The Avengers

1998

Action / Adventure / Sci-Fi / Thriller

104
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 5%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 15%
IMDb Rating 3.7 10 37436

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 52,104 times
August 18, 2014 at 01:39 AM

Cast

Ralph Fiennes as John Steed
Sean Connery as Sir August de Wynter
Uma Thurman as Emma Peel
Jim Broadbent as Mother
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
699.73 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 29 min
P/S 3 / 20
1.24 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 29 min
P/S 6 / 24

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Xophianic 4 / 10

Ugh...

I wasn't all that interested in watching this movie, but I decided to anyway since it was one of the only ones that week there that I hadn't seen yet. I should've saw one of the others. I don't even remember what they are now, but it doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that THE AVENGERS is the worst movie of the decade and one of my least favorite movies of all time.

John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) team up to stop Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) from destroying the planet with a weather-changing machine. I won't go into the plot too deeply, because it's just plain stupid.

The acting in this movie was not very good. Ralph Fiennes and Fiona Shaw (Father) play two of the most annoying characters in any movies that I have ever seen. The constant unwitty one-liners between Fiennes and Thurman is very annoying. Sean Connery is at his worst here. I was disappointed in him, because he is a great actor who doesn't belong in this movie. Sir August de Wynter? Just the name of the character alone should tell you much.

There was, however, one thing that was good about this movie. That would be Uma Thurman in her tight leather. I am absolutely in love with Uma Thurman, and I don't think she belonged in this film, but I am pretty sure seeing her wearing those catsuits were the only thing that kept me from having to eat my own legs and drink my own urine to survive this movie.

Maybe you'll think I'm exaggerating a bit, but I found this movie to be boring and annoying. I recommend that it be avoided at all costs.

Reviewed by rjm-geo 1 / 10

My one star reference.

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.

Reviewed by MartinHafer 1 / 10

Only for folks who are gluttons for punishment...

"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.

Read more IMDb reviews

1 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment