Thanks for the memories!

Sadly Over-hyped

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I can't think of many movies I've seen that I'd only give one star to. I preemptively avoid things I'm not going to like, but this one slipped through as I watched it with friends in the theater when it came out 20 years ago. The interesting question to me 20 years later is not how bad it was, but why it was so bad.It's not the fault of the people in front of the camera, all more than talented enough to pull this off. I'm not inclined to blame the people behind the cameras either. The movie is competent enough at a technical level. Though the script, direction, and camerawork were all lackluster, that just makes a film dull, not terrible. No, I think the responsibility for this one is ultimately the Hollywood system as it existed in the 1990s. Studios imposed a lot of requirements on any film which was going to be marketed as an action blockbuster. Chase scenes, big special effects set-pieces, explosions, Sean Connery's name on the marquee, more chase scenes.The Avengers (TV series) is not action, the draw is the amiable, flirting but non-romantic interaction between the lead couple, the sixties glamour and charm, and lightheartedness mixed in with campy international intrigue.I'd say that The Avengers (movie) got Micheal Bay-ized except that's being unfair to Bay. He made Pain and Gain after all so we know even he can manage stylish humor, at least of the sardonic variety.Nope ... this movie is just dead. An assembly-line commercial product with no redeeming qualities. All the interesting and fun things cut out, nothing of value added in.

"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.

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.

I only give it 2 stars for the fact that I love the classic characters and Sean Connery. First off some say it's not worth griping about. Wrong. I could have written a better screenplay. First off they just meet for the first time? Mother was NEVER a character in the Peel series except till the last episode. The relationship between the two was never really brought to light except in hints, but naturally the movie biz can't make a film without the romantic stuff. The intro is bland. The script is awful. I'm sure Patrick Macnee, Diana Rigg and even Honor Blackman laughed when they saw it and probably embarrassed. I never liked the Linda Thorson season much although some stories would have benefited Emma Peel. This movie could have made due without the "Mother" character. I thought Ralph Fiennes was acceptable as Steed. Not so much Uma Thurman. The movie is pointless compared to the series and someone should have boxed up that script and buried it. The series is one of my favorite TV shows of all time. Couldn't wait for the film. After seeing it I was devastated. I'm sure not the only fan who was. Skip it.