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 4 of 46: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 454 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:

One terrible film version of a popular TV series

Author: soranno from Las Vegas, Nevada
25 October 2002

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

bleh

3/10
Author: Lumpenprole from United States
3 April 2002

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 were 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 based on this.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

such a bore

Author: Real Critic
10 January 2002

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

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Total waste of time!! A very shoddy spy film!

Author: Chris Gavez (chrisgavez@rogers.com) from Toronto Canada
5 January 2002

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.

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:

This sucks even more than a dry-cleaner.

Author: The Poiv from Sweden
5 August 1999

This film is pure, molested s**t. Lousy actings, except Connery, who´s always good, lousy script and over the edge bad holdings. Where´s the people? When theyre driving around in London, not one single person walks by... Need it be told any more? Actually no, but 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...

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

What was with the teddy bears?

2/10
Author: Doug Hubbard from NY
31 July 1999

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.

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:

my cat could cough up a better movie

Author: anonymous from USA
22 July 1999

What is with these so-called Avengers? I mean, really! The Ministry of Defence is guarded only by a parking-ramp arm and an ATM machine and they're staffed by two or three people tops. And when all of London (which, by the way, is completely EMPTY from the get-go) is threatened with complete destruction, they put two lackadaisical special agents (Thurman and Fiennes) on the case, both of whom are too wrapped up in what passes in England for pillow talk to make much of an impact on the whole thing. The villian, Sean Connery, runs an operation assisted by ONE henchmen (that's Eddie Izzard, by the way, who in any other respect is really cool. Check out Velvet Goldmine or some of his stand-up, trust me) and a bunch of guys in giant TEDDY BEAR OUTFITS (for the love of humanity what was up with THAT?) Our "heroes" spend almost the entire film quietly gabbing and stopping for tea at nine-minute intervals until the last five minutes when they out of nowhere haul off and start kicking some ass. The whole thing is poorly drawn out and just really surreal and I for one won't stand for it! BAN movie remakes of old TV shows!!

All things considered, though, I think the Avengers (who, incidently, weren't even really AVENGING anything) could have benefited from a little something known as WEAPONS. The filmmakers may have been trying to steer clear of that kind of violence, but you can't try to pawn off a movie as an action-adventure when the fight sequences use umbrellas and pointy-toed high heel boots, it just don't cut it!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 46: [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
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history