User reviews

I like the original series, such a simpler time and nostalgic era. The reason why the 60s series worked is 2 things.

1. Cast! Tony and Jeannie had chemistry! And a lovable Roger and a running gag Dr Bellows. This 4 core cast was the reason why the series worked.

In this movie, there is no Larry Hagman, we have a new Anthony Nelson. But together there is no chemistry. In the series, Jeannie was a carefree, reckless genie who's actions inadvertently causes Tony to be in jeopardy. Where this movie, she is more mellow and mature, that kinda took away from her core character. When do a reunion movie, try have core cast come back or it just wont work.

2. Location Location Location...

The series was located at cape Kennedy and Cocoa Beach in Florida, back in the 60s NASA was in the frontier of technology and were fascinating at the time. In this movie it was Houston, why?

Overview: This movie lacks continuity and a major one. The series sub-plot says Jeannie was 2000 years old, and this one it says shes over 4000 years old! I know ladies do lie about their age, but come on! Only thing worthy of the movie was the telling her son of her secret and putting the two at that beach where Tony and Jeannie met, so nostalgic. Only they screwed it up by having the new Tony instead of replay the pilot of the series.

Reunion movies have always been a challenge. Capturing the essence and the magic of a series they are trying to continue is always hit or miss, with little to no middle ground.

I was excited when I heard this TV movie was in the works as I really enjoyed "I Dream of Jeannie" (and still do, albeit through reruns). When I heard Larry Hagman wasn't returning, I wasn't that phased (I was just thirteen at the time), I thought "Dallas" "ruined" Hagman.

(I later come to respect Hagman on his declining to reprise Tony Nelson. While his "Dallas" schedule was said to negate his availability for this sequel, he allegedly indicated when offered to reprise, "What's old, should stay old." He wanted to be known for a diverse career and that was okay. With the way this movie turned out...maybe the original should have been left alone.)

But when I saw the final product, I felt there was something missing in this sequel. No, it was not Hagman, but the magic that made the series a hit and drawn viewers.

Even if Hagman returned, we still have this disappointing fare; the actors/actresses are only a fraction of what makes a great TV show or movie. I don't fault Wayne Rogers for taking on the role, but it was hard to convince fans that he was Tony Nelson plus the poor writing of the movie didn't help.

Then you have the ending; I'm not sharing what has already been posted, I don't know what the writers were thinking, but it was really a blow to Jeannie fans and as was said, it didn't align well with the (just as lame) follow up movie.

Reunion movies to hit TV shows are/were a great idea. Unfortunately writers have/had their work cut out for them to make a very watchable fare. And most found less-than-satisfied audiences.

Regardless of which actors reprised their roles or otherwise, the writers should have put more thought in this reunion movie.

This was a nice idea, and with the right script and ensemble, could have been very nice. But, with Larry Hagman committed to "Dallas," and with an ending that made no sense, it's really a collection of good vignettes poorly connected to each other.

The revised musical intro was a nice combination of classic and 1980's, and there are very nice scenes with Eden and her in-character son. Wayne Rogers turns a very nice effort as Anthony Nelson.

But, despite some delightful moments, overall TV movie failed at the end due to an entirely needless plot twist that served no overall purpose. Ultimately, when second made-for-TV movie was made, it ignored this poor plot twist, which is really its ultimate indication of how bad it was.

A seemingly ageless Barbara Eden reprises her role from the 60s sitcom as a genial genie married to her mortal astronaut master. Jeannie, who seems to have discovered women's lib since we last saw her, is anxiously awaiting husband Tony's retirement from the space program, so he can be at home more to help her raise their teenaged son, TJ. But Tony's agreement to undertake one more space mission threatens their marriage, and even his life.

The script tends toward corny, and Larry Hagman is missed as Tony Nelson (Wayne Rogers from "M*A*S*H" fills in). And the ending makes the whole thing smell like a failed pilot to revive the series. Still, there are some nice nostalgic moments with Eden, Bill Daily (as Tony's best friend, Roger), and Hayden Rorke as the always-suspicious Dr. Bellows.

Without Larry Hagman, it was terrible for me. They should have paid Larry Hagman enough to still be Tony.

Even worse, when Jeannie went back in history to show how they met on the beach, it was nothing like how they really met, and changing Tony even going back to the beach was a brutal mistake.

As a big fan of the original series, this flopped for me during the whole movie. The chemistry between Tony and Jeannie disappeared.

Just like in the original series, Jeannie's sister tried to break them apart. Evidently it worked in this movie (Very fitting as the 'new' Tony Nelson was horrible with the relationship with Jeannie anyway).

The ending was also bad. It was not like Jeannie to leave, but I understand now since the new Tony was nothing like the original.

Perhaps younger people who never watched the series didn't notice how far it went from the original and rated higher, and am sad about that.

All around it was so disappointing.

I absolutely love watching Jeannie and her antics in reruns still even now, but this movie, I wish I'd never knew it existed! It was free on streaming, and so I was excited to see more of Jeannie and the crew, but disappointed with the results. I noticed that Larry Hagman wasn't in it, and hear Barbara Eden almost didn't do it. I wonder if she regrets that she did?

The plot was poorly written. Although there were a few amusing jokes on Bellows and Roger, it felt forced. It just didn't have the fun campy feel of the show. I liked the idea of seeing her with a family, but expected there to be a daughter as well. That little detail didn't affect why I didn't like the movie though. It should be noted that the son's character was actually pretty decent, and the actor did a good job.

Overall, it seemed like a couple of show episodes crammed together by writers who only saw a couple episodes of the series, but thought reprising the show might be fun. Then they realized that a new show wouldn't happen, so they tossed all their ideas into a blender, and filmed what popped out. Then they realized when the movie was all over that the ending was terrible, (even more terriblethan the rest of the movie) so they decided to toss in another little scene... and that fixed it all better... NOT! Could this movie have worked if it had been better written, and if Larry Hagman had been in it instead of the block of wood they hired to play Tony instead? I think this could have been quite fun with some decent tweaks, and if they had focused on the main story line. Also if they had had the full main cast including Hagman. They shouldn't have done it without him.

So I don't know what they were trying to achieve here. I do believe they were thinking about rebooting the series with this movie as a kick off, but too many things fell flat. First of all, Jeannie is waving her hands around for her magic as if she was on "Bewitched"; normally Jeannie just blinked. And speaking of the the blink, why on earth did they sound people think replacing Jeannie's trademark "boing" with a synthesizer riff was a good idea? Rumor has it they couldn't get their hands on the master tapes of the classic sound effects so they made new, but it was really, really weird.

When at the golf course, listen for the players' names being called out over the PA speaker, one of them being "Stephens". I'm surprised there was no mention of a "Tate".

Bill Asher directed this and Elizabeth Montgomery was furious at him for doing so. Wayne Rogers just didn't work as Tony Nelson, though if they rebooted the series with him in the role it might have been a new way to kick things off.

I always wondered why Scheherazade, an ancient genie, had a southern accent.

Barbara Eden looked gorgeous in this (in both roles) but there were too many continuity errors.

Jeannie has always been a bit on the feisty side (that's a quality I like about her; she's nowhere near as domesticated as Samantha). I can understand her feeling a little taken for granted after so many years (she's not a robot, people -- she has feelings too).

Great idea ... but they messed up the ending. It caused a MAJOR continuity problem for its successor, "I Still Dream of Jeannie".

It had its moments (I liked the scene where she has to tell her son about her ... "secret identity").

It is almost bizarre this sub-plot because it propose , scene by scene, the comparation with the original serie . And the result is not so happy. A new actor as Tony Nelson is the first big mistake. The second - too many flaws and a childish story. The serie has nerve and charme and humor. In this case, the basic motif to be seems to remind the original serie. And nothing more. But sure, it is a nice film and Barbara Eden does her the best. .