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 guidemessage board
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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 45: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 443 reviews in total 

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?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Hacked to parts - only shattered remnants of a better film

4/10
Author: TallGuy from Geneva, Switzerland
7 August 2000

When I saw this movie in the cinema I was quite disappointed and utterly confused why anyone would launch such a mess of a story. Learning later that the studio hat cut maybe half an hour explained a lot, but not why anyone would think this was an improvement! Still, I have seen much worse movies in my life and there are a few nice scenes. Now if someone could patch together a better version from the mess they must have created in the cutting room we might have a nice popcorn flick.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

It's like watching the charterer from Godzilla in The Godfather.

4/10
Author: Sean O'Flaherty from San Jose, CA
25 July 1999

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..

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Boring Dream

1/10
Author: oli-6 from Manila
15 September 1998

Like that sort of a bad dream which one wouldn't really mind having, but the sort which one would be embarassed to tell about to friends

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Utterly, utterly awful

1/10
Author: Steve Paget (paj@steviep.demon.co.uk) from Bonsall, England
23 August 1998

I almost walked out on this one. In fact, if it hadn't been raining I doubt I would have witnessed the "climax".

Lacking in pace and style, it tries not to take itself too seriously, but I certainly didn't hear one titter from the audience.

It could have been great, too.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Save your money.

1/10
Author: Renimar from Toronto, Ontario
18 August 1998

>I never thought I could watch a film starring Sean Connery and find it so > outrageously bad, that I nearly joined several others leaving the theatre > just 20 minutes into the film. > >Character dialogue was horribly insipid. Oh, it had its moments, but it was > bland as unbuttered toast. I felt like it was an excuse for Fiennes and > Thurman to practice their English accents and impress each other with dry > witticisms. > >The plot, a standard 'maniac tries to take over the world', was poorly > resolved; or even started. The characters seemed to have stumbled, as if by > accident, into Connery's path. Their subsequent involvement stretches the > viewers' suspension of disbelief so taut, it snaps back in one's face -- a > rebuke for watching so poor a storyline. It lacked any sort of tension to > keep people wanting to know more. Rather, it had people turning to one > another, whispering 'What is this?'. > >Characters introduced lacked any substance, as virtually nothing was > revealed about them. A name was all the people were. One dimensional > caricatures. The teddy bear costumes 'bear' this out more than anything > else. (And it was the bear costumes that kept us from leaving -- we just >-had- to see how much worse it could get. We weren't disappointed. >) > >I did wonder about the ambiance a time or two. I thought it was curious how > London was so empty of people and vehicles, day or night. I guess they ran > out of money securing the big names, that they couldn't render a few > pedestrians in post-production? > >On the Net, I've read various fan fiction, with quite a bit of it written by > those with delusions of their ability. They lack any sense of literary > sense, their stories deficient of the fundamentals. This movie reminds me > of those stories. My advice: save your money.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Avoid At All Costs

1/10
Author: Ivan Watling from Manchester, England
16 August 1998

This was a truly awful film. I can't believe I wasted one of the few sunny Saturday afternoons this summer to watch it.

My main problems were the dreariness of the plot and the totally unconvincing acting. I felt that Uma Therman, Sean Connery and Ralph Fiennes gave at best half-hearted performances. The story was weak, boring and for me lacked any excitement or involvment. I haven't seen the TV series so I can't give a comparison, but if this film recaptured the original's good points then I don't think I missed much.

As I left the cinema I overheard three other groups commenting on how poor the film was. Unless you're an avid Avengers fan and simply must see this film then I'd suggest you give it a wide berth.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A REAL secret agent drinks COFFEE!

1/10
Author: James Bond (hmssagent007@hotmail.com) from London, England
15 August 1998

Just back from the theatre... Wow. What a waste of $7. Not only was the movie seemingly lacking a director, but you know that James Bond could kick John Steed's a** any day of the week - even without an umbrella! The movie , however, seems to hail the Bond films by referencing the best scenes of Goldfinger and Diamonds Are Forever, but not as well done as the originals. Sean Connery, even with a short on-screen time, has a well-rounded plot figured out. Unlike SPECTRE's well-thought out intents, however, Sir August deWinter lacks a motive! The writers, seemingly aware of the eventual demise of the script, apparently decided to perform a literary euthanasia - adding random physics jargon to explain a natural impossibility , introducing an invisible man who relates to the plot in no way whatsoever, and also keeping the dialogue uninteresting, dry, and pointless. In fact, the movie might have had a G rating if it had not been for one use of a disagreeable word edited in during post production. If one ever rents this movie, it would be a much more agreeable experience if one turns the volume down and the screen off. Even Roger Moore makes a better British agent than Ralph (Ray?) Finnes, who is an excellent but poorly cast actor. "The Ministry" could never stand up to Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is probably why the actors in the original Avenger's series (much better than the movie) eventually turned to the Bond camp. In short, a good intention killed by studio requisites.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

SHOULD'VE KNOWN BETTER.....

1/10
Author: J. Leslie West from Boston, MA, USA
14 August 1998

It DID seem odd that, on opening day, there was not a review in sight (that I could find, at least). So much for taking chances.

Uma, Ralph, Sean..... seemed like it HAD to be a winner, so what happened??? ? It was in internal battle, as beginning 20 minutes into the film, I had to fight every urge in my being to stay planted in my seat, as that's just how I felt; plant-like. The characters (and I DO mean ALL OF THEM) were dull, uninspired, vapid. Somewhere between people and cartoon characters, with the lustre of neither. The action is anticipated, as there's nothing else to look forward to, and then the action arrives with a dull thud! The dialogue.....Now, I'm old enough to have seen the original airings of the TV show, and can appreciate the attempt of the writers to simulate the sort of dry, yet snappy reparte and subtle sexual tension between John Steed and Emma Peele, but sadly, it not only fell far short of campy TV offering, the dialogue was so flat and understated that you were never quite sure whether they ever even spoke to one another. Visually? One word....blah. I won't even attempt to give creedence to the story line (what story line?)

So, in short, nothing to look at, nothing to listen to, nothing to think about. On my way out of the theater, (before the credits had a chance to roll) I turned to the guy behind me.... "Is it me, or was that just awful?" I asked. After a short fit of laughter, he replied "I can't believe how bad it was. I'm never going to another film based on the premise that it has great special effects. From now on, I'm only going to movies with real people in them!" Sadly, I knew exactly what he meant. RATING=1.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

THIS MOVIE REALLY SUCKS!!

1/10
Author: Tom Ritchie (tritchie@tritchie.com) from USA
14 August 1998

Do not see this movie. Do not be fooled by the cool looking trailers that were released, for this movie only utilizes about half of the neat special effects shown therein. For $60 mil, you'd think they could have spent some dollars on a script of some sort. The false accents used by Fiennes and Thurman gave me a headache. The plot is a jumbled disaster including huge bear suits that are never explained or justified. Also a cleverly placed F-word really didn't fit, and was also in bad taste. It was also the only curse word in the entire movie. In conclusion, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!! I left with a headache from all the confusion and from hearing everyone talk about how bad the movie was.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 45: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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