|Page 2 of 45:||           |
|Index||450 reviews in total|
The movie was truly enjoyable - it should of course be taken with a pinch of salt. The blending of futuristic technology with 30s decor is stunning. It reminded me of a comic-strip brought to life - the reason for what may seem like 'overacting'. And I love Sean Connery, even as the villian!
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.
...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.
On it's own, this movie is a little odd, but not un-enjoyable.
The biggest problem with this movie is that it was advertised as a "Bond-Like" action thriller - which it isn't.
This movie simply failed to satisfy every target audience they had.
Fans of the TV series weren't happy with anyone besides Diana Rigg and Patrick Macnee in the staring roles.
Anyone who wasn't a fan of the TV series was miss-lead into thinking they were seeing a "Bond-style" action movie and couldn't figure out what they were given instead.
If you enjoyed the silliness of the TV series (especially the later coloured "Emma Peel" episodes) and aren't so tied to Diana Rigg (Is anyone really all that tied to Patrick Macnee?) then you'll probably enjoy this movie.
Just relax and enjoy - don't ask "WHY" too much.
Whenever the movies The Avengers or Batman and Robin are mentioned the
most likely reactions are telling of someone who has seen and feels
burned by what they saw (until recently myself included). That the two
of these films star Uma Thurman is unfortunate. However, I would argue
that The Avengers isn't all that bad. Having recently viewed some of
the original television series I have come to appreciate what was
attempted with the movie.
This movie's tag-line is 'Saving the world in style' and that's precisely what it does. The Avengers is not a rough-and-tumble James Bond or Mission Impossible type action-adventure but a retro-stylish tongue-in-cheek jaunt through the marvelously preposterous diabolical schemes of an over-the-top madman. The tongue-in-cheek humour grates on most viewers but it is essential to this particular film in that it honours the source material wonderfully.
The casting of Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman is spot on, the overt double entendres between them is light and playful and they handle it with aplomb. The supporting cast is filled with wonderful character actors from Britan and Ireland including the likable Jim Broadbent and the delicious Fiona Shaw. Original TV series star Patrick Macnee makes an inventive cameo appearance.
If the film falls short in any way it is with Sean Connery. He is never presented with enough material to chew upon, and my only guess is that (seeing as it is a relatively short film) some of his scenes ended up on the cutting room floor.
That said, I think the film delivers precisely what it set out to do. That audiences stayed away and fans balked is a shame as it is a gloriously retro, stylish yet restrained romp. The opening title sequence is superb, the music fits perfectly and scenes such as the climactic inflatable ball river-walkers could have been iconic.
Worth a look, in the right mood. I suggest watching some of the original episodes first. This is no action movie clone... Makes you wish it had been a success to see where they would have gone with a sequel.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
|Page 2 of 45:||           |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|