IMDb > The Avengers (1998) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Avengers
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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 3 of 46: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 452 reviews in total 

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Terrible movie making at its worst

1/10
Author: raymond-bottomley from United Kingdom
8 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the worst film ever made with good actors bar none. What were they thinking. They have assembled some of the cream of Hollywood acting talent and managed to get the worst performance of each leading roles career.It is a miracle that Sean Connery, Uma Thurman and Ralph Feinnes were all duped into thinking that this was a Stella project to work on.The direction is poor.The script is dreadful.Thurmans accent is awful.Even the effects are below par.The exec who commissioned this tosh must have lost his job after this was aired. It is so bad that it should have been puled before decent people had the displeasure of watching it. Seriously mad man taking over the world with bad weather, I know it is only fiction but how unberleiverble can you get. This film serves as a fine example that you should never under any circumstances revert back to the past. If I could put a lower score I would have done.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Unbearable

1/10
Author: tina_sparks from United States
6 June 2005

I can't remember the last time I have seen such a horrible movie. Went to see it with my sister and walked out of the theater. First time I've ever done that. It's a shame too, because I'm such a fan of Sean Connery. However, I have a real problem with Uma Thurman. She keeps getting worse and worse in each of her movies. What's up with that. But back to the movie - I never saw the television series so I'm not really qualified to compare the two. But after watching the movie, I have no desire to see the show. I can't understand why it didn't work, but if I ever run into Mr. Connery I'm going to ask for my $6.00 dollars back. It's the least he could do

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Um, yes, it's "that" bad...perhaps worse

1/10
Author: NotMoreMovies from United States
26 November 2004

Yes, this movie is "that" bad! I can usually find something interesting...something funny in every movie...

And the fact that Sean Connery was in this movie, and not even HE was any good just adds to the confusion.

The screenplay is more incoherent than "Freddy Got Fingered"--a horrible movie also, but at least it made me laugh a few times.

The characters are less interesting than those in "From Justin to Kelly"

This movie is almost like a "Plan 9 from Outer Space" but with modern special effects.

This movie wins my personal award for the "most unwatchable." Meaning, although I advise people to watch movies I might consider "bad" for themselves....PLEASE trust me...don't even bother. :)

I can barely remember any of it, it's a memory my mind is trying to repress.

My all-time "worst" movie award goes to Tom Green's "Freddy Got Fingered." But it's such PURE trash, parts of it are actually worth seeing....I don't know why...but it is. Maybe it's just because he acts so stupid it holds your interest. :)

Please do not rent this movie...patiently wait for it to be broadcast, or if you happen to see it on cable, I DARE you to sit through the whole thing w/out a burning desire to either fall asleep or change the channel! 'Cause if you rent it, you'll demand your money back. :-P

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

This film is the work of Satan - that's all I have to say on the subject...

1/10
Author: Richard Phillips-Jones from Southern England
2 October 2004

I know that this isn't much in the way of an "in-depth" review, but the experience of seeing this film was too painful to dwell on in depth, so here goes.

This piece of tripe stole 2 hours of my life which I will never be able to retrieve.

I only hope that any fans of the fantastic TV series will be able to wipe the memory of watching this farrago from their memory.

I can say, in all honesty, that I have never had such a painful movie-watching experience in all my time on this planet.

This film is the work of Satan - that's all I have to say on the subject...

Watch at you own peril!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Worth revisiting - in time a cult classic

8/10
Author: ps-614-910386 from United Kingdom
21 December 2009

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as people think, nowhere near as good as it should have been

4/10
Author: 23skidoo-4 from Calgary, Canada
7 August 2007

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Blame Warners

7/10
Author: tramsbottom from Cornwall, UK
26 May 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Weather or not you like it, it's worth a view

5/10
Author: Zak Vaudo (omega23) from United States
19 January 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Hilarious and Entertaining

5/10
Author: kylo4 from Ontario, Canada
15 July 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A disappointment, but not the worst film ever made

7/10
Author: Royalcourtier from Auckland, New Zealand
21 February 2004

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 Englishness.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 46: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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