User reviews

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.

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")

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 - **

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.

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?)

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.

This is among the most panned movies of all time since it was based on a TV show. And while I can understand the fans of the original TV show I still don't think that this movie is THAT bad. I would NEVER put it in the Bottom 100 as I can name many other movies that are much worse than this one (FREDDY GOT FINGERED, THE CAT IN THE HAT and DISASTER MOVIE for example).

In this full length version of the 1960s TV show John Steele and Emma Peel battle with a duplicate Emma Peel and Sir August de Wynter (played by Sean Connery), a mastermind that wants to rule the world with his weather-controlling machine. And while this plot could look stupid to some, it certainly is! But you can't do anything but admire the extraordinary special effects as well the sets. In particular I loved the special effects (the CGI insects were cool to look at). I personally can't give a 1 to a movie with great special effects and sets, it deserves at least other 4 points for the effects.

As for the acting, even though the movie it's bland Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman are good in their roles. And it was a surprise for me seeing Sean Connery in such a nasty role and Patrick Mcnee as the Invisible Jones (a small role).

However, while the movie is a bit bad, it's watchable and far from a huge disappointment. But I am NOT saying it's great!

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.

It's the cinematic adaptation from the most popular show(produced by Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell)series in England during the 60s what spread its success to United States and all the world.The film concerns about John Steed(Ralph Fiennes),a brilliant agent secret,he isn't the James Bond type, a sexist macho man but a kind spy with wide culture working for the British Intelligence and of course a charm,attractive Emma Peel(Umma Thurman),she's an elegant leather-garbed British spy with great toughness and strength.Both join forces facing dangerous and mysterious situations to save the world ,just on the edge of the sci-fi .They team up to confront against a nasty Scottish ,Sir August of Winter(Sean Connery with skirt included),a megalomaniac who wishes to rule the world by means a weather changing machine.

The picture follows the series plot by the writing credits Sidney Newman but with quite flaws .The wonderful relationship TV series among John Steed(Patick McNee) and his female partners(the gorgeous Diana Rigg,Honor Blackman,Linda Thorson,Joanna Lumney) who was subliminally funny and romantic here malfunctions and there aren't the enjoyable chemistry between Fiennes and Thurman .Appear usual character series as Mother(incarnated by Jim Broadbent and in the episodes by Patrick Newell) and strange ,odds baddies,besides a character named Father(Fiona Lewis).The classic Steed ,Patrick Mcnee, plays an invisible agent in a bemusing voice-cameo. The movie contains action,humor,tongue in check and chases as when a giant mechanic wasps attack them.The film displays a colorful and sensational cinematography by Roger Pratt.Spectacular production design by Stuart Craig and some interior halls and palaces are similarly reflected to Renee Magritte paintings. Atmospheric music by Joel Mc Neely who follows the famous theme by Laurie Johnson.The motion picture is regularly directed by Jeremia S. Chechik(Diabolique).Rating :Below average.The film suitable for family viewing isn't recommended for nostalgics series, in fact ,the film was really an authentic flop in the box office.

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.

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?

It has to go down as a Could have been film.

I'm a fan of the Diana Rigg era of the TV version this try's to be and fails.

Why?

Start with the Producers culling it down to an 80m (Excluding Titles) film, the film left is unevenly paced and minus back-story elements that would have helped.

It's still stylish and has moments of pure Avengers-ness but...here we must mention the leads...

The Dialogue between them want's to ape the wit of the best Steed/Peel shows but ends up stilted and filled with lines that Benny Hill would have shook his head at. The Trust between them changes from scene to scene and they have no Chemistry.

Ralph Fiennes plays Steed stiff upper-lipped and that's all...

Uma Thurman looks like a wax doll (She still manages to be sexy despite this) and is robotic at times.

Sean Connery is Sean Connery but given little to do and again his Back- story (The portrait of Emma...) isn't given.

Eddie Izzard could be played by anyone and his last words (Oh F**K) is so badly dubbed as to be an insult.

It does entertain despite this and maybe in a 'Directors cut' could be reevaluated, but I can't see Warners ever doing it.

An Opportunity Missed.

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 ...

It comes to something when the most interesting thing about a film is spotting all the famlliar locations in the south of England, but that's what I ended up doing here! Being a massive fan of The Avengers TV series, I managed to resist watching this film for 20 years. In the end, morbid curiosity took over - just how bad could it be? The main problem here seems to be that the whole film is completely ill-judged. It's like a hotchpotch of lukewarm & half-baked ideas from the 60s TV series - thrown into a melting pot with no real love or appreciation of what made the TV series so special.

Ralph Fiennes is miscast as a foppish & smarmy Steed, and never feels like a respected and likeable gentleman from 'the ministry'. Uma Thurman fares slightly better, but there's never any real chemistry between them, and it just makes you long to see the original instead.

Why do they drink tea all the time? I don't remember that happening in the real Avengers! Predictable views of tourist London only serve to add to the feeling that someone thinks this will all make it more 'English' & please a section of the American audience who think England is still like how it was 50 years ago.

Sean Connery does a good job as the villain bent on controlling the weather with his elaborate machine (nods to the episode 'A Surfeit of H2O' here), but the whole Bond-like epic climax falls flat, & goes down the drain faster than rain in a rainstorm.

This whole ludicrous film feels contrived, unreal, charmless and cartoonish. Its only purpose seems to annoy & confound long-standing Avengers fans, and to bore contemporary cinema watchers who now probably wonder what all the fuss was about.

This big-budget flop is not without its good points, seeing as it contains enough offhand weirdness and odd situations to appeal to most bad movie fans. Although its about as far away from the original television series as you can get, there's this retro '60s thing going on with the film which makes it pretty amusing to watch. Although the fact that the cast members are obviously taking everything as a joke does get on your nerves after a while, I consider this to be an enjoyable failure and I must admit that I pretty much enjoyed some of the individual scenes.

You know you're in for a crazy time with the film's opening, which sees Steed walking down an apparently normal English street only to be attacked by a number of surprise assailants. For example, at one moment a whistling milkman smashes two empty bottles together to use them as weapons as he lunges as Steed. This exceptionally odd beginning sets the campy tone for the rest of the film, which is not for all tastes it has to be said.

Packed with cheesily overemphasised dialogue, lots of one-liners and innuendos worthy of a Bond movie, THE AVENGERS has the benefit of a huge budget to include lots of nifty (but hardly convincing) computer effects. These include an attack by a swarm of mechanical bees, characters walking in see-through bubbles and the climatic "storm within a building" scene which is sufficiently loud and over-the-top enough to be a crowd-pleasing event. Elsewhere, we have the ever-odd Eddie Izzard as a mute henchman, one of the least threatening ever to grace a cinema (or television) screen, and bad guys dressed up as giant multicoloured teddy bears in order to disguise their identities.

Ralph Fiennes (looking a lot like a young version of Peter Cushing) essays the role of the straight-faced John Steed, and is pretty good; Uma Thurman plays the leather-suited Emma Peel: one wonders why she agreed to be in such a fantastic movie again after the failure of BATMAN & ROBIN but I guess she's a glutton for punishment. Sean Connery is the non-threatening chief villain, and has had enough experience with Bond villains in order to know how to play it, but his performance is somewhat weak. Elsewhere, we have Jim Broadbent as the wheelchair-bound Mother, leader of the agents, and a funny turn from Patrick Macnee as an invisible agent (!).

The major problem is the obvious cutting that went on with the film after initial test screenings, which undoubtedly make events confusing at times. In my mind this just adds to the weirdness. See it for yourself to find out how.

"The Avengers" is one of the biggest money-losers of the decade. I've read estimates that it lost $40,000,000...and with a film this clumsily and expensively made, I can certainly understand it. Initial previews went disastrously for the studio and they had the brilliant idea of trimming 26 minutes from the movie. Unfortunately, this made the film choppy and incomprehensible...and audience members stayed away in droves. So why did I decide to watch it? It was simply too infamously bad for me to resist it!

The plot is a confusing mess involving a duplicate Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) and a guy who can apparently control the weather (Sean Connery). But the characterization of these and all the people seemed unimportant and everyone in the film lacks depth...and you have no idea WHY they do what they do. Instead the film focuses heavily on overly mannered dialog (to the point of being incredibly annoying), lots of expensive stunts (something never seen in the original TV show) and gadgets (such as giant robotic wasps, an invisible agent as well as a board meeting where EVERYONE is inexplicably dressed like the Grateful Dead bears...also the sorts of thing not seen in the TV show, thank God). Clearly, the folks who made the film had a severe lack of reverence for the source material...which would irritate the die-hard fans. And, the incomprehensibility and constant style over substance would certainly irritate all the rest of us! This is an expensive looking film which just doesn't make much sense, isn't entertaining and substitutes stunts and gadgets for plot.

So, is it as bad as its reputation? Perhaps not...but dollar for dollar, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a film that delivers this little for the dollar! It's wastefully bad...and about as much fun as a case of the Shingles.

In all honesty, I was expecting The Avengers to be much worse than it was. I do remember the TV series with such fondness, and while this film is not an abomination as I have heard it to be it is very lacking in the series' style and charm. The production values, soundtrack and Ralph Fiennes though are pretty decent. The problems lie in the stodgy pace and direction, the inane and really quite terrible script and the uninteresting story. In regards to the cast, Fiennes is the only one who is decent enough, Uma Thurman is miscast, Sean Connery phones it in and the supporting cast are unforgivably wasted with so little to do. All in all, it could have been worse, but that is not to say it was good. 3/10 Bethany Cox

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.

I've seen a lot of bad movies in my day. This one wins.

There's literally nothing redeemable about this movie. It has no idea what it's tone is, it jumps from scene to scene in ways that make Micheal Bay seem restrained, and the writing is just... so... BAD...

Whose bright idea was it to cast Eddie Izzard and have him never speak?! That's like casting Gene Kelly and having him not dance or sing, or casting Matthew McConaughey and having him keep his shirt on. Speaking is what he DOES. "The Avengers" feels like it was edited with a weed whacker—which it all but was, and there's nothing left. No chemistry, no sense, no logic, no setup, no drama, no excitement, no life, no color, no tickey, no shirty... Nothing'.

Bottom line: when you see a sub-20 metascore for a movie, BELIEVE IT.

....Because it's actually worse than people say. Without doubt the worst film of the 90s, which is an achievement in a way. No chemistry between Thurman & Fiennes. Connery has a funny wig. The innuendo is crude and obvious. Give it a wide berth.

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!

I rewatched The Avengers today and it really is a missed opportunity. The reason it failed was not IMO the surreal wackiness, it was that Warners panicked and cut huge chunks out of the film rendering it not only surreal and weird, but missing links in the story that would have tied all the bizarre stuff together better.

If you look on Wikipaedia it details what was in the original script, such as the attack on the secret base by the evil Emma Peel that was seen in trailers. I also recommend reading the novelisation, which you can pick up for a couple of quid. It really is absurdly stupid how Warners had, judging by the book and screenplay, a great film and then they decided 'instead of a long movie people might like, we'll cut it down to a short movie that people will hate for sure'. They should have had the courage of their convictions, and if they had The Avengers might have been a huge success. One can only hope they pull their fingers out and release the director's cut.

On reflection there's a lot to like in The Avengers: Uma Thurman in leather: always a plus, Sean Connery hamming it up more than Porky Pig at a bacon factory, and henchmen dressed as multi-coloured teddy bears. Bonkers. Utter bonkers. I like it.

The dialogue is actively painful, the plot has more holes than a colander, and the entire thing is a shameful waste of a number of otherwise talented actors.

On the bright side, the outfits and the scenery are lovely. Best watched on mute, and probably not while sober. And if you liked the character Poison Ivy from that one Batman movie everyone pretends never existed, hey, you get to see her in this movie too.

Look, it's not as if the original series was the pinnacle of its genre. And I really do love terrible movies - but even League of Extraordinary Gentleman is better than this travesty.