The AvengersWarner Brothers is not having a good year whatsoever. With only one real hit (Lethal Weapon 4) in the last two years, they are grasping at any film that appears to be able to draw audiences into the theaters. Unfortunately, this isn't it either. Believe me... after seeing this one, people will rush out and warn people to avoid this one at all costs. Please, take their advice.
I guess it was inevitable. The studio decided not to preview the film to critics who have an undeniable strength at altering the viewer's thoughts. This almost always means the film will be bad. THE AVENGERS is no exception. Earlier this year, we had the release of the mildly entertaining, but overall stupid Lost In Space, a film based on the hit television show. And now we have this one. Someone should tell the studios that remaking classic television shows is not a good idea.
THE AVENGERS begins with one of the most tedious and cliched moments in a film of this type. Never have I really noticed the clicheness of a scene like this before. John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) is walking through the streets of a city, nearly getting smashed with a planter pot, getting stabbed by one guy, getting knives thrown at him by a mother, etc. But don't worry... it gets much worse. After discovering that this sequence is merely just a test for Steed to pass, he gets called away to see Mother (Jim Broadbent), the man in charge of Steed. Mother tells him to meet a Dr. Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) and the two hook up as partners. From there on out, the film completely lost me as to what it's plot was about.
As far as I could tell, the main villain is Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery). Wynter is a genetic specialist who just happens to be able to control the weather (by the way, this also provides a really stupid pun on Wynter's name). Wynter plans on charging everyone for their weather (pay and you get nice, don't and you get harsh). Okay, I accepted that ridiculous premise, but what follows just doesn't add up one bit. Steed and Peel run around, spoiling the bad guy's plans while falling in love.
Instead of relating the plot, I will discuss what is so wrong about the film (mostly because the plot is irrelevant to the whole thing). Without this plot, the film would have been no better off than it is now. For instance, the characters seem to pop up whenever and wherever they need to be without any clue as to how they got there. This occurs so many times that it's almost as if the film was cut by an hour in the editing room. One moment, Steed will be in his car, and the next, he will be somewhere in the residence of the villain, stumbling across a red phone booth as the weather begins to change. It's plot tricks like these that make the film lesser than what it could have been. And that's really just the beginning.
Soon, the plot falls apart completely, and we are left with a plethora of visual gags and quirky dialogue spewed back and forth between characters. Most of it doesn't make sense, but sometimes the screenwriters will include some lines heralding back to the classic television show ("How now, brown cow?"). Unfortunately, that's the only smart dialogue included, and most of it ends up sounding pompous and rather undignified. The screenwriter Don MacPherson obviously never watched any of the old series because what made them so great was the witty banter between Steed and Peel. The banter here is almost painful because these two characters never seem to communicate. Instead, they read lines as if someone off camera is holding up cue-cards. This is one of the worst screenplays I have come across in years.A major disappointment has been shoved through the Hollywood system once again. But don't get me wrong, I would be the last one to criticize Hollywood. Here, however, it's just plain obvious. Instead of the studios ruining the effort, it's everyone else associated with the actual production. I don't blame Warner Brothers for sending this one out, because I can see their position. But I can't see from director Jeremiah Chechik's point of view. Instead, I see a director who somehow saw something good in what he has produced. But I can't see that. I see a mess that couldn't even have been saved in the editing room (except had they just scrapped the whole thing together). Chechik has a good eye for visual flare, but so does a lot of other directors. What Chechik is lacking is a sense of purpose in the film. He obviously doesn't seem to care whether or not the film maintains a sense of coherency, and by the end, it's as if he just ran out of time and started splicing scenes in where they don't belong. Chechik did the exhaustingly underrated remake of Diabolique, but at least that had a plot, interesting characters, etc. (Kathy Bates didn't hurt either). Here, there's nothing to hold the film up.
Speaking of the actors, one would think that with Uma Thurman, Sean Connery, and Ralph (pronounced Raife) Fiennes would be able to save this drivel. But they all give their worst performances to date. Uma Thurman was the only reason to see Batman & Robin, but here, it's just a pitiful excuse for a performance. I love Thurman to the fullest extent possible without ever meeting her, but here it's almost as if she left her soul in bed (where I believe she ought to have stayed). In a pure monotone voice, she takes on a slightly-good British accent. Now, seeing Uma in a tight-skin leather outfit is a good thing, but by the time that came around, I was too bored to care. Instead, check out Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman in Batman Returns! Ralph Fiennes has really not had a bad film. He made a name for himself with Schindler's List and then The English Patient. He even was in the terrific Strange Days. But this is just revolting. Fiennes has a wooden persona for this film, and emits absolutely no emotion whatsoever. It's like watching a piece of cardboard with an umbrella. And of course Sean Connery. What has happened to this guy? A once well-respected actor has been reduced to wearing a kilt for no reason. His over-the-top performance doesn't even work. Thankfully, he is saved by himself. In real life, he saw a preview for it and hated it. So he did a final cut, but still hated it afterwards. At least he knows what's good and what isn't. The only good one in this is Eddie Izzard who speaks not one line of dialogue and ends up dead.
Special note must go to set design and art direction. For the most part, it's actually a visually extravagent film. The snow looks fake, but it apparently is supposed to be. It provides some great visuals that just remind us of what we are missing. The sets are fabulous with a funny sequence involving Uma trying to escape from her captors. The room is never-ending, looping back on itself continuously. Even the scene involving the brightly-colored bears is fun. But none of these scenes are good enough to make up for the poor written, poor directed, and poorly acted portions (which would make up about 95% of it). And what is it with these stunts? When the aforementioned Izzard plummets to his death (and saying an obligatory profanity), Uma jumps off of a sphere high in the air, diving into the water below. Just before this segment, Uma and Izzard were fighting on wires, both trying to avoid falling. Now, what is the point in having her jump off the top of this platform after trying to avoid falling? It just brings more illogic to an already ridiculous film.
THE AVENGERS is rated PG-13 for action violence, some innuendo, and one harsh "F-word" that is completely unnecessary. Someone in charge wanted a PG-13 rating because the PG rating was "too light." With a film that would please children the most, this makes the target audience imperceptive. Is it pointed at teenagers? Maybe, but even they are smart enough to hate this movie. Is it pointed at young children? Why the harsh profanity? What if it was pointed at lovers of the old television show? Nope, they'll hate it too. In 1998, we haven't had that many bad films come out. I guess it's about time we did. Congraulations, THE AVENGERS, I doubt I'll see a worse film this whole year, and that includes Blues Brothers 2000.