The Movie

[Mona]

true. a total mis fire. giant wasted effort. could have been so much more.
one of the all time cinema turkeys....

Could not have said it better!

Mona

[Frankymole]

One critic said Uma Thurman's performance was "so distanced you feel like you’re watching her through the wrong end of a telescope."

That could be a review of any and all of her films. Are there any where she gives an intense emotional performance?

[mousemeat]

One critic said Uma Thurman's performance was "so distanced you feel like you’re watching her through the wrong end of a telescope."

That could be a review of any and all of her films. Are there any where she gives an intense emotional performance?

don't think she'll ever be considered one of her generations best actresses..in my opinion.
ok. nothing special.

[Dandy Forsdyke]

Not-so-excellent 'Avengers' Insults Old Series Awful Film Debases Its TV Inspiration
BY DAVID BIANCULLI

Tuesday, August 18, 1998

NOW THAT I've seen the new movie version of "The Avengers," which Warner Bros. declined to screen for critics in advance, I understand why they hid it in the first place.

What I don't understand is why they released it in the second place. This "Avengers" film is so horrendously, painfully and thoroughly awful, it gives other cinematic clunkers like "Ishtar" and "Howard the Duck" a good name.

Even worse, and what I can't believe as a life-long fan of the original '60s British series, is how anyone could conspire to make a movie version without either knowing or caring what made the original TV show so special. Compared with the small-screen "Avengers," the movie gets so much so wrong, including:

The chemistry between secret agents John Steed and Mrs. Emma Peel.

On TV, Diana Rigg was so feisty yet flirty, and Patrick Macnee so reserved yet playful, that their characters of Emma and Steed had chemistry to spare, even though they maintained a professional distance. In the movie, starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman, their characters kiss, yet throw off fewer sparks than an underwater match.

The theme song.

On the show, it was a crucial ingredient, and the constant bouncy British music during the action sequences was another trademark. In the movie, the main theme never is played in full, and the rest of the music is as unimaginative as the plot.

The villains.

On the TV series, the fun came from watching Steed and Mrs. Peel narrow down the suspects and face their eccentric adversaries. In the movie, the masterstroke of casting Sean Connery as the bad guy is wasted by giving him so little to do and say when one of the avengers is around. Instead, scriptwriter Don Macpherson and director Jeremiah Chechik fill the bulk of "The Avengers" with idiotic action sequences, encouraging adversaries to trade blows instead of quips.

The clone.

Connery's mad scientist generates an evil clone of Mrs. Peel, but doesn't let her speak, never uses her to replace the real Mrs. Peel and never takes advantage of her sexually. In the TV series, when a mad scientist replaced both Steed and Mrs. Peel with look-alikes, the fun came from seeing our heroes carry on in ways definitely unbecoming their normal selves (Emma, for example, chewed gum, danced the frug and kissed Steed amorously.)

The special effects. Where did those stupid flying robot bugs come from in the movie? And why the high-tech, slugfest climax? The TV show's special effects were modest the key was in the dialogue, not the action, and in the imagination, not the budget. And having Macnee show up as an invisible cameo, heard but not quite seen, is yet another insult.

In short, the movie is a big disappointment. Visually, there are a few touches that would have been right at home on the old series: the life-sized pastel teddy-bear disguises, the in-transit tea break, the optical-illusion room without an exit. Any episode of the classic series, though, contains much more wit than that.

Collected episodes of the Macnee-Rigg TV "Avengers" episodes from 1967-68 have just been rereleased, and watching them is a delight.

The TV series was, and remains, Emma Peel-ing. In contrast, the movie is Emma-palling.

[Frankymole]

If the critic is slamming the movie for its differences from the TV show, I'm surprised he didn't mention Eddie Izzard's swear word. Totally dispelled the "Avengers" atmosphere, what was left of it...

It would be more interesting tor ead a review by someone who wasn't aware of the old series. I know someone whose introduction to "Dr Who" was the American TV movie from 1996, but later went on to watch both old and new series. They're a lot more lenient on it when only comparing it with its contemporary shows/movies. What brilliant tongue-in-cheek thriller movies came out in the same years as "The Avengers"?

[Dandy Forsdyke]

I think Timeless said she hadn't seen the TV series before she watched the movie version.

[mousemeat]

I think Timeless said she hadn't seen the TV series before she watched the movie version.

as for the film....no sense in beating a dead horse. heck, one could probably write an paper on the film...what went wrong, etc

[Timeless A-Peel]

I think Timeless said she hadn't seen the TV series before she watched the movie version.

That's true. I actually didn't even know there was a TV series at the time. I actually enjoyed it. As an action movie, I still think it's not too bad. It has loads more plot then a lot of movies made nowadays, which take a premise, set it up, do all of two things with it, then have the big setpiece and wrap it up. (The fact that a good chunk of the plot was cut just goes to show how bad a lot of the scripts are these days). So just as a movie, I thought it was a good, fun piece of cinema. It was when I became a fan of the show and went back that I bemoaned all the gaffes. But I'm glad I got a chance to see it through unbiased eyes. That's the reason behind my old "It's not a bad movie, just a bad Avengers movie" refrain.

[Lando]

I think Timeless said she hadn't seen the TV series before she watched the movie version.

That's true. I actually didn't even know there was a TV series at the time. I actually enjoyed it. As an action movie, I still think it's not too bad. It has loads more plot then a lot of movies made nowadays, which take a premise, set it up, do all of two things with it, then have the big setpiece and wrap it up. (The fact that a good chunk of the plot was cut just goes to show how bad a lot of the scripts are these days). So just as a movie, I thought it was a good, fun piece of cinema. It was when I became a fan of the show and went back that I bemoaned all the gaffes. But I'm glad I got a chance to see it through unbiased eyes. That's the reason behind my old "It's not a bad movie, just a bad Avengers movie" refrain.

I enjoyed the Avengers movie as well. At the time I had not seen the show at all. It would be nice for WB to include the full cut of the film. The soundtrack for the film contained the full score, even to scenes not in the film! I believe the novel also had the full story. Anyway, I'm sure it will never be released.

After seeing the movie I discovered the tv show and became a fan of the show as well.

I guess I thought the movie was a lot of fun. I still watch it from time to time along with the series.

I think there's room for both. To be honest I'm not sure how a remake of The Avengers would've really been able to be pulled off. That is I think some fans were going to hate whatever came out.

anyway...

[darren]

I found some interesting interviews with the late composer Michael Kamen on scoring the Avengers film (before Joel McNeely replaced him):

Here is an excerpt of a Michael Kamen interview published in a French movie mag (called "Starfix") in September 1998. The interviewer: Didier Lepr?Ye. (roughly translated from French by MightyMcT):

Interviewer: "- What happened exactly on THE AVENGERS?"

Kamen: "It's a long story! First, Jeremiah chose me after having seen 101 DALMATIANS (the live version). He wanted the same tongue-in-cheek tone for his movie. We talked a lot, about the project, the actors, the music, etc. I then started to work on the project around September/October 1997. I had lots of ideas. In December, we did a demo with the very first cut. Everything was fine."

Interviewer: "Did you re-use the Laurie Johnson theme?"

Kamen: "At first, I didn't want to. But the people from Decca made me change my mind. So I created a main theme mockingly inspired by Laurie Johnson's work. His theme was there, but with a twist, some more crazyness, especially in the percussions."

Interviewer: "And how did you get fired?"

Kamen: "The sneak previews, always the sneak previews! First, in the States, the producers showed some dailies to a targeted audience: it went wrong, the movie was not working. There was maybe one hour worth of footage, with the broad lines of my score played by an american orchestra. That's when the producers freaked out and decided to come to England to do the real test. It occured in mid-March, in London. There, the previews went even worst: they were disastrous!"

Interviewer: "So what happened next?"

Kamen: "From that point, all things were rushed. I had to cancel all the concerts I had scheduled mid-March at the Carnegie Hall in New York to re-score the picture. Jeremiah now wanted a closer identification to the original Laurie Johnson's music, and to the TV series, but I was not particularly interested in doing that. THE AVENGERS score ... turned into a James Bond movie score, see? In the Bond movies, I was always able to predict when the Monty Norman theme would play, because the musical and scriptwriting approach was so obvious. On LICENCE TO KILL, I tried to play that tongue-in-cheek, but, again, they did not like it and made me change it. On THE AVENGERS, what they wanted was: some Michael Kamen, then the Laurie Johnson theme, then some more Michael Kamen ... there was no room for identity, and certainly no room for playing it tongue-in-cheek. Yet I managed to rewrite my score, for a new cut of the movie, which was faster and dryer. Unofficial recording sessions took place here in London, then we came back during April. Then, the clash. Nobody understood my approach, or should I say noboby tried to understand it..."

Interviewer: "And you finally decided to walk away?"

Kamen: "Sort of. I'm not good at pastiche. My job is not to do scores "in the style of...". There are other composers out there who do that very well. But I feel somehow bitter about THE AVENGERS ... I'm sure it will be a huge hit, no matter what. Sean Connery is very good in it and the audience will just love the new Steed/Peel. With my non-stereotyped score, it simply would have been even greater!"

Interviewer: A question on THE AVENGERS. You left the project because of scheduling conflicts?
Michael Kamen: Yeah.

Interviewer: What had your involvement been prior to that? How much work had you done?
Michael Kamen: The movie was still in formation. It took a long time for them to make agreements about what they were trying to show. Never at any real, cohesive point was I presented with a film that was finished, for me to start scoring. I had made five or six different attempts at scoring the film, but the film kept changing. It was like aiming at a moving target. And you can’t really finish the score until the film is finished. I literally couldn’t finish THE AVENGERS and do LETHAL WEAPON, so I did LETHAL WEAPON IV.