A Major Disappointment

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I'll keep this simple and without all blathering hoopla about this and that, that my predecessors are most famous for. Although this may prove to be somewhat of a tedious task, given that I'm required to have a minimum of 10 lines! I'm actually shocked that this re-make has nearly 6.0 rating from 3500 viewers, probably all of them worked on the making of this futile attempt. I was forced to give it a 1 out of 10 rating....LOL This re-make attempt is one of the worst I've ever had the displeasure of viewing! Simply put, the 1963 original version "hands down" had stellar acting (with a lesser known English cast) and much better (Ray Harryhausen) special effects.

Everyone likes the vintage film the most, I was never really into the original, perhaps that is part of the reason that I think that "Jason 2000" is just fine, in fact I would call it a knockout way to begin the century! The year 2000 was not exactly swarming with quality content on the big or small screen, so "Jason 2000" holds a special place a being a "2000 highlight".I love nearly everything about this production, the fake CGI creatures do a bit of damage, but just about everything is fine. The whole cast, including Jason, is outstanding. I have a soft spot for fantastic sea adventures and the footage of the ship in danger is well filmed. There is even a bit of dark comedy involved in the way the bad guy kills people...it was funny to me at least.The DVD special features reveal that the production was rushed a bit too much, perhaps that explains why the Jason actor was not able to give everything he had to his performance. The actor complained that he was tired due to lack of sleep. Despite this issue, I was not bothered by his acting at all (but many other reviewers are bothered by him).A less talked about element is the high quality grand music score that plays over the show, giving some scenes a huge lift. Is there some reason that this kind of music is less used in film/TV these days?

This movie is a good example of what happens when making the leading man "cool" is more important that making a good movie. Jason London was a serious miscast for this otherwise salvageable, but still under-perfoming movie. Most of the women in the movie had more grit than he did, and did all the leading.Lack of imagination and special effects was also a big problem. No serious thunderbolts, spooky mists, raging storms or anything else to make the viewer feel like it is an adventure. What animation there was was cheesy bordering on cartoony. The Gods were not credible for another. No scene of Zeus on throne on Olympus or anything. The ocean voyages looked more often like sunny summer cruise to Catalina rather than a perilous mythological adventure.Finally, and possibly the most damning, was the mishandling of how the fleece was presented. No retrospective on how it came to be, it's powers, etc., etc. So why would anyone want to look for it?

This was a truly fantastic surprise to discover one day when I was roaming the Sci-Fi Channel. I only ever roam the Sci-Fi Channel on a sunny day when I have nothing else to do. I just need something to criticize on days like that. But in this case, I didn't find something to criticize, but instead, something to be impressed at. "Jason and the Argonauts" is a made-for-TV movie and was obviously made on a low budget. It stretches about three hours in its running time, four when you include the commercials, and yet, I did not find myself bored or tired with it until near the very end. I have never seen the original film with Ray Harryhausen's stop motion effects, nor am I all that familiar with the original Greek myth upon which that film and this film was based. But I did very much enjoy this film.One of the many things that impressed me about this film was the good quality presented in its computer graphics. Unlike most features presented on the Sci-Fi Channel, the effects in this film are very convincing. They weren't entirely flawless, but were realistic enough. My favorite out of all the creatures was a giant lizard-like dragon that appears about mid-way through the film. It looked reptilian and the lighting effects used on it to make it blend in with everything else was magnificent. I was not as impressed, however, with Poseidon, the sea-god. Here, he is represented as this giant stone humanoid figure that literally roars a dinosaur's roar. If Poseidon were to roar at all, I think it would be an electronically altered human-made sound. But nonetheless, a fine addition to the story.Even though the film is three hours long, like I mentioned earlier, it does play itself well. There was merely one sequence that I felt was removable and that was the part where Jason and his crew encounter an island full of beautiful, but cannibalistic women. While it wasn't a badly done scene, if there was to be another scene removed due to pacing problems, it would have had to be this one.With a well-written script, fine acting, surprisingly good special effects and sound design, and a very impressive-for-its-type entertaining value, this version of "Jason and the Argonauts" is a very delightful surprise to discover. It managed to keep me interested on a day where I would have rather been outside, and in a case like that, it takes a good movie to keep me to sit still for four hours. And it did. I recommend it and there are hopes from me for others like this.