Simon Davies Like a classic bond film. action & innuendo . Like a Gothamesk Batman super high tech , but on a 1950s background. I have no idea why people constantly feel disappoint by re-imagined versions of old classics. What did you think it is going to be like ? If you loved the originals and are hoping this will be exactly the same . Don't watch it. But, that would be a shame. Have an open mind and this is a brilliant film. I am hoping there is a squall just like this one !Many big mane actors placed cleverly in the film , congratulations to the casting director. (appart from steed , who was plainly a second choice)

Claudio Carvalho In London, the agent of the Ministry John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Dr. Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) are summoned by the Mother (Jim Broadbent), who shows a footage where the Prospero Project that controls the weather is damaged by Dr. Peel. They head to meet Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery), who is a weather specialist, but soon they discover that he wants to rule the world, using his machine that controls the weather. I saw "The Avengers" in the 90's and did not like this movie. Today I have just seen it again on DVD and I found again a silly and boring movie that wastes cast and budget. It is hard to believe that Sean Connery accepted to work in this turkey. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "Os Vingadores" ("The Avengers")

Dominic Mason It's far too easy to view this film with rose tinted glasses that look back at the old TV series, and then feel that this film is not true to them.Or that this was a modern - well 1998 - remake of a 1960s TV series, but brought up to date, but with no relation to the original other than the names of the characters.It wasn't. and it wasn't meant to be.This was Ralph Fiennes playing Patrick MacNee playing John Steed, and Uma Thurman playing Diana Rigg playing Emma Peel.Yes, it had Eddie Izzard, and Shaun Ryder in it, and they were bad, but ignore them, they didn't either make or break the film.My first memory of The Avengers was probably the Linda Thorson / Tara King series, back in 1968 (when I was 5years old) and I have since seen the Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg and Joanna Lumley episodes... (a bit out of the original order, but I can't help when I was born)And the Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes version is nothing if not true to those characters, the characterisations, and the story lines from those TV series.Those were every bit as far fetched, over the top, silly, bizarre, illogical, strange, weird and farcical as parts of this film version.Except no-one appears to have watched this film version with the same affection as they would watch the original TV series(s).I like it, and I think if you approach it like you would a re-run of one of the earlier TV series, and divorce yourself from reality, put yourself into the idiom of The Avengers, then I think you can enjoy this film, too. Distance yourself from nostalgia, Since Sean Connery was also in this film - which brings the 1960s James Bond films to mind, think of this film more like the original Casino Royale (with David Niven as James Bond, and Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond) rather than the gritty modern Casino Royale with Daniel Craig. It's not a 1998 film - it's just another episode in a weird 1960s TV series.

rorymacveigh Apparently American's taking the Mickey out of the British has hit an all new low and to be honest, I used to enjoy this film. It had some weird effects, some strange characters and Sean Connery (which is fantastic to begin with), but much like Batman and Robin, when I grew up, I couldn't help but think that this film is just a clumsy mess, attempting to portray the British as a bunch of 'Tea before Scones' types yet again, almost as if it were a propaganda movie. The acting is incredibly half-baked, showing that the actors really didn't put much effort into this film, the special effects aren't that special, the story is your basic 'hold the world for ransom' ploy and the rest I don't care to mention.It's obvious they were trying to make their own version's of the Bond films by making things overly complicated in terms of devices and usage. For example, when Emma Peel is given a package by a secret mailman telling her to answer the phone in order to receive her orders. My question there is, why? Why not just phone her as she would just answer the telephone instinctively like any other person would, she doesn't need to be told how to do basic things by letter unless she suffers from learning difficulties. The instructions they give her are to meet her Secret Agent accomplice John Steed at a Gentleman's Club, a place where no women can go. How stupid is that? Also, when she get's there, John comments on how she doesn't play by the rules. Where the hell was that coming from? They were stupid enough to order her to go to this place where no women can go.Next problem, Peel has video evidence incriminating her for sabotaging her own project and yet this secret Ministy allows her the chance to solve her own crime!!! What in the name of God are they thinking?! They think this is smart? Chances are if she was a real villain she'd head off with Steed before killing him in some dark alley and jumping the country within the first 12 minutes, and this Ministry, which seems to have a thing about giving Male Agents Female titles and Female Agents Male titles, wouldn't have a clue where she's gone. There's also a Clone of Emma Peel, which seems to hark back to the Double Man, and there's an Invisible Man! I though it was bad enough in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but this gag is really too stupid for words! Anyway, this film is just silly, with corny acting, a plain as cardboard story and logic that is illogical, you'd better just give it a miss!