should've saw one of the others. I don't even remember what they are now, but it doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that THE AVENGERS is the worst movie of the decade and one of my least favorite movies of all time.

John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) team up to stop Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) from destroying the planet with a weather-changing machine. I won't go into the plot too deeply, because it's just plain stupid.

The acting in this movie was not very good. Ralph Fiennes and Fiona Shaw (Father) play two of the most annoying characters in any movies that I have ever seen. The constant unwitty one-liners between Fiennes and Thurman is very annoying. Sean Connery is at his worst here. I was disappointed in him, because he is a great actor who doesn't belong in this movie. Sir August de Wynter? Just the name of the character alone should tell you much.

There was, however, one thing that was good about this movie. That would be Uma Thurman in her tight leather. I am absolutely in love with Uma Thurman, and I don't think she belonged in this film, but I am pretty sure seeing her wearing those catsuits were the only thing that kept me from having to eat my own legs and drink my own urine to survive this movie.

Maybe you'll think I'm exaggerating a bit, but I found this movie to be boring and annoying. I recommend that it be avoided at all costs.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not for everyone, obviously

Author: Drew from New Brunswick, NJ
1 February 2000

A lot of people seem to vehemently hate this film. That doesn't disturb me at all. If you hated Toys (and most did), stay away from this too. But I loved Toys. It was simply magical. This gave me a similar feeling, but it's a very different film.

First let me say that Uma Thurman was obviously cast for her body rather than her body of work. She looks great, but is totally flat in every way (well, erm, not *every* way). Ralph Fiennes is delightfully understated as John Steed, and Sean Connery is wonderfully over-the-top. The supporting cast is very strong across the board.

This movie lives and dies not with the acting, or the writing, or the direction, but with something that few film viewers really appreciate. The tone. The tone of this film is delightful silliness. Not one moment of this movie takes itself even a little bit seriously. I can only assume that people who object to the magnificently surreal teddy bear get-ups don't appreciate this fact. Sure, if Al Pacino had tried to rob a bank dressed as a big pink teddy in Dog Day Afternoon, it wouldn't work. But it works wonderfully in this film. In fact, it's absolutely perfect. And it's indicative of the fact that this film is not realistic. It's surreal, and fantastical, and a little whimsical.

The dialogue fits with this perfectly. The relentless repartee between Peel and Steed is wonderful (just imagine a competent actor delivering Peel's lines with an authentic sounding accent, and it will help). It's a bit of a stretch that Peel is better than Steed at *everything*, and takes the PC thing a bit too far, but this is a minor quibble, as Peel wins and Steed loses with such wonderful grace and aplomb that it's hard to mind. Besides, Steed holds his end up well enough, so it's ok.

Anyway, you'll probably hate it if you're like most people, but I thought it was very enjoyable. I smiled through the whole thing. Fun fun fun.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: CptPtnia
23 January 2000

With a cast that includes Connery and Thurman, how could you possibly go wrong? Watch this movie and you will find out. Painful to's a shame that one of the greatest of all time, Connery, got himself involved in such a disaster.

Was the above review useful to you?

even Uma in a leather body suit isn't enough to recommend this mess

Author: cygnus x-1 from roanoke, va
4 January 2000

yet another example of hollywood being totally out touch with how to make GOOD movies. and yet another example of an editing team/studio thinking they can cut and chop a movie to make it something it wasn't intended to be (a boring art house flick, not an action movie). Uma Thurman looks fantastic in dual roles, but she along with everyone else, looks lost and confused as to what they're supposed to do with these characters. ralph fiennes was laughably bad and Sean Connery finally gave his first truly horrible performance.

i don't totally feel they are to blame though. the blame should be dumped on the director, editor and studio. how stuff like this gets past quality control is beyond me.

if you want to check out Uma's amazing body (which is the ONLY reason i rented it) then go ahead. but when you get the worst migraine you've ever had trying to comprehend why you sat through this pile of dung, you have noone to blame but yourself.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Nikita Kronlund (Nikita-3) from Stockholm, Sweden
29 December 1999

I'm too young for having seen the tv-series that the film was based on and therefore I unfortunately can't compare them. Anyhow, the movie is typical for Hollywood today. You take a script based on a popular event, add some "big" actors and then you have a movie that has to become a blockbuster, or is it really that simple. As everyone knows "The Avengers" wasn't a success in the theaters, which is good, but at the same time very sad. Good because the audience (obviously) doesn't watch any movie that has a great budget, but bad because of that there are some great things about the movie. First of all, the script was funny, but since the film was cut down, there's not a lot left of it. The parts that were left, though, were adequate. The cinematography by Roger Pratt is beautiful and both the production design and the costume design was dazzling. The actors do a good job and deliver their one-liners with good timing. Sure, this movie isn't one of the best action-adventures that I've seen, but works out quite well on a sunday afternoon. Too bad is only the bitter aftertaste that they could have made a much better film with the resources that they had.

Rating: 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

No one should miss this movie!

Author: Gabe Epstein (Gerbil-8) from Vermont, USA
13 November 1999

I saw the avengers with my brother expecting something roughly fun and enjoyable if not memorable. I got the opposite. This movie has a special place in my heart for being excitingly terrible. I hated this movie so much that I smile when I think of it. It is so much fun just to think about how poor this movie is. It is an amalgam of similar action-hero big-screen cross-overs: it has the Shadow's writing, Mission Impossible's apparent poor editing (just my theory as to why I couldn't get what was going on), and the Saint's terrible execution (that's another gem, there's a scene in that movie where two songs are playing at once, beautiful). The movie had style, but it was just silly, really, really silly. Like the scene where the two guys were walking across the water in those inflatable spheres, or the fact that the enemies were a clan of beanie baby impersonators. FUNNY!!! Maybe I have too much respect for the campy, but I just thought it was a great trip.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: DURANGO-6 from ireland
6 November 1999

Though highly self conscious, particularly in the exchanges between Thurman and Fiennes, this is still a very stylish piece of cinema, which does full justice to the tv series. As Steed and Peel, the leads don't quite have the same rapport as Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg. There is though a splendid performance from Sean Connery as one of the best movie villains in some time.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: ajax-12
24 October 1999

Paramount among the many things that puzzled me about this film is just how three engaging actors like Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman and Sean Connery could trade barbs and puns for an hour-and-a-half and not have one of them -- not one of them -- be funny. And on top of that have Eddie Izzard, whose known for his verbal skills as Britain's top comedian, play a significant role in the film -- and not have any lines! And, not to beat a dead horse as my imdb brethren have mentioned, I must add those damn Teddy Bears! There really is no explanation for their presence ever. I've certainly seen much worse films and I have to say I rather enjoyed the look of it, especially the maze-like sets the characters get trapped in. And, yes, I realize Uma Thurman is known as "old bug eyes" but I have to say she looks great in leather. Otherwise, though, this film is one gigantic "Huh?"

Was the above review useful to you?

average for a movie made from a TV show!!the series was better!!

Author: Doc_Who from VACAVILLE, CA, USA
28 September 1999

This movie was about average for a movie based on the classic TV series!The plot is about a couple of spies played by Fiennes and Uma Thurman. It had some pretty good special effects for a summer action movie. It also had some neat sets with some special camera angles. Sean Connery is almost believable for a villian if only he had been a little more madder. This movie was one of the shortest released that summer. I liked Connery better in "The Rock". But if you like action movies based on TV series ,then this is your ticket to fun and adventure!!The series was better than this movie which was based loosely on the series!!It is campy fun and has songs by Grace Jones.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 15 of 46: [Prev][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [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