The Avengers Review
by "Nathaniel R. Atcheson" (nate AT pyramid DOT net)August 24th, 1998
The Avengers (1998)
Director: Jeremiah Chechik
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, Sean Connery, Jim Broadbent, Fiona Shaw, Eddie Izzard
Screenplay: Don MacPherson
Producers: Jerry Weintraub
Runtime: 90 min.
US Distribution: Warner Bros.
Rated PG-13: action violence, innuendo
By Nathaniel R. Atcheson ([email protected])
My opinion on a film can be easily swayed by the presence of actors I love. I love Ralph Fiennes. I love Uma Thurman. I love Sean Connery. Hell, I'm even a big fan of Jim Broadbent and Fiona Shaw. I saw the fantastic preview for The Avengers nearly eight months ago, and I've been eagerly awaiting the film ever since. A few months into the summer, however, I noticed that its release date had been changed a few times, and that it had ended up in the mid-August dumping ground. Then, in this final week before its official release, I learned that it was not to be screened for critics. And that the actors had not been plugging the film on late night programs. And that it was directed by the same man who brought us the remake of Diabolique.
My expectations fell to pieces when I learned all of these things. The film I saw today didn't even meet those expectations. This is a lousy, incoherent mess. I would slam it harder, if it weren't for the nifty sets and the mere presence of all these fine, lovable actors. But sets are ultimately empty, and the performances are completely uninspired. That's the main problem with The Avengers: for all it's hip-hop flash and tidal waves, none of it feels the least bit energetic or inspired. It's like a chore, a bland exercise in superhero film making. It also feels like its been cut to pieces, clocking in at 90 minutes and forgetting to close some of its own subplots. This is just plain depressing.
The Avengers is a film version of the popular 60s television show. Frequent readers of mine will not be surprised to learn that I've never watched an episode. I wasn't alive then. I don't even watch television now. I'm very sorry that I don't have this perspective, but, judging from the reviews I've already read, knowing the TV show just makes matters worse. I didn't know and love John Steed and Emma Peel, and therefore I was not as upset to see how these Actors I Love have managed to thrash their roles.
I also doubt that familiarity with the series would allow me to understand more clearly the chain of events that do take place in this film. Based on what the film told me, I gather that Steed (Fiennes) is some kind of British super guy (somewhat like James Bond), and that Dr. Peel (Thurman) is just a really smart doctor, who also happens to know a lot about weather and about beating people up while limited by tight leather suits. They are to work together, under Mother's orders (Mother is played by jolly Jim Broadbent, while his co-conspirator, Father, is played by the equally-talented Fiona Shaw).
It seems that there is a man out there controlling the weather. His name is De Wynter (Connery). He is a crazy Scottish guy. Our heroes had better stop him, or else . . . the weather will keep getting colder until they "have to go to hell to warm up" (one of the film's few funny lines). Along the way there is subplot after subplot, hinged sloppily together by scenes that go nowhere, feel perfunctory, and ultimately make no sense.
For example, our heroes are eventually attacked by a swarm of giant mechanical insects with machineguns attached to their torsos. Now, killer bugs don't really go with the weather-controlling theme of the film. The purpose of the bugs, other than to annihilate our heroes, is never established. They're never even directly connected to De Wynter (they're controlled by his crazy henchman, played by Eddie Izzard). The special effects aren't bad, but they're loud, obnoxious, and intrusive. Like so many scenes in the film, it seems present only to keep your attention from waning.
And I guarantee you, it will wane. I stopped thinking about the story when I realized it didn't do any good to think. The Avengers has clearly been chopped up and re-assembled so many times that even the people involved couldn't tell us what happens. There are several scenes in the preview that didn't make the final cut. In addition, many of the sequences have irritating, grainy film quality, which makes it feel low-budget (the last scene is particularly bad). The scenes that don't feature action should be electric, thanks to our wonderful cast. They aren't. The action scenes should be electric, because this is an action film. They aren't, either.
And what about this wasted cast? Oh, it makes me weep with disappointment. We're talking Ralph Fiennes here, one of the best actors working today, one of the best actors *ever*. I love the guy. I've loved all his films, until this one. He seems like he wants to understand the film, but he's as lost as we are. And Thurman, in all of her spectacular beauty and talent, can't manage to look at home here. (I don't blame her completely, for there is a strange subplot involving her evil twin that is never explained in any way, and it can't be easy to deal with such terrible screenwriting.) Connery, however, seems the most out of it, totally lacking any kind of focus, or interest, for that matter.
Who is to blame? Is it the screenwriter, Don MacPherson? Perhaps, although I can see a shell of a story here that could have been a good superhero movie had it been handled right. Is it the actors? For God's sake, no -- these people clearly lost interest when they saw the inevitable path of destruction on which this film was travelling. I blame director Jeremiah Chechik, who shouldn't have been given the task to begin with. His best film, Benny & Joon, is quirky in the same way that this one was supposed to be, but here it mostly seems like a lot of failed attempts at wit and humor. Add to that a lack of experience in big-budget action, and you have the worst choice for director this side of James Ivory.
If The Avengers has a saving grace, it's the set design. The sets (by Stuart Craig) are big, colorful, and often pleasing to look at. I like the final set-piece, on De Wynter's island, even if none of it makes a bit of sense. I admired the overhead view of the stairs, showing Dr. Peel running around in circles and never getting anywhere. I also enjoyed Michael Kamen's music score, particularly in the opening credits. But this stuff is routine -- good sets and music are nice, but there's a lot more that needs to be here. Inspiration, for instance, would have been really nice. Maybe a little bit of cohesion in the story. Or a sense of purpose. Most of all, though, I would have liked to see these actors relish in their roles. Damn this movie for not giving them the chance.
*1/2 out of ****
(3/10, D)
**********/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\************
Visit FILM PSYCHOSIS at
http://www.pyramid.net/natesmovies
Nathaniel R. Atcheson
**********/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\************
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
