In the Nineties it was fashionable for Hollywood to adapt popular television series for the big screen the best being "The Fugitive" and the very worst, in my mind, "Lost In Space".  There were high hopes riding on "The Avengers" in the Summer of 1998 with a dream cast of Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, and the iconic Sean Connery.  Things didn't bode well for the film when the film's release date kept getting pushed back.  Things looked even worse when the film wasn't even previewed for the critics and naturally the daggers were drawn when it was seen and the public followed suit.  I saw it in the theatre and was disappointed because it didn't meet my expectations.  But what were my expectations?  Is this a bad film because it isn't the film I thought it should be?  I don't know why I revisited "The Avengers" but I'm glad I did.  Common criticisms of the film at the time are these.  Fiennes as John Steed and Thurman as Emma Peel had no chemistry.  Connery as Sir August De Wynter was lackluster as the villain.  London, a bustling city, is oddly bereft of people.  Eddie Izzard as one of Connery's henchmen has no dialogue which is strange for a man who makes his living as a stand-up comic.  For the first two criticisms I'll say the critics are dead wrong.  For the second two I'll say that the makers of the film were making an ironic stab at comedy that may have gone over some people's heads.  Viewing this film unbiased by the criticisms at the time of it's release I'll say it's chief virtues are not only Fiennes, Thurman, and Connery but also terrific supporting work by Jim Broadbent, Fiona Shaw, and Eileen Atkins. Patrick MacNee also has a decent cameo.  The film has decent production values and special effects but they're secondary to some cheeky dialogue notably between Fiennes and Thurman.  It's rare that I do a 180 on a film but that's the case here.  This film may have its detractors but if you go into it with an open mind you may find delight in "The Avengers".