Rating: 
Summary: Cliches, One-Liners, Absurd Characters
Review: This has to be one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. The opening scenes are pretty ridiculous and it just goes downhill from here. The plot is barely discernable. The dialogue is 99% cliches and one-line comebacks. Don't even rent this movie. You won't make it all the way through.
Rating: 
Summary: All sugar, no spice
Review: Expectations can be tricky.
In retrospect, any attempt to recapture the lighter-than-air grace of `The Avengers' TV series at its best was doomed to disappoint die-hard fans.
The show was often silly, with obvious budget limitations and plot holes. But it had panache.
That was apparent in set design, camera angles, fashions and above all in the banter between its stylish leads. As John Steed, Patrick Macnee was absurdly polite, yet with an underlying thread of menace. His leading ladies, most notably Diana Rigg as Emma Peel, were confident, capable and just a bit smug.
Their successors here, Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman, can't match the Macnee-Rigg rapport.
That said, Fiennes isn't the worst choice for a Steed, he just lays on the English reserve a bit too heavily. And let's face it, Diana Rigg would kill, repeatedly, to be able to fill a catsuit like Uma Thurman does. Thurman seems like the CGI fantasy version of the pancake-flat Rigg.
Director Jeremiah Chechik provides some sensational visuals, especially of a London that seems to glow in any season. The sets and fashions cleverly combine the mod and the modern. And Don Macpherson's script slyly re-uses many bits from the old show.
So why the outpouring of hatred? The problem is, no one seems in charge here. The story has been edited and re-edited into a jumble where you can practically jump through the plot holes. Bad guy Sean Connery goes straight over the top and stays there. And crucially, Fiennes' low-key manner seems to drain Thurman's energy. You could cut the sexual tension with a plastic spoon.
Still, it's no worse than the average Hollywood blockbuster, and one the kids can enjoy too. Avengers' purists may cringe, but others should think of this movie as cotton candy: no nutritional value, but it won't kill you.
Rating:
Summary: One of the worst movies ever made. Ever
Review: I got caught up in the nostalgia and hype when this movie was first released. I'm one of the few people who actually saw it in the theaters. The line that best describes this movie came from another reviewer (can't remember who):"Not only does The Avengers make you think that the filmmakers never MADE a movie before, it makes you think they've never even SEEN a movie before." That about sums it up. The film has a temporal problem - it's a 90's movie that's a remake of a 60's tv show and it's not entirely sure what decade it's in. It looks kind of 60s-ish then it looks kind of like it's taking place in modern times. The generic 60's English thugs with the mod haircuts look like they've been on ice for a few decades. Sean Connery is pretty much wasted in the title role. He's blustery and over the top, but it's mostly a great sound and fury signifying nothing. Connery's not nearly as wasted as Ralph Finnes (excellent in Strange Days). Uma Thurman shows that she can't hold a candle to Diana Rigg. She ends up in the leather catsuit but doesn't have much to do once she's in it. There are some odd bits in the middle where the movie gives a nod to some of the more mind-twisting elements of the series, but with no real effect. The cgi killer-robot bees are at best laughable and at worst downright embarrasing. The final mano-a-mano battle royal at then end is pretty forgettable.
Rating: 
Summary: I Thought It Was GROOVY, Baby!!
Review: If this film would have been made in the 60s it would have been a cult classic. So what's with all these sad sacks with a woody for Diana Rigg and Patrick MacNee. Their turn was 40 years ago and let's face it, with all due respect, they'd look a bit silly doing it today. This is a quirky, offbeat film with the 60s "anything goes" approach and I think it works quite well. Anything can happen at any time. Okay, I would have preferred a young Catherine Zeta-Jones in the Emma Peel role instead of Uma Thurman but what you get ain't half bad. The FX are great and the rousing climactic fight scene with villain Sean Connery and Ralph Fiennes (as John Steed) is specactular. Also the giant mechanical bee attack is first rate. The main problem people have with this movie is their total fanaticism with the 60s TV series. It's sacred to them and I can understand that. I was there the first time around as well but this is an update...just like the Bonds have been updated from "Dr No". Get used to it! Wacky, over-the-top entertainment in the "Modesty Blaise" vein with some very James Bondian touches. Love that old lady with the machine gun. I think this might even get better with repeated viewings. Yeah... I'm glad I bought it.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of Action and Good Special Effects
Review: Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, and Sean Connery star in this film based on the 1960s television series. Sean Connery stars as Sir August de Wynter, an evil scientist who plans to threaten the world with his hi-tech weather machine which produces such phenomena as tornadoes, hail storms, extreme temperatures, and mechanical insects for good measure. He makes his intentions known to world leaders and tells them that they must "purchase" their weather from him at a very hefty price. Enter our two heroes, John Steed, played by Ralph Fiennes, and Mrs. Peel, played by Uma Thurman. Steed is a Bond-like special agent working for a British counter-intelligence agency. He and his partner Mrs. Peel have been assigned to destroy De Wynter. Uma Thurman is excellent in her role. From her high speed driving skills to her cat-like climbing reflexes, she's the perfect counterpart to Steed's intellect and no-nonsense approach. The special effects were the high point of the film, especially the spectacular weather effects. The tornadoes and hail storms looked very realistic, and the final battle between Steed and De Wynter is astounding. I enjoyed this movie for several reasons. The special effects were the main one, but the rapport between Steed and Mrs. Peel was excellent. The two clicked throughout the film, and Steed's continuous snide but light-hearted comments made the move that much more enjoyable. Watch this fun film and experience some cool effects while getting a laugh along the way.
Rating:
Summary: Not nearly as good as the original series
Review: This movie is a waste of time. I don't know how you can take an entertaining television show such as The Avengers ans make it boring, but the producers of this film did. Where the original was a little quirky, this was just stupid. Ralph Fiennes was accepatable as John Steed, but Uma Thurman is not English, and does a horible job as an English spy. I have an orginal idea, if the character is suppossed to be British, why not hire a British actor?
Rating:
Summary: Faithful in spirit
Review: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1966, I was in the 6th grade and discovered Steed and Emma on TV, and I adored them. So when this film was released, I never expected it to "live up to" the originals. But I was surprised at how faithful it was to the tone and wackiness of the old series. I may be in the minority in thinking this, but I believe "The Avengers" was brought lovingly to the screen. And although it ain't the "real thing," it deserves kudos for being a noble, and even entertaining, effort.
Rating:
Summary: Chemistry ... Biology... Home Ec?
Review: Chemistry is Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman (who was pregnant during the making of this). It's quite deliberate on the part of the director, but it's still enough to light up the screen. Biology is... well, Uma Thurman in skin-tight black leather. Yowza. I wanna look like that. Home Ec... or maybe Home Dec. This movie is all about style. This makes the suspension of disbelief necessary to get through this movie go down with a honey coating. Not much in the way of extras on this DVD, though. I'd have liked to see more.
Rating:
Summary: THE SIXTIES AGAIN
Review: The chemistry between FIENNES and THURMAN is non existant;the special effects are programmed to keep you from sleeping;CONNERY looks bored and should retire to cultivate tulips.The funny thing about this movie is that in FRENCH the dialogue seems better.If you are over forty like me,chances are you enjoyed the BRITISH series with DIANA RIGG and her lovely boots.The sixties have never been so popular since AUSTIN POWERS,but there is a limit to the filmgoer's tolérance.This film works best on television as a time-killer.
Rating: 
Summary: directors cut-you're needed
Review: i think it is almost common knowledge by now that this movie was cut to shreds after poor test screenings. A very good opening sequence was cut along with "backstory" scenes that would have ensured that the film made sense. Therefore this version has curiosity value because it shows exactly what happens to a film when a studio panics and decides that a film will exactly fit 90 minutes regardless of how it will affect the story. The directors cut is in the vaults and should be released on DVD now if only to show the fans what the original story was intended to be.
| 
