Am I missing something?
OK, am I missing something here?
Jason returns to take back his kingdom from the man who murdered his father, but he doesn't even know what that man (the current KING of the land) looks like? Jason rescues a man in the river, camps with him and his soldiers and just starts babbling on about his plans to overthrow the kingdom. Ummm...these are soldiers with their commander. How does he know whether they're loyal to the king or not? Pretty big gamble. Jason spends enough time in this land to build a ship and recruit a crew but NEVER in that entire time does he put 2 and 2 together that the guy he helped in the water is actually the guy he wants to overthrow...he never discovers what the king LOOKS LIKE? Jason sails with this crew, along with the king's son the prince, but none of the crew mention to Jason that this guy is the prince??? WHAT THE...???? Everyone, myself included, complains today about how so many of today's blockbusters are all special effects and no plot. But it seems to me that the exact same can be said about this movie as well. I'm scratching my head over here.... osamjose watch Heart Of America movie
you made me get back my best movies.
rehabrian watch Bullitt movie
cfghfgfgf bjbhjb.
guruve watch Witness For The Prosecution movie
superb classical movie without graphics.
jundiaz2013 watch Little Miss Marker movie
hope this is a better version of the later one. the other is not so good
.
hardey1 watch Entre Les Murs movie
hercules is a story of a half man, half god who was hated by his step mother, Here.
A fantasy world full of wonders
I have long had a soft spot for "Jason and the Argonauts", and Ray
Harryhausen's work in general, ever since I was taken, as a child, as part of a friend's birthday treat, to see the film on a double bill with "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad". This would have been in the early seventies, nearly a decade after it was first released in 1963, but in those days children's films seemed to have a longer shelf-life than they do today and it was quite common for cinemas to wheel out the familiar old classics every school holiday. (My friend's birthday fell in July, so his parties normally included a trip to the movies). Jason is the son of the King of Thessaly who is overthrown and killed by the usurper Pelias. (In the original Greek myth Jason's father is called Aeson, but here he is named Aristo). The film tells the story of how Jason voyages to the land of Colchis to find the fabled Golden Fleece. In this quest he has the help of the greatest heroes of Greece, referred to as the Argonauts after their ship the Argo. The film ends rather abruptly after Jason, with the help of Medea, the beautiful daughter of the King of Colchis, has succeeded in obtaining the Golden Fleece; it does not deal with their return voyage to Greece or what happened to them when they got there. (Read the myth if you want to find out). It seems, in fact, as though Harryhausen may have been planning a sequel which in the event was never made. Epics telling tales from Classical antiquity were popular in the cinema of the fifties and early sixties. Most of these, however, ("Spartacus", "Cleopatra", "The Fall of the Roman Empire") were inspired by actual historical events rather than by mythology, which would presumably have required more sophisticated special effects. Special effects, however, were Harryhausen's stock-in-trade, and "Jason and the Argonauts", like his other films, is famous for the various monsters he manages to bring to life. It was, of course, these monsters which caught my eye when I first saw the film. Tom Hanks famously said of it "Some people say "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane"...I say "Jason and the Argonauts" is the greatest film ever made!", and on that summer afternoon nearly forty years ago I would not have dissented from that opinion. Now our tastes and critical judgements tend to change with the passage of the years, especially between childhood and adulthood. I would not, for example, be quite as ready today to rank among the deathless classics of English literature either "Take Jennings, For Instance" or "Biggles Defies the Swastika" as I would have been in 1971. When, therefore, "Jason and the Argonauts" was shown on British television recently- the first time I had seen it since my childhood- I wondered whether it would still seem as good as it did all those years ago. As Wikipedia puts it, "The almost universal use of CGI has effectively rendered stop-motion obsolete as a serious special effects tool in feature film". Stop-motion might occasionally be used in cosy children's films like the "Wallace and Gromit" series, but in a film like "Jason", which was a blockbusting spectacular in its day, the technique now has a distinctly retro feel to it. Some of the effects in this film do not really work as well as they probably once did- the Harpies, for example, do not look at all convincing. Most of the other monsters, however, are just as satisfying as they ever were- the bronze giant Talos, the sea-god Poseidon who arises from the waves to help the Argonauts through the Clashing Rocks, and, most of all, those seven skeletons against whom Jason battles at the end. (This was the sequence which I remembered most vividly). The acting contributions are all adequate, although none of them really stand out. (The one exception is perhaps from Nancy Kovack- otherwise best known to me as Darren's bitchy ex-girlfriend Sheila in "Bewitched"- as the seductive Medea). This is not, however, the sort of film you watch for its acting, but for its ability to transport you into a fantasy world full of wonders. As such it still works very well, even in today's GCI-dominated world. 7/10. |
Trailers: |

