|Page 5 of 46:||              |
|Index||452 reviews in total|
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
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I loved it.
The opening credits alone are astonishing, and sets the tone for a vintage movie that still holds up to this day If you are expecting another Tomb Raiser, Entrapment, or Aeon Flux, think again.
The Avengers was a very hip, very surreal spy serial which carries over superbly into the movie.
Sexy, smart, and oh so Britishly prim.
I give it ten pounds, and a shilling for the way they awarded a very transparent cameo.
Avengers, you're needed.
I've just seen this on DVD, nearly 10 years after it was made. It cost
me a pound, and, aware of it's dodgy reputation my expectations weren't
high. But........it's great! Incredibly stylish, amazing sets, great
acting and as light-hearted and witty as the original TV series.
The two leads are excellent, and contrary to what has been claimed, do indeed have a wonderful chemistry between them. I would argue that Ralph Fiennes is incapable of giving a bad performance, and Uma Thurman is rather wonderful too. Their dialogue is very well written with quips a-plenty. Sean Connery is hilarious, and obviously relished his role as the baddie, and Jim Broadbent is equally amusing. The plot is wafer thin and zips along splendidly. I wasn't aware until I read other comments here that the film was butchered by studio executives. If that is indeed the case, I add my vote for a Director's Cut. 90 minutes was definitely too short.
The initial failure of this film at the box office was undoubtedly due to its subtlety. Understatement and tongue-in-cheek humour have never been a premium on the other side of the pond, and I imagine that in Blighty the TV series is seen through such thick lensed rose-coloured spectacles that any movie version was bound to be heretical.
Which is funny - granted that Diana Rigg played the sexiest TV character in history and that Patrick McNee was perfect as John Steed, but anyone who actually watches these old episodes will be aware of their surrealness and complete inability to take themselves seriously (hats off to the writers). These are exactly the elements that the movie version captures so well. Hats off to Mr Chechik, the director (and Canadian - significant?) After so many turgid and gloomy blockbusters (Bourne trilogy, new Bond - entertaining but not exactly a barrel of laughs) it was fantastic to discover this lost classic. Watch it!
The only spoiler that i will give you will appreciate. I will save you the 90 min you spend watching this movie thats if you make it through the entire movie, ready here it is. This movie may be the biggest piece of crap Sean Connery was ever attached to and I saw Outland. So please Don't rent borrow or speak of this movie. Just remember big piece of crap. If you've already seen this movie, I'm sorry I realize that you want that 90 minutes back. and to think that this movie was set to run for 2 hours and 10 minutes. Uma you should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Fiennes shame on you as well. Poor acting, Poor story line. All very week. Poor people that had to sit through this on a date or movie night at home. Poo on you movie makers for releasing this crap at all.
|Page 5 of 46:||              |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|