"Now is the winter of your discontent."      

THE AVENGERS (PG-13) 

Reviewed August 15, 1998 - Check out The Avengers Website.

In the big-screen adaptation of the cult 1960's television show of the same name, The Avengers brings back dapper secret agent John Steed (Ralph Fiennes), who is partnered with one Dr. Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) in an attempt to stop megalomaniac Sir August DeWynter (Sean Connery) from terrorizing the world by controlling the Earth's weather.  That, as far as I can tell, is the extent of this film's plot, but after having just sat through two hours of The Avengers, there's really so much more about this film that I want to talk about, mostly relating to how amazingly bad it is.  Yup, bad bad bad!!  This film is short on energy, charm, chemistry, and excitement, with a story (and characters) that meander about with little focus, as if hoping that a bit of "style" and a cool, collected demeanor is enough to charm an audience into submission. 

No such luck.  Even the presence of Sean Connery, who can usually be counted on to make a film watchable, does nothing for The Avengers as he is forced to recite ridiculous lines such as "rain or shine, all is mine."  Yikes.  Meanwhile, Fiennes and Thurman struggle to generate any sort of on-screen chemistry with each other, for the most part painfully failing to do so.  Thurman in particular seems somewhat out of her element as Dr. Peel, lacking that certain sparkle needed to make the role work.  Oh well, given the weak script and confused plot, I suppose the lackluster performances don't really matter too much.  The point (as if you haven't gotten it by now) is that there's a lot wrong with The Avengers, and for many the experience will undoubtedly qualify as a real waste of both time and money.  As the closing credits on this film began to roll in the theater today, I heard someone behind me softly say, "this film sucks."  Several people (including myself) chuckled in agreement. 

Consider yourself warned.

Responses from cyberspace--thanks for writing!

David Rogers gives this movie  star: "Was this one movie or millions of Two-Reelers put together?" (4/27/00)

Piccolo gives this movie  star: "I rented this one hoping to get a laugh out of how crappy it was. I knew it was going to be bad. I was not prepared for what I saw. This was BY FAR one of the worst movies I have EVER seen. I couldn't even find enjoyment in making fun out of how bad it was (like I could with Batman & Robin). I was upset that I had lost almost two hours of my life. Here is just a short list of examples of how this movie failed: 1. WHO CARES THIS MUCH ABOUT THE WEATHER?! Sean Connery's character (sorry, I was so scarred from the experience that I don't remember his name) is the head of an organization of people who are trying to control the weather? From what I can tell, there were at least a dozen characters who were working on a myriad of weather related research projects for nefarious purposes. HUH? Don't traditional "comic book" style villians delve into things a little more exciting than creating snow storms? 2. WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE TWO MRS. PEELES? This was an important part of their so-called plot and they NEVER explained why there was a clone of their main female character running around wrecking havoc on London. Hello? Was she a clone, a twin sister, a cyborg? Also, why did Sean Connery's character have an antique looking picture of Mrs. Peele on his pipe organ? 3. I know it was supposed to be a stylized environment, but where were all the people in London? It really started to bother me. There were no people in any of the exterior street scenes. Maybe the extras realized how crappy this movie was going to be and opted out of the job. If only Uma, Ralph, and Sean would have realized that. 4. Finally, were was the plot? I know they were trying to capitalize on a theme that could possibly have turned into a franchise, but did they learn nothing from the failure of the last installment of the Batman franchise? These movies only work when someone bothers to write a decent script. Hell, it doesn't even have to be good, just adequate. This was all out terrible. The ONLY funny part (and I'm not sure it was supposed to be funny) was the boardroom scene when all the members seemed to be dressed as Teletubbies." (9/19/99)

Vanessa gives this movie  stars: "I liked the film very much but although the argument is a bit silly. I think the director 'ate' lots of minuts of the plot and we couldn't understood the argument completly. UMA and RALPH are made to be TOGETHER. I found lots of chemistry between them. Uma is as sexy as always she is and she's the perfect Mrs.Peel (Well, Diana Rigg is the only one, but...) And Ralph... OOH! He plays the perfect gentleman because he's full of style and English beauty. I love him as Steed (When he's not Steed I love him too...) Well, I think people have been too cruel with the film and they haven't understood it. This is not the best film in the world but I LIKE IT." (7/25/99)

Klobb gives this movie  star: "Another reason to hate Warner Brothers. Where do I begin? It's tough to find something even remotely good to say about this movie. The plot is stupid (Oh no! A guy in a kilt is taking over the weather! It's a sequel to Twister!), the editing and continuity are crap, the dialogue is abysmal, the "jokes" are pathetic. Even three extremely capable actors can't save this flick. Uma drones on, trying to be sexy in a subtle way, and Ralph Fiennes is just plain uninspired. What could've been a fun role is horribly underdone. Same goes for Connery. It was a snooty role, and over the top was expected (it's become the norm in good vs. bad movies for the villain to be a ham) but Bond's not the least bit menacing or even interesting. Thurman and Fiennes have zero chemistry. It's not the eyesore that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was, but it's still pretty crummy. Save your money. There's a reason it had no advance screenings. Was there a great movie? All I saw was a bunch of stupid "jokes" and FX. Dude, it just sucked. Hollywood should be sued for this putrid piece of crap. Period!" (7/5/99)

ShadowRaider_98@yahoo.com gives this movie  star: "Was there a good movie here?! All I saw was a bunch of plotless, idiotic jokes and FX. Dude, it just plain sucked." (6/24/99)

oz_kiss@hotmail.com gives this movie  stars: "It was a great concept but Hollywood had to screw it up." (11/12/98)

ronin@dccnet.com gives this movie  stars: "I admit the Avengers was not a great movie but i had a good time watching it. On my page (http://www.dccnet.com/fester1/ronin) I gave it * * * stars out of 4" (11/8/98)

Charlie gives this movie  star: "don't waste your money" (10/2/98)

soccer@hotmail.com gives this movie  stars: "I think is a good movie with good action and I hope soon they will be in vidoe rente. alvaro moreno" (10/2/98)

blue_eel@msn.com gives this movie  star: "You're review was right on. This was one stinker of a movie. Shame, becuase the tv series on which it was based was amazing. Everything about the movie failed. Particularly, I think it was entirely miscast. Feines, an excellent actor, displayed a hint of Steed's charm, but really none of his humor or wit. The writing was flat and Sean Connery, also usually wonderful, was trapped in a shabilly writtin role. Eeek!" (9/21/98)

Ryan George says: "thanks for the info, i was interested in seeing the movie but with the films short screen life and so many negative replies i think that i'll pass on this one. although i was interested in Uma in that black out fit." (9/11/98)

diggydogg@yahoo.com gives this movie  star: "Bahhhhhhhhhhhh I think this movie sucked and Sean Connery's words came a Macrosecond after his lips moved. the cutscenes in Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 where better." (9/7/98)

ghdfhhj gives this movie  star: "I really don't know, I was asleep during the whole movie. It sucked. The End." (8/23/98)