Main
About
Reviews
Articles
Links
Contact
Old Site
The Avengers
(Jeremiah Chechlik, 1998)

Classification: Bad
Originally Published: Movie Poop Shoot, 4/2/03
I can understand the concept behind THE AVENGERS movie, but not the execution. Why would two characters fence each other while shopping for clothes? Why cast comedian Eddie Izzard and give him only one line of dialogue? Why dress your villains in giant teddy-bear costumes? Why have two versions of one of the characters -- one good, one evil -- and not explain where the two came from? Hollywood likes movies based on old television shows because of the name recognition and built-in audience; throw in a few big stars like Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, and Sean Connery and you should have a sure-thing. But lots of things should be and aren’t; teachers should be paid more, The Doors should be retired. In terms of miscalculations, THE AVENGERS is among the worst I’ve ever seen; it’s tough to pick out a single element that was even acceptable. I suppose it’s worth saying that my VCR did not eat the tape or explode. That’s one for the home team right there.

The Avengers, who are not referred to by name in this film, are a spy named John Steed (Fiennes) and a scientist named Emma Peel (Thurman) who save the world from out-of-control weather generated by the heinous Sean Connery as August DeWynter, a character name that could only exist in a bad movie. Thought I’ve never seen the old British television show upon which it is based, I’m guessing the heroes are from the old show and DeWynter is not. Not that Fiennes and Thurman get off any easier than Connery, all three stars share in the suck.

Fiennes is as dry as the Sahara and as annoying as sand in your underwear. Steed, a spy and foot fetishist - no, that’s not a joke - is given no redeeming qualities. Peel, a brainy scientist with a penchant for full-body leather (don’t they all) doesn’t seem all that clear what she does for a living, but is more than happy to drop all that to galavant with Steed and DeWynter. Fiennes and Thurman are two of our best actors, both Oscar-nominated, both memorable in numerous roles (Though I’ll take QUIZ SHOW and KILL BILL as my favorite respective performances for now). That the two could have so little chemistry on screen and generate so little interest in this story is shocking. More than once I cried at the screen, “This shouldn’t be happening!” There’s that “should” word again.

Extra attention must be given to Connery, who has been in bad movies before, but nothing like this (Though HIGHLANDER 2: THE QUICKENING is not too far off). When we first see him, DeWynter is playing the organ and having what appears to be having a seizure, twitching and grunting. Connery conducts the rest in similar fashion, overacting more than any actor has overacted in acting history (Say that 5 times fast). The dialogue is so bad -- “Now is the winter of your discontent!” and “Time to die!” -- that I feel a little guilty making fun of it. And if you like your Connery roles perverted and creepy, there’s a great scene where he begs Thurman to touch his “flower.” “Please touch it!” he begs Thurman; claiming that it won’t bite. I don’t even want to get into the scene later where Connery informs Thurman that “one should never fear getting wet.” Is that disgusting? I think that’s disgusting.

This is just one of those movies where nothing makes sense and everything is far less cool, witty, and smart, than everyone thought. The type of movie where weather targeting displays say in huge red letters “WEATHER TARGETING DISPLAY” and a 70-year-old man can move so swiftly that he can disappear in the blink of an eye. Where swordfights take place on one catwalk, then magically transport to another, and someone can be killed by a bolt of lightning while the person standing two feet away from them on the same metal catwalk can remain completely unharmed.

The scariest part? Connery promises that “This is merely the beginning!” Lord, I hope he’s wrong.