|Page 3 of 45:||            |
|Index||449 reviews in total|
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.
I saw the Avengers movie at the cinema when it first came out and recall being suitably underwhelmed. As a fan of the original series it seemed all wrong in so many ways. Anyway out of curiosity I bought it on DVD to have anther look and it is actually rather good - it seems to have been improved by time. Rather like a cheap bottle of plonk which has surprisingly matured into a rather fine vintage. So what is better now? Firstly the theme of a lunatic madman trying to control the world's weather has a timely resonance it perhaps didn't have 10 years ago. Climate change topicality aside what was enjoyable was the self consciously clipped and pun laden dialogue between Peel and Steed. 10 years ago we all hated both depictions as somehow not being true to the original but what one realises is that this is two people very knowingly playing (with) the parts and dialogue in a way which is a perfect update and seems to really work now The humour and irony are very nicely understated - it pulls off that all but impossible combination of parody and thriller in a way Bond used to do before it went all machismo.. The only real shame is that it is so short. So if you if you saw it before and hated it - perhaps try again you may be pleasantly surprised.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Avengers must rank as one of the biggest disappointments in 1990s
film. Uma Thurman as sexy TV icon Emma Peel? Ralph Fiennes as suave
John Steed? Sean Connery as a James Bond-inspired villain? What more
could one ask.
Well, a better grasp of what made The Avengers such as success on television, for starters. Not that the 1998 film version doesn't attempt here and there to replicate the feel of the original series. Connery's weather-controlling madman is right out of the TV show's playbook, as is a segment virtually lifted whole from the classic Emma Peel episode "The House That Jack Built" -- and while I think Elizabeth Hurley or Catherine Zeta Jones would have been much more suitable choices for Emma Peel, Uma Thurman does hit most of the right notes. Elsewhere, though, it falls short.
Fiennes just doesn't feel right as Steed. Except for his opening scene prancing through a Ministry test-fighting range -- considered by some to be the best and most Avengers-like moment in the film (perhaps due to a welcome cameo appearance by the original Avengers TV theme music) -- he comes off as rather wimpy for lack of a better word. Patrick Macnee's Steed had charisma and was revealed in the TV series to be capable of being quite thuggish when the situation demanded. Fiennes displays none of Macnee's qualities. You know you're in trouble when Macnee, who has an amusing voice-only cameo in the film, displays more personality and charisma with his voice alone than Fiennes does in the entire film.
Also a disappointment is Sean Connery, who clearly seems off his game here (thankfully he bounced back in his next film, Entrapment, ironically co-starring one of my dream Mrs. Peels, Catherine Zeta Jones; that film suggests the type of chemistry that is totally lacking between Connery and Thurman in this film). His voice doesn't sound right for some reason, almost as if he played the role with a cold.
The biggest problem with the film was the decision to cut its length considerably, strangely enough in the process deleting many of the scenes in the trailer. Without these scenes, much of the film makes little sense, especially the rather unexplained presence of Peel's evil double, whose existence is better explained in the cut scenes. (I highly recommend tracking down the novelization of this film, which includes the cut scenes and makes a lot more sense than the movie).
As a longtime Avengers fan I was also disappointed by some of the character decisions. Once again modern filmmakers appear unable to take platonic characters from TV and let them keep their lips apart in the movies. The introduction of a romantic subplot between Steed and Peel really feels out of place and goes back to what I said earlier -- that you need an understanding of how the source material works in order to do a good remake.
All this said, The Avengers as a movie isn't the worst thing ever made. And it's entertaining in its own way. At the very least watching Uma Thurman parade through in a series of sexy outfits is not an unpleasant waste of 90 minutes. But as a remake of a classic TV series, this was yet another failed attempt at recapturing the magic, something that is extremely hard to do at the best of times and has only been accomplished by a handful of projects, such as the recent revivals of Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who.
I rewatched The Avengers today and it really is a missed opportunity.
The reason it failed was not IMO the surreal wackiness, it was that
Warners panicked and cut huge chunks out of the film rendering it not
only surreal and weird, but missing links in the story that would have
tied all the bizarre stuff together better.
If you look on Wikipaedia it details what was in the original script, such as the attack on the secret base by the evil Emma Peel that was seen in trailers. I also recommend reading the novelisation, which you can pick up for a couple of quid. It really is absurdly stupid how Warners had, judging by the book and screenplay, a great film and then they decided 'instead of a long movie people might like, we'll cut it down to a short movie that people will hate for sure'. They should have had the courage of their convictions, and if they had The Avengers might have been a huge success. One can only hope they pull their fingers out and release the director's cut.
On reflection there's a lot to like in The Avengers: Uma Thurman in leather: always a plus, Sean Connery hamming it up more than Porky Pig at a bacon factory, and henchmen dressed as multi-coloured teddy bears. Bonkers. Utter bonkers. I like it.
By no means is The Avengers a great film. Nor would I consider it a good film. But it is by no means a bad film. The plot is weak, the acting leaves something left to be desired. The fight choreography is decent, and the special effects--for their time--are moderate. Nevertheless, this film is worth your time if you are looking for a movie that is unintentionally comedic. Though placed under the action/adventure category, it is almost impossible to take this film seriously; in fact, it's almost a decent example of British comedy. Back and forth wit, ridiculous puns, and shocking moments make for quite a few laughs. This is one of those films that you must see if you are looking for a cheesy film to laugh at with your friends. View it at least once.
I bought the DVD without seeing the movie (because I like Uma Thurman)
and I read the reviews on here before viewing it. I then read saw that
that almost everybody who reviewed it hated it.
Well, I thought it was entertaining and funny. I don't think that it was supposed to be funny, but it was. Like with the bears, that was hilarious.
It was a crappy movie, but I found it so funny that I ended up enjoying it. Yeah, it isn't like the original show, but it was supposed to be a new take on the old show. (Even though it did a horrible job at doing so).
In the end, I gave it 5/10 because it was funny, and it went by fast for me because I kept laughing at the bears.
This film was a definite disappointment for a fan of the original series.
However I didn't expect too much of an American remake of a classic 1960's
British TV series- particularly one that made so much of its exaggerated
Probably this was as close to the original as could be expected. After all even the New Avengers series of the early 1970's had lost the spirit of the original series.
The much-criticised Teddy bears scene was a classic Avengers gimmick - people who criticised this scene either never saw the original, or more seriously, didn't understand that The Avengers is understated English comedy. It was never meant to be taken seriously.
The special effects were in fact good, and did not detract from the film in any way. Perhaps people were expecting more fireballs and devastating explosions. There was little of that in the 1960's series.
One weakness was the dialogue. It was superficially similar to the original. But it didn't sound authentic when spoken by the leads. Fiennes was a fairly convincing Steed, and sounded reasonably authentic, but not so Thurman. There was no way an American could sound like Diana Rigg. I suppose they did as well as could be expected in the circumstances.
The moral has to be that it is a mistake to try to recreate a programme from another era and country. The result can never be very happy.
When I saw this movie in the cinema I was quite disappointed
and utterly confused why anyone would launch such a mess of
story. Learning later that the studio hat cut maybe half an
explained a lot, but not why anyone would think this was
improvement! Still, I have seen much worse movies in my
and there are a few nice scenes. Now if someone could patch
together a better version from the mess they must have
in the cutting room we might have a nice popcorn flick.
As a once regular viewer of MST3K I have to say this is not even close to being the worst file ever made. It is however one of the worst feature films in reset memory. It is to, borrow a word from another review, very "Talky". This wouldn't be bad if the dialog and charterers where better, but these are both action move grade. It's kind of like watching the charterer from Godzilla in The Godfather, with a plot the makes little sense on top. Overall the plot makes little sense, there not much action, despite this being marketed as an action move, the tempo is slow and boring and the move is hard to follow and and not worth following. The only good points, the cinematography and, best of all, it's only an hour and a half..
|Page 3 of 45:||            |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|