The Avengers (1998) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
457 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A wasted opportunity
Martin Kelly31 May 2006
Is The Avengers a good film? No. Is it the worst film ever made? No. I first saw the movie at the cinema upon its release and, at that time, I did think that it was one of the worst films I'd seen up to that point. I've watched it 2 or 3 times since then and my opinion of it has improved, well, very slightly at any rate. Apart from a pervading incoherence, I think the film's major problem is its slightness; it's only an hour and a half long and the plot is very simplistic to say the least. It's not hard to imagine audiences feeling a bit short-changed when it first came out, especially as the film was a big-budget, would-be summer blockbuster. Another big problem is the casting of Uma Thurman as Emma Peel. Thurman has shown herself to be a fine actress in movies such as Pulp Fiction but she just looks out of her depth here (I never believed in her as a top-level scientist for a second) and her English accent doesn't sound natural. Nicole Kidman, to whom the role was first offered, would surely have been better, in particular, she's displayed flawless English accents in films such as The Others and The Hours. An English actress I also think would have made a great Peel is Joely Richardson but the studio would probably have vetoed such a choice on the grounds of her not being a big enough name. Ralph Fiennes was a real enigma in this film - there was nothing wrong in principle in casting him as Steed but he looks ill at ease throughout the movie as if he'd rather be elsewhere. I can only assume he'd already twigged that the film was going to be a turkey. What's worse, Fiennes and Thurman have absolutely no chemistry between them, which wastes the snappy dialogue they have with each other throughout the film. The supporting cast fare a bit better with seasoned pros such as Sean Connery, Jim Broadbent and Fiona Shaw making the most of their underdeveloped parts. The retro-chic world of the original TV series is nicely recreated and there's no shortage of nice cars, costumes and locations but what's good about the film is easily drowned out by what's bad; The Avengers is ultimately a shallow, rushed and messy affair, severely hampered by the performances of its two leads. Handled properly, the film could have been a wonderful success for all concerned, the first chapter of an entertaining and lucrative franchise, stretching well beyond the 1990s; instead it's one of the most embarrassing flops of that decade. The original cut of the film was apparently two and a half hours long but, following negative reactions from audiences at test screenings, the studio hacked the film down to its present one and a half hour length. This doesn't actually come as much of a surprise as there is a lack of proper narrative flow to the film suggestive of chunks of explanatory scenes having been cut out. Just one example: towards the end of the film, just before they enter Sir August's underwater lair, Steed and Peel enter a phone box and Peel says "how now brown cow?" down the phone. The phrase seems to be a password to enter the premises but how does Peel know it? There's been talk here and there of the possibility of Warners releasing a director's cut or special edition DVD, restoring the original two and a half hour version. I think this would be a good idea and I'd definitely be interested in watching the full version of the film. It's highly unlikely to be any kind of masterpiece but it's difficult to imagine that it wouldn't improve upon the movie as it stands. At the very least you'd have to assume that it would be more coherent. Sadly I don't think the chances of Warners going down this line are high; I have the feeling that this is a movie the studio would rather forget about than draw attention to.
30 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
maltcavet23 December 2004
I love the Avengers. Emma Peel was a hero of my childhood. I was ridiculously excited for the arrival of this film and had nauseated all my friends when the project was first announced about who was to be our two spies. I was thrilled with the selection of Fiennes -- but Thurman? I was hesitant. Then Diana Rigg passed on being in the film. Another bad sign. Then, the television trailers, yet a third omen but I told myself the movie could not possibly be that bad. IT was worse than my wildest nightmares -- and I have an excellent imagination. Thurman was as bad as I thought, Fiennes had nothing to play to. Macnee, oh, how it could have improved if we'd seen him. I think this movie is terrible because they didn't get the joke. The Avengers is cheeky, campy, fun, and never without some form of the double entendre somewhere. Apparently, the script writes never actually saw the series and didn't get the joke. I beg, some British filmmaker somewhere give it a chance. Make your own version. Give some dignity back.
84 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Xophianic4 February 2000
I wasn't all that interested in watching this movie, but I decided to anyway since it was one of the only ones that week there that I hadn't seen yet. I should've saw one of the others. I don't even remember what they are now, but it doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that THE AVENGERS is the worst movie of the decade and one of my least favorite movies of all time.

John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) team up to stop Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) from destroying the planet with a weather-changing machine. I won't go into the plot too deeply, because it's just plain stupid.

The acting in this movie was not very good. Ralph Fiennes and Fiona Shaw (Father) play two of the most annoying characters in any movies that I have ever seen. The constant unwitty one-liners between Fiennes and Thurman is very annoying. Sean Connery is at his worst here. I was disappointed in him, because he is a great actor who doesn't belong in this movie. Sir August de Wynter? Just the name of the character alone should tell you much.

There was, however, one thing that was good about this movie. That would be Uma Thurman in her tight leather. I am absolutely in love with Uma Thurman, and I don't think she belonged in this film, but I am pretty sure seeing her wearing those catsuits were the only thing that kept me from having to eat my own legs and drink my own urine to survive this movie.

Maybe you'll think I'm exaggerating a bit, but I found this movie to be boring and annoying. I recommend that it be avoided at all costs.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not worth weathering
Whythorne7 March 2005
This movie based on the popular British TV series is such a flop it doesn't really deserve comment, but here are a few nonetheless.

This is the kind of movie making that really has you wonder if you should ever visit a theater again, when you consider the waste of millions of dollars on sets, special effects and high-powered actors that could have been used for such better causes (such as, oh, say a big-screen version of "My Mother the Car").

At any rate, the film got what it deserved by being universally panned by critics and bombing at the box office. It was then rushed out of theaters with the bad-film strategy that relative obscurity would result in more bread at the video stores.

Considering that Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List, Englsh Patient) and Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, etc.) were at the top of their box-office draw potential, and with the addition of the always popular Sean Connery in a unique role as a villain, one would think that this movie would have been a sure hit. However, the potential went lightning fast down the tubes, greased by a stinky script, second-guessed editing and incompetent direction.

The best elements of the original series, namely, its charm and style, are absent. A lot of the charm came from the relationship between Steed and Peel. But Fiennes' Steed is aloof and Thurman's Mrs. Peel is cold as ice. The two appear to be sleepwalking through their respective roles, with visions of fat paychecks dancing in their heads.

Ironically, an imprudent element of the TV series that was indicative of its downhill slide after the departure of Diana Rigg (the original Mrs. Peel), namely, the introduction of the silly character of "Mother," IS included in the film. Go figure.

Connery 's performance as a mastermind who can manipulate the world's weather falls flat. Like Fiennes and Thurman, he appears to be going through the motions of a script he has no faith in.

Quirky aspects of the original series that were cute and amusing have been replaced with gimmicks that are just unfunny strange and head-scratchingly bizarre. For example: the requisite cameo of an actor from the original series features only the voice of Patrick Macnee in the role of an invisible man behind a desk. What this character has to do with anything, other than adding to an already disjointed script, is anybody's guess.

On a website competently dedicated to the series it has been speculated that the director never saw a single episode of the TV Avengers. If you were any kind of fan, you will immediately observe that there is a good reason to believe this. Jeremiah Chechik's direction seems to lack any instinct for the flavor of the original series.

At any rate, with this brand of TV series-inspired movie making, you may find yourself yearning for "Return to Gilligan's Island." Originally hyped as a summer blockbuster, the cinematic version of "The Avengers" is only spectacular in its capacity to disappoint.
65 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Who let the air out?
Rowan-418 August 1998
Uma Thurman's catsuits aside, "The Avengers" is one of the flattest movies to come down the pike in a long time.

The failing Sean Connery isn't really the villain in this movie, the true villains are a director who thought he could "improve" on the original, and an editor who really shouldn't have been let out of film school.

Fiennes and Thurman do an adquate job with what they were given, which wasn't much, and then the editor took half of that away.

Connery got one half-choked off rant, (all of which you see in the trailer) and then hid in the leftover set for the power supply from the floating city in "The Empire Strikes Out" (Er -- "Back"). A pathetic effort from a formerly stellar actor.

Eileen Atkins was rather fun as Alice, Steed's minder, and the guest appearance by Patrick Macnee was somewhat amusing.

As for the writing, well.... I think (despite the credits) they actually gave the job to a couple of public school lads who rather thought that they were being clever.

Overall, not worth the money spent to make it, nor the $6 I paid to see it. One star, mostly for some rather nice, if somewhat generic, cinematography.
43 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not great, but not the horror everyone else describes
possum-36 July 1999
Frankly, when THE AVENGERS was released, I wanted it to bomb--I wanted Hollywood to finally get the idea that ripping off old TV shows is IMBECILIC and almost never successful. Thus, I was happy that the movie did poorly and closed quickly. (I also took a trip to London just as the movie was released, and if you think it was ill-received here, the British took it times TEN.)

Ironically, though, it isn't that bad a movie. Not great, but certainly not the despicable mess that most others seem to think.

It's been called ridiculous, slow, talky, surreal. Well, what a shock, so was the original series. I've recently viewed the entire 1967 season (bought all four boxed sets), and the show is all those things at times. It is slow, generally, at a very langorous pace throughout most stories. It is talky, since most of the charm of the original was in the dialogue between characters. It was surreal, even ridiculous (The Winged Avenger, anyone? Eeee-urp.)

Uma Thurman does a passable job as Emma--she's no Diana Rigg, but who is? She plays the character smart enough, although she doesn't quite capture Rigg's regal command of situation. Ralph Fiennes, however, misses the character of Steed quite a bit, playing him as reserved, without any of Steed's charisma. Steed always had a quality about him that made you feel as if he woke up every morning feeling absolutely smashing--Fiennes seems to miss that.

The problem the film faces is twofold: Those of us who have seen the original will always compare the two, and a copy can't hope to compare. Those who haven't seen the series have no grounds to assess it on--(see some of the above user comments which begin 'I never saw the original series...')and since I think this series is not exactly vividly-remembered by the majority of the population (particularly the 18 and under movie-goers, who don't have much grasp of the nuances The Avengers operated on). Frankly, The Avengers was probably just a bad choice to try to remake

(--LIKE ALL OLD TV SHOWS. Tell me one old-TV remake that has ever spawned a sequel (which Hollywood is always sure to do when something is a success)-- only THE BRADY BUNCH...point proven?)
62 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mrs. Peel - You're needed - AGAIN!
B1ade Runner7 February 2001
Warner Bros. fantasies have always had a certain memorable flare. Dating back to films like "Superman" and "Blade Runner", a viewer could always be guaranteed at least a ticket into another world. "The Avengers" would have been that next "big" thing for Warner Bros. had it not been so shoddily edited at the last minute. It should be duly noted, however, that this film had all the signs of a thanksgiving turkey: It's release date, which was moved from late June to the dog days of August. Then the fact that no press screenings have been allowed for critics. No good can come of these prophecies.

"The Avengers", which, at best, is a second rate version of the original "Batman" has all the features of your top blockbuster: A Big name or two, a plethora of explosions, and enough special-effects to put "Godzilla" to shame. The Plot follows the exploits of the legendary secret agents John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman), as they do battle with a maniacal meteorologist (Sean Connery) who has intentions on controlling the world's weather. Simple enough. Or so one would have thought. It would appear that some 25 minutes (!) was excised from the film as a result of poor test screenings. As history has told, no good comes from test screenings. As a result, the film becomes so utterly confusing that the viewer would sooner give up, rather than be insulted by a film that insists on staying one step ahead of you at all times. Only potentially good films are butchered in an attempt to make the film more appealing to youngster's attention spans. But make no mistake about it, this film is certainly not for children. Perhaps the last half hour will provide enough enjoyable action (and it does, believe me!) to distract them, but up until then the film consists of awkward dialogue, inane action (Gigantic teddy bears, anyone?), and an uncomfortable overdose of strangeness.

The cast, at one time, might have been game, but only once in a while does Ralph Fiennes even crack a smile. Thurman has apparently got the English accent down perfectly, but the only problem lies in the fact that she forgets to give a performance worth remembering. And last, but certainly not least, Sean Connery. Sadly, he doesn't even look like he wants to take over the world. Only once, in a mumbled rant, does he evoke some feelings of evil. That being said, "The Avengers" is a technical masterpiece. Providing the viewer with a universe of dazzling sets (that should at least be nominated for an oscar), imaginative visual effects, and beautiful costumes, one almost forgets that England doesn't look like this anymore. Unless of course, you live there. The score, composed by Joel McNeely proves to be one of the coolest scores ever produced. Inducing excitement, tension, and a little smoothness, provided by some nifty jazz notes. All of which the film is unable to do itself. For those who won't enjoy this film, it is mercifully brief. So brief to the point that it's strange. It jumps from a one hour section of the beginning to a half hour of climactic action that the viewer blinks and the movie might just be rolling into the credits. One can only hope for an improvement with a director's cut. Until then, this film should gain cult status before it makes it's way to video. Which I'm sure will be soon.

Out Of Four - **
35 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Waste of Cast and Budget
Claudio Carvalho16 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")
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Falling for the old "edit out what the test audience didn't like" trick
susannah-513 August 2001
Oh, wait, that's from Get Smart, not The Avengers.

No matter. As a longtime fan of The Avengers (since childhood), I will say, right off the bat, that this movie did not fail on all levels. If nothing else, the makers of this film understood, at least, what The Avengers was about. This puts them head and shoulders above, say, the makers of The Wild Wild West movie, who had only the most rudimentary (and faulty) knowledge of what made that series an icon of popular American culture.

They might not have been successful in the execution, but they did understand what made The Avengers tick, and if the studio heads hadn't ordered extreme and desperate editing, we might have been able to see more of what the filmmakers imagined.

Two scenes stand out as perfect examples of this understanding: When Mrs. Peel tries to escape by running endlessly down an Escher-like staircase, and when Steed and Mrs. Peel walk on water in giant bubbles. Sean Connery's eccentric megalomaniac (so much more interesting than a serious, conservative megalomaniac) fit right in with the The Avenger's roster of enemies.

Whatever sense of fun the movie had (and The Avengers tv series never seemed to take itself too seriously; does anyone remember Steed being shrunk to the size of a mouse and jabbing a villain in the ankle with a fountain pen?) was destroyed when the nut jobs at the studio fell for the old "edit out what the test audience didn't like" trick, and put a botched film on the screen. Too bad these studio honchos have such weak nerves and such short memories; will they never learn?
31 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Consistently misjudged and lacking laughs, excitement or fun
bob the moo17 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.
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
From left-field
choppy20 November 1998
Well I don't know how this one slipped through the studio system but I'm very glad it did. When I heard about an Avengers movie I assumed we'd be getting a bastardised Hollywood formula movie, and it would resemble some of the recent Bond films more than the original series. But I was thrilled to find the film had the same wonderful sense of absurdity as the show. :)

I think a lot of people are unaware this is a complete comedy. This being the case it's not surprising people think it's bad, but that's their problem. The comedy style is not a popular one, it's a particular style of generally British humour, best described as complete and utter nonsense. If you have no appreciation for absurdity, then you will NOT like this film.

Nothing in The Avengers should be taken at face value, it's all a load of s***. Steed and Peel are full of s***, that's the point. No one acts the way they do, they are both constantly trying to out cocky each other. The world of The Avengers is a place where "small things are taken with the utmost seriousness and important things are not taken seriously at all".

The Avengers purposely doesn't explain things, it's not supposed to make sense, that would ruin it. It's the little things in The Avengers that make it shine. Small asides from left-field that seem to go over most peoples heads.

Fiennes and Thurman are different than Macnee and Rigg, but I'm not sure they're much worse. Fiennes could perhaps have been a bit more cheerful. Thurmans whole screen presence is so vastly different from Riggs that it's impossible to compare, but I did enjoy Thurmans version of the infalable Peel. Connery going nuts was fun to see too. BTW Eddie Izzard not talking was the point of him being there, get it. Having Eddie Izzard in your movie and not having him say anything is to my mind very funny.

It's very hard to explain to people who flock to films like The Waterboy, why a film like The Avengers is so funny. Most people I guess will just never get it. I got it, and I'm glad that there ARE plenty of other people who did too. Congrats to the makers for daring to be different and convincing the studio into letting you spend $70 million.

53 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hugely enjoyable
calumgordon26 October 2008
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.'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!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stupid, but in a good way.
raulcleary6 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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as bad as it was made out to be
Tescoman2 June 2005
Warning: 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..


PS For some reason I adored the scene with our heroes walking across the lake in the transparent spheres. Strange old world..
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than expected
Michel Couzijn29 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.
17 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rather disappointing
alangalpert29 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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I'm terribly sorry, but I liked this movie
revival055 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!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So nobody has a sense of humor anymore, is that it?
Clint Walker13 December 1999
I'm not going to spend a great deal of time trying to argue the point, but I like this film.

I'm too young to remember the original series all that well, but I do recall watching it in reruns when I was a little guy. And let me ask you, what young kid, on the cusp of manhood, wouldn't have dropped their jaws at the original Emma Peel?

Unfortunaly, I don't think that many other people my age feel the same way I do about the series, so I can understand why this bombed in theatrical release. But thanks to video, I hope this film will catch on as a cult hit.

What did I like about it? Well, I thought the campy tone fit the silly feel of the original series quite well; Also, the idea of an unbrella as a weapon of destruction just seems cool to me; Plus, Uma Thurman certinaly isin't Diana Rigg, but she's not exactly hard on the eyes either.

Please don't listen to the critics on this one. If you like Austin Powers or are just discovering the joys of the old spy flicks, you'll enjoy this one.

Just remember to try to find episodes of the original series as well.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A fun movie and introduction to the Avengers series
smile_coders16 August 2004
Is this going to be the next "Gone with the Wind"? No. Is it a horrible movie with a bad script and bad acting? No!

This movie is, quite simply, fun. Fans of the hit series will be reminded of the smug attitude of Steed, although no one will be able to catch the magic between the original actors. However, the movie does well for what it is, and is quite enjoyable.

Unfortunately, it caters to a narrow range of people. Those who have never seen The Avengers might think the acting is bad or dialog poorly written. This is not the case. They are merely mimicking the style of the TV show.

Of the other hand, those who are fanatical fans will hate it because it's not as good as the TV show, and makes many changes.

But those who enjoy the show and aren't nitpicky will find this a thoroughly enjoyable movie.
24 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Uma Goes to Camp
oscarhopkins18 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.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Beautiful and Surreal
generationofswine24 October 2016
Surreal is really the best way to describe this movie. It beautifully encompasses the Surrealism movement that started in the 1920s and continued, in a way, to hint at Dadaism.

Even the dialogue in the film reminded me of going to an art museum.

"How real do you feel Mrs. Peel?" There is a lot of hate behind this film, a 3.7 rating on IMDb and trolls complaining that Thor and Iron Man weren't in a movie based on a television series that had nothing to do with the comic books.

Ignore the hate, this is a movie that people walked into expecting a summer blockbuster and walked out disappointed because they got a thematic action movie art film.

It doesn't appeal to the masses, but made the mistake of thinking that it did. Because of that it was a flop.

But for those of us that don't cringe in horror over the thought of going to an art museum, the movie is beautiful and done in a way that most of the artist-directors out there can only dream of.

It looks brilliant, it looks like moving art on the screen and the dialogue fits perfectly into that mold. It is the surreal film that puts so many others to shame.

The only fault it has is the marketing. It was marketed for the Rambo crowd that want nothing more to see the blood and carnage, the over-the-top science fiction special effects that has aliens blow up the White House.

Instead you get Surrealist special effects and killer teddy bears. They hit the mark well, but only for those of you that real enjoy that sort of thing.

If you walk into The Avengers expecting a lowbrow action movie, you are going to walk out of it in the first few minutes. Think of it more as an action sci-fi art-house film and you'll love it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The winter of our discontent
petra_ste2 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
How do you make Sean Connery appear uncharismatic, Ralph Fiennes uninteresting and Uma Thurman unsexy? No small feat, but in 1998 Jeremiah S. Chechik performed this dark achievement with his version of the classic British TV series - the one older viewers remember mostly for Diana Rigg looking like a million bucks in it.

A supremely ugly-looking movie, with terrible visual effects, a worthless script and no sense of fun, The Avengers is worth mentioning as a curiosity, since it's arguably the worst project in the careers of all three leads - and when you are defeated by stuff like The League of The Extraordinary Gentlemen, Maid in Manhattan and Percy Jackson, you know you are sinking in deep, murky waters.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
rps-229 August 2009
Hey... I liked it. I had seen some episodes of the old TV series but I don't really remember them. This movie is a monstrous put-on, a huge satire, a brilliant send up of the Brit way of life and of other adventure movies. There are some great sight gags --- tea from the dashboard? Bad guys in bunny suits? --- and some clever dialogue. I'm sure it's one of those movies where you'll find something new every time you watch it again. There is a bit of James Bond, Harry Potter and Batman. The effects are great. I've never been able to figure out just where Ralph Fiennes fits. But he's perfect in this role with the impassive face and the unruffled attire. And Sean Connery makes an interesting villain for somebody who usually is the good guy. Really surprised by the low rating.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Search the cutting room floor for clues
jake8718 February 2003
As it turns out, the one group of diabolical masterminds that `The Avengers' can't outwit is film editors.

Still, despite its well-documented flaws, this movie doesn't quite deserve the peasants-with-pitchforks-and-torches reception that it got from fans of the 1960s British TV series.

For those who come to it with no expectations, well, your expectations won't necessarily be exceeded, but there are some fun bits. The movie version is as mindless as typical Hollywood summer action fare, but no worse.

First, the good news: screenwriter Don MacPherson does draw on a wealth of wacky plot points from the series; like that show, the movie does have stylish fashions and sets; it doesn't take itself too seriously.

But the heart of the show was the rapport between Patrick Macnee, playing suave agent John Steed, and his various leading ladies. In Cathy Gale, the brisk, buxom Honor Blackman created a leather-clad woman warrior who was still a feeling person. With her fashion-model figure and classical theater background, Diana Rigg made Emma Peel the ultimate in intelligence and charm. Voluptuous Linda Thorson was perhaps too young, but she brought a combination of physicality and bubbliness to Tara King.

Macnee provided graceful support to these three very different actresses, and the show arguably reached its height during the black-and-white Diana Rigg season. While Rigg made an arch, androgynous Emma Peel, her chemistry with Macnee produced role models for female-male relations.

It's a difficult formula to emulate, and there may have been worse choices that Ralph Fiennes as the movie Steed. The Rock comes to mind. But while Fiennes is attractive and seems kindly off-screen, on-screen he generates all the warmth and charm of week-old bath water.

And while Macnee did as few stunts as possible _ as even a cursory glance at a TV episode clearly shows _ he at least looked formidable. Fiennes looks like a gust of wind would blow him away _ unfortunate, considering the film's weather-related plot.

In contrast, the athletic Uma Thurman creates her own special effect as Emma Peel. Her dangerous curves seem to defy the laws of physics, filling catsuits in ways that the underendowed Diana Rigg couldn't imagine, much less match.

And Thurman's Emma starts out well, with her early scenes providing much of Rigg's breezy playfulness. Alas, the more time she spends with Fiennes, the more she mimics his mumbling, diffident performance. As the scenes jump around almost at random, Thurman's version of Emma becomes equally fractured.

Sean Connery gives a one-note performance, and one wishes that only dogs could hear him. Of course, the choppy editing doesn't give him a chance at grace notes. The megalomaniacs on TV episodes were often eccentrics in a script filled with eccentrics, with highly personal grievances and plots.

The movie lacks those charming supporting characters, and in this underpopulated movie, Connery is the obvious bad guy right from the start. Still, even if the cast is adrift, there is some genuine feeling between the Steed and Peel characters. It's a pale copy of the Macnee-Rigg pairing, but one suspects there was a better movie here that got derailed on the Hollywood assembly line.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews