Based on the popular early '60's British cult TV hit that came stateside a few years later, and featuring a great cast, one would imagine this picture to be a "no brainer," guaranteed big hit. Although easily one of the more anticipated films of the summer if only for the view of Uma Thurman in a skintight leather cat suit "The Avengers" has received a less than glorious mid August release slot and absolutely no fanfare or advance screenings.
That usually happens when the film is awful and the studio in this case Warner Bros. wants to keep the negative publicity down so that they can eke out whatever ticket sales they can from it during its first week. Well, that's definitely the case with this picture and you can bet that they're hoping and praying that ignorant moviegoers will flock to see this all-star, $70 million dud before the truth gets out.
I'll admit that I've never seen the original show, so I can't state how this film compares to it. Nevertheless, I can only hope and imagine the original is far better. This hour and a half mess is listless, uninspired filmmaking at its best/worst and suffers from a ludicrous and meandering script, lackluster performances, and the genuine absence of the fun and spirit that made retro-hit "Austin Powers" such a treat.
Supposedly set in the '90's but trying for that hybrid era appearance created by adding in heavy doses of 60's elements courtesy of Oscar winning production designer Stuart Craig the film is initially interesting to look at. However, that's about all it has going for it -- despite the stellar cast -- and proves that style means little if there's no substance beneath it.
Case in point is a scene featuring a physical representation of Oscar Reutersvδrd's illusion-based endless staircase painting (where Uma runs around and supposedly down a staircase, but never gets anywhere as its last step always returns to the first one). It's initially intriguing, but once you realize it's all flash and has no real connection to the plot, it quickly loses its allure.
Boring and haphazardly structured right from the start thanks to the "efforts" of screenwriter Don MacPherson (1986's "Absolute Beginners") and director Jeremiah Chechik ("Diabolique," "Christmas Vacation") the film flounders about without any apparent need or urgency on the part of the characters or the filmmakers to have anything particularly interesting happen.
All of the main characters both heroic and villainous plod around the set without an ounce of motivation (or any semblance of having a plan of action) and the result is deadly for both them and the audience. Despite its efforts to jumpstart a few moments with some action set pieces which are just as listless as the other material the film comes off as a resounding disappointment.
Feeling much like "Batman and Robin," Warner Brothers big dud from last summer (although this film makes that one look like a masterpiece), this seems like one of those efforts where the filmmakers believed that just by throwing a talented cast into a picture, it would come out great.
For example, Chechik stages a fencing match between Steed and Peel while they deliver early exposition a good idea in theory to keep a normally droll but necessary element from being too boring but the entire scene is poorly executed. Symbolic of what's wrong with the rest of the film, everything about the scene feels awkwardly haphazard, and it's later followed by dialogue, character motivation and entire scenes that seem to come out of nowhere, briefly flit about on the screen and then disappear just as fast as they arrived.
As equally disturbing and perplexing, for a film about secret agents the story is shockingly lacking in any sort of fun or innovative spy elements (beyond a coffee spigot in Steed's convertible). While there's a slightly amusing introductory scene where Steed much dispatch several would-be assassins and isn't sure who the next assailant might be, the rest of the film is an uninspired entry in the spy/agent genre.
It also completely throws away the greatest potential it had concerning the villain's ability to control the weather. Sure we see it suddenly snowing in London, but two important things in particular are missing. First, the weather never seems to pose much of a problem for our protagonists or serve as much of a plot complication. Going beyond all of the natural disaster related films, think of "The Shining" and how the blizzard played a key element in keeping everyone inside the hotel with the deranged Mr. Nicholson. None of that occurs here.
The most obvious omission, however, is not having the villain "sick" the weather on those trying to stop him. Where's the flood that's set to sweep them away, or better yet, the tornado to efficiently dispose of them and create some fun and tense moments? As exciting as "Twister" was during its funnel scenes, imagine if someone were controlling the tornado and sending it after the "good guys."
Of course I'm fooling myself into expecting too much from this film that can't even muster a decent ending. Obviously not much thought went into creating it, and thus the villain is boringly defeated, his weather system is easily "defused" and a self-destruct plot element often successfully utilized to generate some last minute suspense is completely disregarded.
No, Chechik and MacPherson are more interested in showing us a scene where Connery and his cronies are dressed up in multicolored, full-size teddy bear suits (I kid you not). Used to hide the identities of those in cahoots with the villain (and hopefully in some reference to the original show -- I can't imagine this being an original thought) the material comes off as ludicrously bad when presumably it was supposed to be funny or at least cute.
Likewise, a pointless scene where Steed encounters an invisible man (once again, no kidding) will have many wondering whether Claude Rains has been resurrected, as well as why they still use the decades old, and still cheap looking, effects to represent the transparent character.
The performances are about as uninspired as the rest of the film, which is so surprising considering the two Oscar nominees and one winner involved. Ralph Fiennes ("Schindler's List," "The English Patient") tries to fill the shoes of the original Steed, Patrick Macnee, and while he looks and acts suave and sophisticated, there's absolutely nothing below those surficial qualities and his quickly irritating smirk.
Likewise, Uma Thurman ("Pulp Fiction," "Batman and Robin") looks great and is always fashionable, but we never know anything about her or her evil cloned twin. Finally, there's Oscar winner and former Bond man, Sean Connery ("The Untouchables," "The Rock") in the role of the villain, but he's barely been given enough time on screen, let alone much of a menacing character to have any sort of impact. Wynter doesn't frighten or come across as particularly interesting to the protagonists or the audience, resulting in a boring and utterly listless time for all.
All of which leads us down to what may be the film's only redeeming quality (at least in the eyes of hormone driven young men) Uma Thurman in a skintight leather cat suit. Popularized by Diana Rigg in her brief stint on the original show, the look is appealing on Thurman, but she doesn't quite give it the same tantalizing feel that Michelle Pfeiffer exuded in her similar outfit in "Batman Returns," so even that element is a bit of a disappointment.
Other than paying respect to the original show, it's extremely questionable why this talented threesome signed up for this turkey. Sure, the money was probably good, but it's highly unlikely any of these three are hurting for cash or offered parts, and you'd think they'd at least wish to preserve their dignity. Take our advice, if you want to preserve yours, you might want to skip this film. We give "The Avengers" a 1 out of 10.