Jason and the Argonauts

This TV mini series was on over the Easter Holidays and i was caught by the impressive cast that they had lined up for this movie.... i also had to watch it also because i really enjoy greek mythology. What i got was over 3 hours of false mythology that doesn't even deserve to share the same title as the 1960's original.

Jason London was not convincing as the main character Jason, neither was Dennis Hopper unfortunately who fell victim to a silly scene at the end where hes wearing the fleece on his head, it cracked me up, he looked an idiot. Natasha Henstridge and Derek Jakobi were not in it enough to make any sort of impression and the gods were too merciful i thought.

The SFX was okay, but i still prefer the ground breaking effects of Ray Harryhausen who's designs for the titans in the original scared me when i was younger.

This film was false when it comes to sticking by the facts of greek mythology i.e. there were no female argonauts - Atlantas is a false. Also the fact that Orpheus was greek and not African, these are just a few points from many mistakes that effected this series.

My two biggest groans though must be.... a) Why did they replace Talos the bronze giant with that stupid bull, Talos was my favourite Titan in the original and i was looking forward to see him redesigned for this series.......but not into a stupid bull that breathes fire....OH DEAR! Also the Hydra was replaced by a dragon......why?......i don't know?

and b) The sound effects were not as ground breaking as the original. The sound for the original film captured half the scene, an example being the appearance of Talos - it created tension. It was sorely missed.

In the end Hollywood have spoilt mythology and replaced it with a child's bed time story........5/10

For some people 'Jason and the Argonauts', one of the most representative tale of the rich Greek Mithology, is one the most intense adventure yarn of all times. For this reason, maybe, this story - with more than three thousand years - is always returning to delight children and adults. This new TV version is an accurate and well done entry of the classical adventure. The movie - starring young Jason London as Jason - has a correct cast (with an impressive Dennis Hooper as the cruel King Pelias) and extremely good special effects. Maybe the movie is a bit too overlong which causes some uneven development of the plot, with some parts less interesting than others. For example, the movie goes down when the argonauts are made prisoners in the island of the Amazon women. But there's other great moments: the fight to take the 'Velocino' and the fight against the Minotauro. Although some old guys will remember and miss the old movies about Heroic Greece - especially the movies made with the assistance of the master of the special effects, Mr. Ray Harryhausen - this new version is capable and well done.

Being an unconditional admirer of Ray Harryhausen's and Don Chaffey's version of `Jason and the Argonauts' could be a disadvantage to fully enjoy this Hallmark mini-series. But surprisingly it has its own values to make it an enjoyable experience.

First I'd like to claim that I see no reason to diminish its merits because of its faithfulness or liberties regarding Greek mythology. This is cinema not literature, and it must be evaluated as a work of moving images. If judging a cinematic work according to literary precepts were the rule, then not even the 1963 film would endure this kind of judgment: as I remember it, Medea, for instance, was described as a high priestess not related to the royal family of Colchis. According to the faithful-to-literary-source approach, that would be enough to condemn the motion picture. On the other hand, I believe that `Jason 2000' was also inspired by cinematic tradition, not only by the 1963 production but other sources as well, as Marcel Camus' `Orfeu negro', and today's horror films. It was also inspired by our times: the reason to include a female Argonaut validates the role of women warriors, instead of being a feminist or `politically correct' concession.

One of the most interesting things about this version is its casting, resulting in the fact that the story is told from the point of view of very young people, with all their impetus and fragility. When most contemporary motion pictures portray aimless young persons, this series shows a purposeful youth, young people with a mission and who fulfill their destiny with passion. Such is the case of Jason, Medea, Acastus, Atalanta, Aspyrtes, Orpheus, Zetes, and most of the Argonauts. These are the real protagonists of the story. In their search for justice and love, they are helped or betrayed by their elders, be it gods (Zeus, Poseidon, and Hera who appears three times as an old peasant woman) or humans (Pelias, Aertes, Phineas).

It is inevitable to compare the film to its predecessor: concerning the gods, this time they seem more lustful and primitive than the Olympus portrayed in the 1963 film, with Nial McGinnis and Honor Blackman fighting over Jason's destiny. This time Hera and Zeus feel unequivocal sexual attraction towards Jason and Medea, respectively. Hera makes reference to Zeus' frolicking with humans, and that may please the Greek mythology purists. But their representations seem out of a detergent TV spot -clouds included- and the acting by Olivia Williams and, specially, by Angus MacFadyen do not help much. At least, in the original the naiveté of the gods seemed more apt to the story being told, than these two creatures who open the narration in awe, but close it with embarrassingly sexy foreplay.

Special effects are fine, but in some respects they do not surpass the Harryhausen creatures. A mechanic bull –sound effects included- substitutes Talos, but the titan is evoked by the imposing height of a Poseidon out of `The Neverending Story'. The sequences of the dragon, the skeleton army and the harpies do not improve on the original ones. Compared to the seven-headed hydra, this dragon is rather silly (it falls awkwardly into a precipice that it has previously climbed with ease). The skeletons –this time looking like mannequins grounded on earth- lack the grace of the mean originals. In spite of the work of the Jim Henson workshop, the whole harpies sequence lacks the dark and exciting atmosphere created by Harryhausen, Chaffey and Herrmann.

In this version, there are more exciting warring scenes and Jason finally claims his throne, but to make the story work for three hours the film is full of melodramatic gestures and dialogues, which alternate with the action. The writers added some `character development' with Freudian overtones taken from a Psychology 101 course, that give a little depth to the characters: it may work for Pelias, Polymele or Medea, but in the case of Jason, being an action hero, his uncertainty and doubts tend to diminish the empathy with the viewer. In other occasions, they are too tame or just do not make sense: did Aspyrtes have an incestuous relationship with Medea, or is he gay and jealous of Medea because of Jason? In this respect, direction of actors is very suggestive in many different scenes.

All this said, I think that the film has the same enthusiasm of the original; the search for the golden fleece is still fascinating no matter how much Greek mythology has been altered. In the final analysis, `Jason 2000' is an enjoyable mini-series, with a story of tyranny, greed and righteousness still relevant for our times.

The criterion "sense of wonder" is commonly applied to sci-fi works, but is even more relevant to the fantasy genre. When the reader or viewer is touched by feelings of awe and mystery, they feel "moved" and have a deeper, more positive reaction to the artwork being witnessed.

The Harryhausen film was much more successful at this: the Bernard Herrmann score was masterful, and certain scenes portraying the interaction of gods and human beings (such as in the temple of Hera, the transformation of Hermes, the awakening of Talos) conveyed the deep reverence and awe that Bronze Age Greeks must have felt towards their gods. This newer Hallmark version conveys an attitude towards the Greek gods closer to mockery and amusement, perhaps appropriate for the "sophisticated" Athens in the age of Euripides or Aristophanes, but certainly out of touch with the period over a thousand years earlier when Jason lived.

I enjoyed the 'Jason and the Argonauts' remake. I almost bought it, until I reached the end of it and realised that Talos, the Bronze Giant, had not made an appearance in it. C'mon, this character made the first one so special, so great. Talos really comes alive in glorious special effects; I wish they'd kept him in, I really do. Then I would've bought the re-make, which in other respects is more faithful to the mythology. Admittedly, Talos was only peripherally important in the myth: he lived on the island of Crete and used to hurl large rocks at passing vessels. Only by Medea's charm can the monster be overcome. They did the same to 'The Odyessy': left out the Sirens, who lured unwary sailors to their doom on the rocks. C'mon! How can you have a film about 'The Odyessy' and not include them? Let us hope the next person to write a screenplay based on an ancient myth will include all the important bits seemingly left out of modern remakes. even though they do look good.