Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

MartinHafer "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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

kittenkongshow 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.

GUENOT PHILIPPE Yes folks, maybe I deserve to be lynched by the mob because of it, but I like this picture. Most of the audiences don't, unfortunately. Of course, it could have been far better, I agree at one hundred percent. But keep in mind that it is very difficult to be faithful to a series scheme, especially an old one, such as THE AVENGERS. A TV series IS NOT A MOVIE. I persist and sign, it is impossible to stay close to a series atmosphere. See for instance MISSION IMPOSSIBLE or WILD WILD WEST. One regret, I would have preferred Emma Thomson instead of Uma Thurman. Yes, Thomson was asked to play Diana Rigg's character, the famous Emma Peel, because of the astonishing resemblance between he two of them. Same for WILD WILD WEST, George Clooney would have been far better than the tepid and arrogant Will Smith to play James West.Back to the AVENGERS, I was also amazed to see Sean Connery at last in an evil character, after all these years. Yes, I like this film. And, believe me, I will forever stay a die hard fan of the genuine TV show that made by childhood so beautiful. At six years old, I was in love with Diana Rigg.