Eric Stevenson I had heard that this was one of the worst movies ever made based on a TV show. I admit that in the first twenty or so minutes, but then it got really stupid. A subplot features Sean Connery running a secret society where everyone is dressed as giant technicolor teddy bears. I am not making that up. I had already known about this from the Nostalgia Critic's review, but I was still pretty shocked when I saw it! This features some organization that doesn't allow women in their ranks.That's kind of odd, seeing as how one of their leaders is a woman...who is named "Father"...for some reason? The special effects are quite bad, especially the giant insects (yeah, those are there too). I admit to knowing virtually nothing about the original TV show. Yeah, this isn't Marvel's Avengers, but an Avengers based on a British show. I don't know if things like the bear costumes were in the original series. This movie was very boring with an inspiring plot and characters. *1/2

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.

generationofswine Surreal is really the best way to describe this movie. It beautifully encompasses the Surrealism movement that started in the 1920s and continued, in a way, to hint at Dadaism.Even the dialogue in the film reminded me of going to an art museum."How real do you feel Mrs. Peel?" There is a lot of hate behind this film, a 3.7 rating on IMDb and trolls complaining that Thor and Iron Man weren't in a movie based on a television series that had nothing to do with the comic books.Ignore the hate, this is a movie that people walked into expecting a summer blockbuster and walked out disappointed because they got a thematic action movie art film.It doesn't appeal to the masses, but made the mistake of thinking that it did. Because of that it was a flop.But for those of us that don't cringe in horror over the thought of going to an art museum, the movie is beautiful and done in a way that most of the artist-directors out there can only dream of.It looks brilliant, it looks like moving art on the screen and the dialogue fits perfectly into that mold. It is the surreal film that puts so many others to shame.The only fault it has is the marketing. It was marketed for the Rambo crowd that want nothing more to see the blood and carnage, the over-the-top science fiction special effects that has aliens blow up the White House.Instead you get Surrealist special effects and killer teddy bears. They hit the mark well, but only for those of you that real enjoy that sort of thing.If you walk into The Avengers expecting a lowbrow action movie, you are going to walk out of it in the first few minutes. Think of it more as an action sci-fi art-house film and you'll love it.

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.