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 1 of 45:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 447 reviews in total 

17 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Much better than expected

9/10
Author: Michel Couzijn (couzijn@ilo.uva.nl) from Amsterdam, The Netherlands
29 March 2005

In spite of all the negative reviews and the low rating, I have immensely enjoyed this new version of 'The Avengers'. No, it does not replace Patrick MacNee nor Diana Rigg. But it's not supposed to, so that does not count. Yet what positively surprised me is that the film does have the flavour of the original Avengers, that it is full of understatements, and that the acting is in the - difficult - vein of what I'd call 'grotesque underacting'. Uma Thurman delivers a worthy Emma Peel with more than enough man appeal to keep me starry-eyed to the screen for 90 minutes. Mr. Fiennes combines distinction, humour and resolution in a way that is worthy of Mr. John Steed. The plot is original, yet partly predictable - but aren't all of the original 'Avengers' episodes predictable by modern audiences? Isn't a Mozart symphony predictable? Add to this the cinematography that is just delicious, and you have a real audience treat, even for those who consider themselves long-time Avengers fans like me.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Consistently misjudged and lacking laughs, excitement or fun

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
17 January 2005

John Steed is an agent for the Ministry; he is trained to perfection and one of the best despite his belief that the enemies of the past are no longer relevant. When a research laboratory into a weather-based defence system is blown up the main suspect is one Dr Emma Peel, although Dr Peel is adamant that she is innocent. With her being their only lead into the bomb, the Ministry assign Steed to work alongside her and use her to get to the bottom of the mystery – well, after tea anyway.

At the time of release I decided to give this film a miss as I felt I had heard too much of the critics having a field day to really be able to view it with a clear eye. Years later though I decided to give it a go on the basis that each year will see a blockbuster getting a kicking from all critics – sometimes deserved but at other time it is just a poor film that critics jump on it. However by the time I had reached the point where Sean Connery reveals his plan to a bunch of partners dressed as day-glow teddy bears I realised that things were not going to go well. Up till this point I had felt that the film was developing a nice little sense of humour that spoofs the idea of the typically English gentleman spy; however tongue-in-cheek humour is hard to do right and it is very easy to turn the film into a very silly affair that is not so much funny as it is embarrassing.

And so it was with The Avengers, a film that has some reasonable moments but is generally an unengaging and rather silly mess that can only be enjoyed as such. The problem is, this is a very expensive film for one that is just meant to be silly and it really needed to be fun, exciting and enjoyable as well, not just feature some silly points. For me the bear costumes were silly but enjoyable (it is such a weird sight that it stayed with me) but the majority of the rest of the film were just plain silly. The weather plot was poorly done and it never engaged me once.

The cast look good on paper but they are lost in the material and can do little with it. Of course in the case of Connery, it may have helped a little bit if he'd even tried, but he is poor throughout and just looks like a man getting paid. Fiennes is well cast and he is very English, it would have been a good performance had the rest of the film got the tone even half right. Thurman is not an actress I really rate and she has turned in too many average performances recently and here is no exception. Fans may appreciate her squeezed into tight costumes but for me that doesn't come close to covering a very poor performance where she gets it all wrong. Support from Broadbent, Izzard and Macnee sounds like a good prospect but really they have nothing to do and are pretty pointless in reality.

Overall this is not a laughingly terrible film, it is just lacking in any real, consistent value. Some bits are amusing but mostly it is all misjudged with the humour being too silly to work and damaging any dramatic value the film may have had. The actors are mostly poor, thanks to the material and an apparent uncertainty about what they are meant to be doing. It isn't the child of Satan or anything but I would be hard pressed to give you one reason why you should watch this.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Rather disappointing

5/10
Author: alangalpert from Virginia
29 April 2010

There are really only three good things about this movie: the opening credits, which are a psychedelic masterpiece; seeing Uma Thurman in a bright red "cat-suit"; and the radio-controlled dive-bombing attack hornets (or whatever they are). If "The Avengers" is a spoof, it isn't as funny or self-mocking as spoofs should be (e.g. "Austin Powers", or the first "Casino Royale"). If it isn't a spoof, it is pretty inane.

Ralph Fiennes is a good actor, but he was simply miscast. He is much too meek and lacking in panache for a Secret Agent (in the movies, anyway). The special effects at the end are fairly well done, even though most of what we see is a model.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Waste of Cast and Budget

3/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
16 February 2015

In London, the agent of the Ministry John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Dr. Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) are summoned by the Mother (Jim Broadbent), who shows a footage where the Prospero Project that controls the weather is damaged by Dr. Peel. They head to meet Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery), who is a weather specialist, but soon they discover that he wants to rule the world, using his machine that controls the weather.

I saw "The Avengers" in the 90's and did not like this movie. Today I have just seen it again on DVD and I found again a silly and boring movie that wastes cast and budget. It is hard to believe that Sean Connery accepted to work in this turkey. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Os Vingadores" ("The Avengers")

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Stupid, but in a good way.

9/10
Author: raulcleary from Long Beach, CA
6 August 2004

I think people who couldn't stand this movie expected either James Bond or Austin Powers. Just like the delightfully stupid TV series (killer plant from space?!?), this movie is an often-witty tongue-in-cheek gentleman-spy (gentleman, not shag master, even if campy) adventure -- everyone has charming and polite conversations over tea or combat. Steed's smugness is entertaining, instead of oily like 007. Despite both having scenes in steamy bathhouses, The Avengers doesn't go for Austin Powers' fart-joke market.

This isn't the greatest movie ever, no, but bottom 100? Anyone who doesn't need their entertainment delivered with a sledge-hammer ought to at least rent it.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as it was made out to be

6/10
Author: Tescoman from UK
2 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I know this has been universally slated by the critics, but that was bound to happen when they got prevented from seeing it before hoi poloi. Their noses got put out of joint, and even Schindler's List would have got a panning under those circumstances. (Not that the professionals have an exaggerated sense off their own worth, unlike us enthusiastic amateurs hem, hem.). Even so this is not a good film, but it really ain't as bad as all that. Sure Uma Thurman is capable of greater things. Yes Ralph Fiennes looks like a little lad playing at grownups in his dad's clothes. Yep it is all a bit heavy handed and lacks a lot of the charm of the television series, and the entire team makes the mistake of confusing archness with campness . Certainly they fell into the trap of overdoing the pyrotechnics, which the original TV series pointedly eschewed. And yet and yet.......... I was about 11 when the TV series first hit the small screen, and about 14 in its Swinging London heyday. I loved it. And to be fair they have captured quite a lot of the spirit of the original. Uma smoulders a bit too obviously, and the tension 'twixt her and Steed is overdone. But the Emma Peel on television did indeed make the leather catsuit a hot fashion item, even if it was not accessorised with a belt that looked quite as much like an unwise purchase from The Batman Shop. And let us not forget that the original Steed and partner (Kathy Gale aka Honor Blackman before her role in Goldfinger) did get into the UK Top 20 with a song called Kinky Boots (I did not make that up!) so the footwear obsession goes back to its roots.. The character of Mother is a great deal grubbier than, but still largely faithful to, the original, and there is a sterling performance here from Jim Broadbent, last seen in The Borrowers. The Routemaster buses, Steed's Bentley, the red phone boxes, the mazes, and the surreal deserted and barely recognisable London streets are faithful reminders of the original (although Emma Peel's E-type Jag - archetypal 60s motor that it is - was actually a Lotus Elan in the series). And at least one sequence is lifted wholesale from the series, when Mrs Peel is lost in the villain's stately home and keeps returning to the same place no matter which way she turns. This is a direct crib from an episode called The House That Jack Built, which at least shows the film makers did some homework. (The original lacked the truly inspired inclusion of the Escher staircase, and I bet the then production designers are kicking themselves for missing that trick.) . Stuff like the baddies' choice of a hot air balloon (with a blind pilot) as a getaway vehicle was exactly the sort of thing that did happen in the series, as were the attacks by the village milkman and postman (and the smoking nuns in the next scene!), the gun toting octogenarian, the swordplay in the gentlemen's outfitters, the bizarrely magnified plants in the villain's hothouse, and The Ministry HQ set under the banks of the Thames. Plus it was a nice touch using Patrick MacNee as the voice for Colonel I Jones, the invisible archivist ('All going fine in Camouflage until the accident, then I ended up here' Hahahahaha). I quite liked it despite its many faults, though I'm not so stupid that I don't recognise this is due at least in part to the fact that The House That Jack Built was my favourite episode on television. Don't fret too much if you miss this, but likewise don't panic if someone gives you tickets to see it. At least stay long enough to see the early performances from Eddy Izzard and Shaun Ryder as the hit men in the Union Jack Mini..

Tescoman

PS For some reason I adored the scene with our heroes walking across the lake in the transparent spheres. Strange old world..

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A whimsical delight - more please!

Author: philipdavies from United Kingdom
1 September 2003

I am amazed at how well an American film has captured the matter-of-fact surrealism which the mathematician Dodgson(Lewis Carroll)gave to his dream-child, Alice, as also it recalls the more knowing, and oh-so-polite deconstruction wrought by the media-saavy British children of the 60's upon the distressed remnants of England's Imperial aplomb!

Of course, as Oscar Wilde may not have said, Satire revisited is only a lukewarm cup of tea. But then nostalgia - especially when the satire was so gentle anyway - has its own charms. And there was, anyway, a hefty dose of nostalgia amidst the cool insouciance of the original. Its very modernity was made to seem almost an expression of polite insistence on whatever surreal manifestation of tradition was encountered. It was the utterly unruffled mien of the original which prevailed over all lapses from reason and good taste. So, at its best, in the new cinema version.

This is indeed a brave try by Hollywood to draw us back into that black-and-white psychedelia of swinging sixties British commercial television. The sheer madness of the enterprise almost works - if the money-men hadn't had cold feet at the last minute, we might have been enjoying a really remarkable fantasy film. As it is, we must content ourselves with a merely very amusing piece of whimsy. Even through the plot-holes left by a nervous editor we can see some wonderfully mad logic at work: The Escher-inspired architecture of the baddy's stately home, in which Mrs Peel at one point loses her way, encapsulates this whole dream-trip of a movie.

And for those who don't 'get it', I can only say, Humour is like that: Very dependent on individual taste.

But even allowing for taste, it is a sad reflection on public taste that 'The Avengers' overwhelmingly offends filmgoers who are probably quite prepared to accept the ever more overblown superheroes of a more violent tradition, such as 'Batman' or 'The Hulk'. Of course, these two are clearly representative of that particularly adolescent taste for the extreme and crude for which the contemporary Hollywood production-line largely exists. (There is every sign that Eddie Izzard's character was originally intended to satirize mega-buck entertainment and mega-buck villains as being really just spoiled brats with their expensive toys.) The genteel quirks of the English-inspired concept of 'The Avengers' are - in their essence, and however silly - just too irritatingly grown-up for such hyperactive youth ever to endure sitting still for!

A pity the film was not left alone upon release to find its own friends - like a stray cat, that will carefully choose whom it will exercise it's feline charm upon. And what more feline than Uma Thurman in Mrs. Peel's cat-suit?!

This is certainly not the sort of film to toss into an auditorium full of baying first-run morons.

But I suspect that it is a film with more than one life ...

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

I'm terribly sorry, but I liked this movie

Author: revival05 from Sweden
5 June 2000

ok, so it might just be a leaf in the wind but it's not that bad.

It was quite odd and in many ways ve-he-ry funny. Now I am of course not talking about poor Ralph nor Thurman, I'm of course relating to HILARIOUS SEAN CONNERY!

I laughed my head off at his quotes: "Peel... Emma Peel", and "you all know who I am". Since this is an agent film, and he is the king of agent... well you know.

I'd give THE AVENGERS 6/10 and I really don't understand what's so bad about it. It sure is ten times better than many, many other movies.

Well, as Eminem should have said, if you don't like my taste...sue me!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Comic praise for 'The Avengers'

Author: shpacecowboy (shpacecowboy@hotmail.com) from Johannesburg, South Africa
25 April 2000

The movie was truly enjoyable - it should of course be taken with a pinch of salt. The blending of futuristic technology with 30s decor is stunning. It reminded me of a comic-strip brought to life - the reason for what may seem like 'overacting'. And I love Sean Connery, even as the villian!

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Uma Goes to Camp

6/10
Author: oscarhopkins from United States
18 April 2005

By no means a classic, this film does, nonetheless, find its way into my collection, and refuses to be ignored. I've watched it an amazing seventeen times, and even I cannot fully explain the attraction. I'm not the world's biggest Uma fan (I understand he's into making bad Sonny Chiba knock-offs at present), and while I admit a weakness for Fiennes and Connery, it alone wouldn't save this mess.

And a mess it is, with unexplained ventures into the absurd and a less-than-steady plot pace. But the stars put forth effort and give truly noteworthy attempts with a flagging script. The plot may be wretched, but the dialogue is clever and engaging. If nothing else, perhaps this is what makes watching The Avengers a lot like getting a visit from an witty-if-awkward friend.

If you're into the series, don't expect the polish given to that British classic, but don't be too afraid, either. John Steed still gives evil the fine, English-leather boot.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 45:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [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