Avenger (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

Outsourcing the dirty work

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 3 January 2008]

Calvin Dexter, a lawyer, is a man whose life has been marked by tragedy. When his only daughter is killed by a greasy boyfriend, he leaps into action. Cal doesn't wait for justice, he deals with the injustices committed against him. He is a Viet Nam veteran, part of a special force, that were trained for risky missions. As such, he has had the experience to deal with whatever comes his way.

When Senator Stephen Edwards asks him to look into the disappearance of his son in Bosnia, where the young man has gone on a humanitarian mission, he finds that the man who was responsible for what happened to the boy is no other than the evil Zoran Zilic, a sanguinary man, responsible for much of the atrocities during the war in that part of the world.

Cal decides to track down this paid assassin, but little does he know our own government is involved in the usage and protection of this scum bag, now hiding in South Africa. CIA director, Paul Devereaux, upon knowing how Dexter has found out about the war criminal, sends his henchman Frank McBride to eliminate Cal Dexter for him. Little does this corrupt government official realize the former Viet Nam veteran is ahead of all the evil forces and how he will avenge the murdered youth.

The film, which was made for television, is based on a Frederick Forsyth novel. Director Robert Markowitz, working on the screen treatment by Alan Sharp delivers a taut action movie. This is by no means an original story, as we have seen before how corrupt public servants can be behind vile acts of violence in the name of democracy.

"Avenger" was tailor-made for Sam Elliott. His Cal Dexter shows this actor at his best. We have always thought Mr. Elliott was a great character actor that could have been given more opportunities in which to shine. This film seems to prove he can deliver. James Cromwell plays the heartless director of the CIA with verve. Timothy Hutton is seen as the gofer for the head of the spy agency. David Hyman appears as Zilic.

This television movie is action filled for fans of this movie genre.

If Your A Sam Elliot FAN, You Will Enjoy This.

[torstensonjohn · 6/10 · 30 May 2018]

The film is based on the novel by Frederick Forsyth, who coincidentally also penned "The Kill List, "The Day of The Jackal" and "The Odessa File", all which became films. His craftmanship is nothing short of cat/mouse routine. The film turned out to be rather well done. A TNT made for TV movie with Sam Elliot ( Roadhouse, The Mask) at the helm as a former Vietnam Special Forces cleaner. There is great character drive in this film and Timothy Hutton plays a CIA operative sent to stop his character. The plot is very good as Elliot's character is out to right a few wrongs. Strong delivery, great pace of the film and well worth a look at. I give this 6 out of 10

Kind of a let down

[artzau · 6/10 · 4 May 2009]

Being a big Forsyth fan, I lapped this one up. The names, James Cromwell, Timothy Hutton and Sam Elliott sounded good and I knew the book. But, I'm afraid something happened in the scripting of Forsyth's book because this film goes from the precision, step by step thriller that is the book to a plodding, happenstance event that disappoints rather than satisfies. The premise of the book is based on the gutsy exploits of the tunnel rats in Viet Nam who went into the tunnels after the enemy. The movie builds on that but loses it in the wrap-up. The ending works on too many circumstantial contingencies and loses the planning and excitement of Forsyth's style. In short, in comes off not bad but rather mediocre. Too bad, as this film had a lot of talent to work with and an exciting thriller. Too bad the script writer didn't know how to put together a workable ending.

Meh

[ozmaemail · 6/10 · 10 April 2006]

I liked it. Sure it was kinda silly and certainly flawed but it entertained me for 2 hours. Mostly this is due to Sam Elliot; always a compelling screen presence. The first half of the movie pulled me in and seemed somewhat believable. Then there was the second half. Like the part with the pilot and how carelessly Dexter endangers her. That was a total amateur move and at odds with his previously established professionalism. This is when the movie started going off the rails for me. That and the cartoonishly evil senator willingly to do whatever it takes to complete Project Whatchamacallit. Then the ending, again Dexter displays amateurism and was lucky, ridiculously lucky, to get away with what he did. But, then again, stuff blew up real good. Hey, it was an entertaining enough flick and if it ever turns into a TV series I'll watch it, but then again I used to watch MacGuyver.

well made spy thriller

[bill-1490 · 7/10 · 24 April 2006]

This is when you boil it down, a story about conscience. Conscience being pulled this way and that by the conflicting poles of revenge and justice. If you like Sam Elliott's work and I do, you will very much enjoy this spy story. The story is not overwhelmingly original but the way the steps unfold, I stayed intrigued by it all the way. The assembly of details and camera style and the music all very high quality choices. "Cal Dexter" has more complexity than many similar characters of this genre. Timothy Hutton does a lot with little dialog. Lucy Russell was attention grabbing in a small part. I look forward to seeing more of her work. I liked the settings (South Africa in particular) and the overall visual style.

jackal it ain't...fading of former glory

[pavor nocturnus · 2/10 · 20 April 2006]

I am actually not surprised that some people liked this movie, it's the same thing with the junk food, the more you eat it, the more you want it. The same principle applies here, and there will be some happy customers at the end. So, if you like generic, mindless movies, where unbelievable characters do unbelievable things, you'll like this movie. The premise of the movie is something that was recycled many times over. Forsyth is considered to be one of the most popular authors. However, being popular does not make you a good writer. Even in the 'Jackal', his much acclaimed book, the characters of the OAS are portrayed in a flat, one dimensional manner (you keep wandering why there are people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a such a cause), but this was (mercifully) not the focal point of that story, and it did not stick out that much. (>>>This part may contain spoilers<<<) The 'Avenger', on the other hand, is focused on such a premise, and we learn very little about the main character and nothing about the main villain, or his fight, except that he is a psychopathic killer (together with his fellow Serbs, a fact speaking how much generic the script is). Forsyth uses the stereotypes left and right, to the point that there is no single original part in his story - first, you have a strong silent hero, who actually might be a hidden psychopath himself (considering his Vietnam past), played by Sam Elliott. Sam Elliott is a lovable actor, a perfect cowboy, but here he does not belong (least because he is over 60 and walks like he needs a hip replacement). His daughter is killed by a foreigner, who happens to be a Panamanian serial killer (because Americans are not capable of such crimes, or because we would relate in an unexpected way to an American serial killer? - no, in Forsyth's lack of imagination, this was a way to show a man beyond the reach of justice). Sam is out to avenge a man killed in Bosnia together with his girlfriend by psycho-killer Serbs (incidentally, there were also six children killed during the same incident, because this is how many children Serbs need to kill in order to be hated?). The girlfriend happens to share the last name with the former president of Croatia, showing the depth of the source of Forsyth's information ("the research", says Forsyth, 'there I was one day sitting in my living room, drinking tea and reading the newspapers, and bam!, there it was, in front of me, my new book!'). The plot never thickens, and the sequence of predictable events follows. The directing is mediocre and did not help in improving the experience (one of the most annoying things were the flashbacks with a 'whoooosh' sound). The action scenes are done without much thought or skill (first fight with the guard who actually ambushes the main character would be, in normal life, the end of the story). In all honesty, there are some bright moments - the CIA director, portrayed by James Cromwell was one of them. If somebody told me that he is, indeed, a CIA director, I might believe. He became an archetypal chief of a governmental institution and he is good at it. Timothy Hutton repeats his role from the 'Nero Wolfe Mystery', but with the sinister twist - that is, he twists arms here. Not enough for me to like the move, or even get close to it. On a good day, I would give it 3/10. But this is not my good day, and Mr.Smith gives it 2/10...

As a Sam Elliot fan, this was less than palatable

[rspear61 · 1/10 · 13 April 2006]

After seeing the promos for this TV movie, I set aside a night with my youngest son to watch one of my favorite dark actors. Sam Elliot has always fascinated me, from his westerns to his Road House depictions of tough, veteran, leave-me-alone, but-if-you-mess-with-me-you-are-dead-meat types of guys. However, after about an hour of this movie, in its disjointed, unexplained and unfinished scenes, shallow depictions of characters and general lack of creativity and freshness, I said to my son, well, you can leave if you want to. He said no, he wanted to see how bad it was going to get. And it got pretty bad. There were several times during the movie when I said, well, why did he do that. For example, if he was already near the hideout of the bad guy, why did he come back to madame wongs and then have to sneak his way back into the country again. And where were the guns delivered? And did he ever find out the pilot was knifed by the bad guys.

There is just so much about this movie that is poor that it is impossible to list all them. Poor plot, poor action photography, poor buildup, poor character development, poor timeline continuity. And the list goes on. Poor Sam, he probably had no idea how bad it was since all the individual scenes seem to be focused. But maybe a lot of the continuity scenes are still on the cutting room floor. I mean, really, who are those two guys that are waiting for him in his hotel room???

Maybe it was cut down for TV. Or maybe I should have read the book so I would have known what was going on.

Book is great, very disappointed in this movie

[michaelmorrow-1 · 2/10 · 20 April 2006]

I read the book twice. It is very well written as are most of Frederick Forsyth's books. When I heard the movie was out, I made a special effort to watch it. What a disappointment. This made-for-TV movie deviates in many details from the book. Of course it is not unusual for a screen play to deviate from the book it is based upon. However, in my opinion, there was no need to have this screenplay deviate from Forsyth's book. The location and description of the "home" of the bad guy is gutted in the movie. The scenes where the bad guy is brought to task are a sad parody of the book. The "secret" that is revealed at the end of the book was omitted in the movie, which means the whole use of the "secret" becomes a disconnect. And, as much as I like Sam Elliot as an actor, in this case the part of Cal Dexter was seriously miscast. I will not bother to watch this movie again. My recommendation: read the book and skip this movie.

This was a TV movie? can't be - it was too good!

[bostonkevino · 9/10 · 10 April 2006]

I happened to surf past this last night, and I have to say it surprised me. I was a big Frederick Forsythe novel fan years ago, and I did not realize this was based on one of his books until the credits rolled.

I missed the first half-hour (I'll watch it again sometime), but I was still able to enjoy every minute after that. I typically think about TV movies as being on a different scale - but this movie breaks the mold.

If you enjoyed "Day of the Jackal" (the original) you'll really like this one too. The main character "Dexter" had just the right mix of "good guy, bad guy" and the cinematography of the locations/background made me feel like I was on the mission with him. Heck, even my wife liked it!

"Better to Know the Worst than not to Know the Worst," and this is it

[tom-darwin · 1/10 · 13 April 2006]

With no one wanting to hear about Iraq anymore, Vietnam as remote as the War of the Austrian Succession and "24's" lock on the Depraved Terrorist gig, we're heading back to the Balkans. This time we're going with intellectual thrillmeister Frederick Forsythe ("The Day of the Jackal"), cool-as-ice screenwriter Alan Sharp ("Ulzana's Raid") & executive producer Wolfgang Petersen ("Das Boot," "The Perfect Storm"). To get there, we all have to climb together on one of those tiny bicycles that bears ride in the circus. Grizzled Vietnam vet Dexter (Elliott, in the worst role of his life) is an avenging angel-for-hire, either as a lawyer or a mercenary (same difference). He takes a job via classified ad & cell phone to protect his anonymity (wouldn't John Wayne have done the same?) to find the saintly aid-worker son of guilt-ridden tycoon Edmonds (Hope, dazed & neurotic) who's disappeared in Bosnia. After impressing us with how depraved Serb militias can be (heard something about that, did you?), we embark with Wild Bill Rambo Bond on a Quest for Justice that takes us from one exotic, budget-priced location to the next. Cadaverous CIA pencilneck Devereaux (Cromwell, who convincingly mutters catchphrases like "not an option" & "ends justify the means") wants to stop The Fastest Gun in Eastern Europe. Or does he? It's so bad on every level that you won't care. The meticulous description of operational details that Forsythe pioneered forty years ago has been retreaded more times than "The War of the Worlds" & is a big yawn in the Google age. But "Avenger" never bothers much with story details like character motivation or plot, so we're left to wonder why the carefully anonymous Dexter is so willing to let his enemies know he's coming. It brings to mind Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda" ("It's a smoke screen? Double bluff?"), but that was done for INTENTIONAL laughs. The action scenes rival the best that "South Park" has to offer. Without exception, the actors are excruciatingly bad. Elliott is a mishmash of samurai-ninja Honorable Warrior, slick secret agent, aw-shucks good-guy, wise philosopher, technical wizard & PTSD nutjob. Oh, and Truth, Justice & the American Way (or best two out of three). This is definitely one of those "What were they thinking when they upchucked this?" movies. If the batteries in your remote went dead & you've given away all those old "Police Academy" videos, you're in for a rough night.

Made for television and it shows

[deloudelouvain · 5/10 · 1 May 2018]

You can see it is a television movie. There is not much quality to it. They didn't put a lot of effort making this movie. Maybe with a higher budget the movie could have been better. You could do something decent with the story, even though it's one of those typical I'm-a-good-guy-with-a-conscience-and-take-all-the-bad-guys-down-by-myself. It's a revenge action movie, but one without a budget, and I'm sorry to say not great acting. Sam Elliott has been better in other movies but in this one it's all cliché and average. It's clearly been made to entertain a television public on a rainy day. It's watchable but that's about it. I would rather pick another movie if you haven't seen this one. I'm sure you can find better without having to search too far.

One of the worse films that have spawned out of a fine book.

[I_should_be_reading_a_book · 2/10 · 22 January 2008]

In sum: Read the book, skip the film --it will only make you angry.

Warning: Spoilers may follow.

The cast: Awful. Sam Elliot, Thimothy Hutton, Paul Deveraux are all great actors and I usually enjoy them. In this picture they are grossly miscast; Dexter is a guy in his fifties, Elliot is over sixty and looks seventy if a day. McBride is a crucial element of the book and is completely perverted both in appearance, importance and plot in the film.

The plot: Why do some people feel compelled to make a lousy hamburger out of a fine sirloin? The book has great subplots; the daughter seduction assassination and subsequent vengeance is elementary for understanding Dexter. It's glossed over in a gross way. Even the actress that plays the daughter is completely out of context. The Vietnamese woman is completely unexplained in the film. Ditto the computer whiz kid. The subplot involving the kid assassinated in Bosnia is, in the book, superb. In the film is almost beyond comprehension unless you have previously read the book.

Frankly, again, these kind of crappy films should warn the viewer before starting: "WARNING, persons having read the book this film is based upon will be seriously outraged. View at your own risk".

The Lifeguard is Back!

[markwallacemacdougal · 9/10 · 11 April 2006]

Great action. Elliot funny guy. Hard-edged, heart of gold, troubled and driven by past. Gets results the Philip Marlowe way.

Interesting story line for first episode. Blends recent history with political intrigue, attempts to appear realistic, cynical. Good location shooting. Solid acting from Hutton and Cromwell as shady power hungry covert corrupt government officials. Of course they are acting in the nations "best interest." Sound familiar?

Clever plot twist prostitutes and plutonium, Islamic fundamentalists,desert survival,rock climbing, MacGyver-like ingenuity with Mad Max morality. You'll love it!

This is the dream of everybody!

[sirmillnar · 8/10 · 29 March 2008]

This is a story we would all like to live, if not then you do not live in the "real world". We all want to get even with the person that did us wrong, the only problem is we would never get away with this. We would all like too but we can not. We all have dreamed of getting back at a friend/neighbor or ex and we try and think about the ultimate revenge but this is the best that it can be. I guess we can dream. Maybe some day we can all try and make a statement that this film makes until then have a great life and think about how you all treat people, cause if you treat someone wrong you maybe be avenged, then maybe Sam Elliot may visit you.

NIce to see Sam again

[lpdemm · 9/10 · 10 April 2006]

Nice to see Sam again. Much as I like watching his movies, I really hope this doesn't become just another series - maybe an infrequent series -like two or three a year. Its pretty obvious that there is a lot of background in this - and in order to keep up the production values, it needs to be treated like the Special Event that Sam is. It was just nice to see him looking like a regular person. But he still has that incredible voice (he's the voice of IBM and the Beef Council, too). There was lot of thought that went into this - lots of pre-production was very evident - it was well made - and worth the wait!!

A superb film

[paladin1885 · 10/10 · 1 June 2007]

I have never been a fan of Frederick Forsyth. I find his writing to be crass,commercial, and at times laughably naive.That notwithstanding I am amazed at how truly excellent this film of his potboiler book came out to be. Full credit to all the fine cast,especially Sam Elliot. He proves once again that he is a true treasure in a world of false gold. Marsha Mason and Roger Ebert both gave this film 5 stars and I now see why. 2006 was not a great year for movies once you get beyond the top 5 - 10 films. It is then a real delight that such a wonderful sleeper pops up on video. It is rare for a film adaptation of a bestseller to exceed the book. But this is a case of just such a rarity.Do have your self a treat and watch this fine film.

A good start and great scenery but the plot is unreal

[onclejon · 6 October 2006]

The idea of a retired Vietnam veteran becoming an avenger for reward, provided the targets are bad enough is often successful.However there is often a problem in winding the story up.

In this case though the plot starts well with villainy in Bosnia deserving punishment and leads to the Avenger making some interesting voyages and the encounter of colourful underworld characters the plot kind of vanishes with the involvement of stereo type crooked Congressmen and CIA or FBI agents. In the end the Avenger finds his man but then conclusion leaves so many loose ends to th rest of the story that the viewer is bound to feel let down.

A disappointing film not really worth watching.

Great T.V. Movie

[odelljackson · 8/10 · 17 April 2006]

I enjoy Sam Elliott's acting. This was a treat to see him back in action. I only hope there will be more from this author. We can't escape the reality of what is happening in the world today. It is true that some may not want to see a movie of this nature at a time like this, but it is only a movie. It is nice to believe that there is someone out there who believes in justice and can get it. What a relief to know that someone still has principles and can act on their moral beliefs even if they violate the law to some degree. Life is full of those types of decisions and it is helpful to have someone, even in a movie act those out for you. One reason I enjoy movies like this is to put myself in that place and live it vicariously. I am sure there are others that do the same thing.