Rating: 
Summary: A very watchable film.
Review: This big screen productio based on the tv series took alot of hits from the critics-some of it justisfied. However i found this movie to have some redeeming qualities. First of all you had several high quality actors such as Uma Thurman,Sean Connery and Ralph Fiennes.They seemed to be doing a pretty good job but were asked to work with a pretty weak script.I found the special effects and cinematography to be pretty good also.The character interaction was very weak with very little attention given to the reason that Sean Connerys character for instance had such an infacuation with Mrs Peele-that is just one of many weaknesses i found in this film.As stated by film critics one of the main selling points was a chance for Uma Thurman to have her own fashion show(which in itself is not a bad thing).Others critcize it for being so campish and the constant silly banter going on between Mrs.Peel and John Steed.However, give it some credit for trying to stick to the formula that won the original tv series its loyal following.Anyone that follows those episodes will probably agree that this movie more or less stayed along those lines.Anyway,this is another of those movies that i can't really say why but something keeps me popping it back in the dvd player and watching over and over again.
Rating: 
Summary: This movie had so much potential! Where'd it go!
Review: Wow. I thought I was in for a treat when I saw the previews for "The Avengers." At least the previews were entertaining. The beginning of the movie started out pretty good, but it was downhill from there.Can we say, "movie turns into a fashion show?" For crying out loud, every single time Uma left a scene and came back, she had on a new hot little number for an outfit. If I wanted to see a fashion show, I would have stayed home and turned on my cable. I absolutely love Ralph Fiennes and Sean Connery. Most of what they have done I have found wonderful. I was sorely disappointed by Sean Connery's role in this movie. His lines were stilted, he seemed extremely uncomfortable in what he was doing, and I started to feel sorry for him midway through the movie. Was this supposed to happen? I don't know. I do understand that this movie was supposed to represent the quirkiness of the original TV show, but I didn't buy it. Perhaps it was starting to grate on my nerves every time Uma showed up in a different tight-fitting outfit. The special effects were about the only redeeming quality in the entire movie. The bubbles they walked in, those big mechanical bees, and the high-flying act at the end were all pretty dang cool. I just wanted more out of the characters. I wanted more out of the plot. I wanted more out of Sean Connery's villain. I wanted more out of the relationship between Uma and Ralph. Perhaps I wanted too much, but when coming right down to the nitty gritty, that's usually what the criteria is for making what most people consider a "good" movie.
Rating: 
Summary: .
Review: I know nothing about the Avengers TV show, other than that this movie is based on it. So I can not compare the two or speak as "a fan." I just like Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman and giant bees. I expected the movie to be awful, but it was SO badly trashed in all the reviews that I was hoping maybe it would pop out the other end and be good in a ridiculous, campy sort of way. It ... almost was. Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman fit their roles extremely well. The dialogue isn't as abysmal as I would've expected, although it tries a bit too hard. The bees were a lot of fun, although they had that *painfully* CG look to them. In general, quirkiness abounds, and the visual aesthetics of the film are classy. But it just doesn't quite pull itself off. The quirkiness never quite lands on you the right way -- it's just ... weird. It wants to be funny, but fails due to the general tonality of incoherence. I imagine that I spent most of my time watching the movie just sort of ... furrowing my brow and pursing my lips in a kind of uncertain perplexity. And what's more, this surreal "quirkiness" gradually corrodes, throughout the duration of the film, into a more typical brand of brash Hollywood cheese. The last half-hour or so is pretty horrid. Sean Connery can't have more than fifteen minutes of screen time here. His character is completely unexplored. The audience never feels much of a threat from him because he almost seems like a secondary aspect of the movie anyhow. Just this sort of crazy guy who pops up during a couple of scenes. Who's messing with the weather. Or something. And yes, his performance -- the little of it that there is -- is absolutely uninspired. Also: I doubt I have ever seen an onscreen kiss more lifeless and fake than the one seen here. I don't think either Fiennes or Thurman even parted their lips. The kiss shouldn't have been there anyhow, but ... just thought I'd mention it. All in all, this struck me as a really bizarre movie that just doesn't work. I appreciate the surreal tone but it was tainted by self-consciousness and clumsy delivery. The story/plot, rest assured, barely makes any sense at all. The kind of movie you just ... watch ... rather than think about or question. I've seen big-budget Hollywood movies far worse than this (Lost in Space, Independence Day, Con Air) ... but ... that's saying little. Vaguely interesting as a curiousity, but certainly skippable.
Rating:
Summary: Lack of witticism
Review: Hoping the re-make would get the spirit of the old series I bought this DVD ... and would like to warn everybody to repeat that mistake. Jokes are forced, dialogues are flat, there is no suspense and the respective superiors ("Father" and "Mother") are just ridiculised. Boring. A nuisance. Stay away from it !
Rating: 
Summary: Good Movie, Very interesting
Review: Wjile it had some problems overall this was a great film. Very interesting and it works with the original series well
Rating: 
Summary: Why does the rating not go more than 5 stars?
Review: I loved this silly little movie. The people who didn't most likly didn't watch or didn't like the T.V. show. Come on people this movie was supposed to be silly, I'm not sure if the T.V. show was or not (but it was anyway). Don't get me wrong I loved the show just a well and at times better than this movie. I did think the "Mother"/"Father" stuff went a bit far, even that wasn't that bad. It was nice to see (or rather not see) Patrick Macnee (the orignal John Steed) as an invisible man. Where was Diana Rigg. I would highly recommend this silly little movie to anyone. ENJOY!
Rating:
Summary: How real do you feel Mrs Peel?
Review: Dry, arch...this could be Monument Valley, but tis an apt description of an underrated film. The original John Steed has been described as a man NSIT (Not Safe In Taxis)and the latest incarnation, the talented Mr Ralph Fiennes, is equally seductive(check out the leather boot scene, mmmm...). The killer bees, suprising nuns and decapitated teddy bears are in the spirit of the original show, as is the fencing in the gentleman's outfitters. Only mistake, and huge mistake at that, was at the end, allowing Steed and Peel to... Innuendo abounding, subtle and witty thoughout, so why? tell me why was THAT necessary? Smacks of pandering to the lowest common denom'. I can only hope a "Director's Cut" will be issued; in the words of Steed, '...hurry back'.
Rating:
Summary: The Revengers - someone hated the TV series and it shows!
Review: This film has neither the wit nor tongue and cheek charm of the original TV Series. First mistake, they should have started the movie with the original TV theme starring Steed & Peel. The plot is sophomoric,- the old control the weather bit again - wasn't that a Dean Martin Matt Helm movie plot or was it Our Man Flynt? Avengers has great special effects, but if that's all you can remember about a film that's NOT GOOD. Schwarzneggar's Last Action Hero had great special effects, but it was a bomb of a movie. In Avengers the plot never explains how there is an island in London which no one seems to know about. And talk about holes, who's portrait hangs above Connery's pipe organ? Is he obsessed with Emma Peel? Is it a picture of a former love of Connery's (a dead wife)? Is it a portrait of Emma Peel's Clone? Is she really a clone of Emma or a clone of the dead wife? This is never explained. Since we have two Emma Peels why eliminate the evil one before the end of the film? Wouldn't it have been more exciting to see both of them battling each other above the weather bomb in the Finale, dressed alike, so that perhaps we wouldn't know which Emma was victorious until the very end? A missed opportunity on the part of the producers. It would have been nice to at least find out whether the cloned one could actually speak. It is not fair to compare Fiennes & Thurman to McNee and Rigg. The simple fact is that Fiennes and Thurman are not playing John Steed and Emma Peel. They are playing completely different characters, who just happen to have the same names. Emma Peel in this film although she is supposedly an independent woman seems a bit mousy and has none of the qualities of playfulness and cunning the TV version exhibited. The real Emma Peel is a strong willed woman, knows it and shows it. John Steed if I remember correctly never was one to lose his head (or his bollar), yet seems to do it quite a bit in this movie - a rather milk-toast version of the real dashing British secret agent. The sexual tension between the TV characters was always present as they acted like a married couple who still had some sparks between them despite Mrs. Peel's status (still pining for her long lost husband). You never saw Steed & Peel kiss, you never saw any hint of consummation, but in the TV version you knew there WAS something there. If any "tension" exists at all between these movie version characters it appears forced. There's no chemistry between Steed & Peel in this disaster of a film. Buy the TV series packages, the TV version is far superior to this dribble. Don't take my word for it, rent the movie & a couple of the TV series show and you'll be begging Amazon to ship the TV versions ASAP!
Rating:
Summary: Connery's de Wynter freezes finale
Review: Though an ultimate disappointment to AVENGERS fans, and especially to viewers being first introduced to the AVENGERS mythos, the film at least takes a while to show its bad side. The opening 45 minutes is smashing-which is perhaps why the ending is so frustrating. The main reason for this let-down is not the ridiculousness of the plot. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, most Bond films, and even JURASSIC PARK have all had commercial success with plots that weren't much better than this. Rather, the failure of this film comes in my mind from Sean Connery. If this were the only example of his acting one had ever seen, one would have difficulty seeing how the man ever won an Oscar (R). His performance is truly abysmal. Yes, the situations he's placed in and the lines themselves have a certain hollowness to them, but all meglomaniacs in all action films are, well, silly. Though I do think one or two scenes exploring a bit more of de Wynter's character might've been in order, films have been more satisfying with less-scripted villains. The glaring difficulty is that Connery obviously doesn't *believe* in his character. It's absolutely obvious that he's not having fun-even with the good lines. As a result, we don't either. By contrast, Fiennes and Thurman are having the time of their lives, playing roles that seem to have been tailor-made for them, despite having originated with other actors. There are really no scenes which their presence doesn't immediately help, and one can't help but feel that if the movie had simply had a different actor cast as the villain, their chemistry would've gone better appreciated by the viewing public. (DVD notes: There are really no additional features on the DVD, which is surprising. The production team were all huge fans of the TV show and spent years trying to bring this puppy to screen. One would've thought they'd have been absolutely passionate about trying to explain what had been a big part of their lives for years.)
Rating:
Summary: Inspires a great, imaginary movie
Review: --and that's why it gets three stars. Part of the fun of this film is filling in the blanks where, if the trailer is to be trusted, there may have been explanatory scenes. (Speaking of the trailer, my dvd has only one, despite the "Six Theatrical Trailers" advertised on the packaging.) E.g., Good Emma and Bad Emma are obviously "enhanced" clones created by de Wynter, whose wife was the template--her huge portrait hangs in his mansion. (This is not to claim that I've untangled all of the film's apparent flaws.) I also enjoyed the pervasive umbrella imagery, 'cause brollies are neat. And I've never seen the original tv series, but I gather that many of the elements in the film harken back to particular episodes.
| 
