|Page 4 of 46:||             |
|Index||451 reviews in total|
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.
Back in the 1960's, Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg made their roles in the British TV series "The Avengers" seem interesting. Three decades later with Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman taking on the original TV series roles along with Sean Connery portraying a rather unusual villain, the idea just doesn't seem fresh anymore. Instead it's just yet another TV series that should never have been made into a film.
Some of this movie looks like it might have been good. The casting should
have been good. The art direction sometimes threw out some things that
unexpected. It's not like anyone was hoping for much of a plot in a
TV-to-film of a genre piece. I'd rate it a 2 out of 10 instead of a 1
But crap it sucks. The whole heart of the TV show was the tension between the agents. Thurman and Fiennes look like they filmed their lines on separate days and then dialogue scenes were pasted together later by a hermit who hadn't heard a human conversation in years. The dialogue was either so badly written or poorly spliced together that frequently it seemed they were talking right past each other, tossing out non sequiturs at each other like popcorn.
The plot and action of the film were obviously butchered beyond repair. Unless one has the attention span of someone on a very good marijuana high, the vast gaps in the narrative and even the action sequences will become very irritating. I would like to imagine that this was a good movie pruned into a mediocre movie by studio trolls, but this strikes me as wishful thinking. My guess is that the bare 90 minutes (boy does it feel longer than that) was the least crappy stuff they had to work with. The rest of it was probably just more unexciting chase scenes, unconvincing umbrella tricks, wooden Fiennes, Sean Connery yelling with a big stupid grin on his face, flat jokes, and so on.
I can't believe they cast Eddie Izzard and gave him almost nothing to say. Better than his completely silent role in Mystery Men I guess.
I gotta give The Avengers this though, Uma Thurman looked devastating.
Not worth it - not even for MST3K purposes.
I don't know what the television show was like so I can't compare it to this. Three good leads are put in a movie that doesn't have a single shred of excitement. Fiennes is dull, Thurman is just okay, and Connery seems more like a joke than a villain. Watch this if you want to get some sleep. 1/4
Whatever came upon me to sit through the very long 89 minutes of this film,
I will never know. The only guess that I can come up with is to see Uma
Thurman in those tight leather pants. This film is one of the worst of its
kind that I have ever seen.
The plot was so incoherent that I did not know what was going on exactly until 45 minutes into the film. Sean Connery plays Sir August, who with the aid of a weather altering device, is trying to take over the world. So, the secret agent team of the Avengers are sent in to stop his plan of world domination.
Being a fan of Sean Connery's, it is a true pity that he would have taken such an awful role. I do give credit where credit is due however, as his demise is one of the most original that I have ever seen in film. I definately did not see that coming.
Maybe I am being a little harsh on this film, since I never saw the original television series that this film was based on, however, I would much rather spend my precious 89 minutes watching a quality James Bond film, than rip off material such as this.
Do not rent...do not even bother watching it on television, it is really not worth the time or money.
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.
This film is pure, molested s**t.
Lousy actings, except Connery, who´s always good, lousy script and over
edge bad holdings. Where´s the people? When theyre driving around in
not one single person walks by... Need it be told any more? Actually no,
I can´t help but wonder why mrs Peel had an evil twin? Sometimes you dont
understand if it´s the twin or her. Heck, maybe it was the twin that
survived and not the heroine... Yeah, right. (A bit confused)
Sucks, sucks, sucks and sucks even more: - 1 or rated Bomb, or Turkey, or overcrossed sign, or below zero or...
This movie must have never been layed out to see if any of the scenes made sense. The script left much to be desired and the acting was bad. I have to say i'm disappointed in Sean Connery. If you've seen it, you know what i mean about teddy bears. If you ever want to know what a truly poor movie is like, see The Avengers.
|Page 4 of 46:||             |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|