Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

robinakaaly I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed but I was struck by the similarities between the Thief's fight with a dragon, and that of Siegfried's in Fritz Land Ring of the Nibelungs. In both the hero makes a frontal assault on the dragon, then stabs it on its underside. Blood then rushes out, though wisely the Thief makes sure he doesn't touch it. There is then a sequence in both films where the dragon dies. Of course in the German film the dragon is asleep and not bothering anyone, so Siegfried has to wake it up and gratuitously kill it. In the American film, the dragon is barring the Thief's way so he has (slightly) more justification in killing it.Both films were released early in 1924, so are these scenes pure co-incidence or was one influenced by the other? One commentator mentions that Kevin Brownlow says Fairbanks went to Germany and was influenced by their techniques, so did he get the idea from Lang? I personally think that both dragons deserved to be nominated for a Best Supporting Monster Oscar.

afgenovese500 The thief of Bagdad can easily be one of the most enjoyable and easy silent movies that I have seen. Not once have i been tempted to make a pause or to improvise a dub on the characters using funny voices (..okay i did do it a couple of times). Apart of the central 20 minutes the whole movie is quite fast-paced filled with gags, amazing costumes and stunning scenarios.Douglas Fairbanks is just THE actor for this kind of movie. Flamboyant, athletic, awesome smile typical of an overconfident reckless man who knows he is smarter than average.. he is the perfect hero for this story. The special effects used are admirable for the time. You just keep wondering how the hell did they do that in 1924, the genius behind some of the cinematography is praiseworthy, just look at the underwater scenes (this part was very exciting for me, CGI just took the fun out of guessing how did they do this or that effect). The costumes are quite funky, which was new for me to see in these kind of movies. Seriously, the costumes are so cool, everyone looks ready for their Saturday night disco or ninja parade. And the scenography.. seeing the underwater city and the city of Baghdad during the golden age just made me want to get a time machine and go see it myself. On the other side of the coin, the film drowns in orientalist commonplace stereotypes. The ancient arabic centre of culture is represented with the typical magical-dreamy architecture which is quintessential in orientalist productions (for the record, orientalism = western representation of eastern cultures) and the parallels with Disney's Aladdin come very easy for the young viewer. The Mongols are represented as a sort of mash-up between opium-café thugs from imperial china, and weird Japanese ninja-samurai, not exactly the mongols that you would expect given their nomad history etc..One special mention goes to the christianization of Islam. The one guy which role is to be a spiritual guide to the thief doesn't fail to show how good things and happiness must be earned through hard-work and sacrifice; in doing so he shapes the perfect Christian American citizen, a man now adverse to cheating and shortcuts, ready to pursue his American Dream by undertaking a near-impossible quest to get the princess of his dreams, showing that purity and determination will get him his happiness! GO American WAY! But in the end, is it a bad thing? Does orientalism offend the history of the middle east? Maybe nowadays it would, but what would the Hollywood people know in 1924 of how did the mongols look like, or whether golden-age Bagdad had penis-shaped towers or not. Besides, this version of Arabia is the coolest and most creative one I've seen, even for today's standards. Recommend 10/10!

Al_The_Strange When it comes to works of fantasy and myth, it takes effort to relay the sense of wonder or whimsey that accompanies such things as magic or otherworldly creatures. It's always been easy to relay such things through books, poetry, or even reciting it verbally to others. On film, it's a far bigger challenge, and 1924's The Thief of Bagdad stands as one of the earliest and most ambitious attempts to conceptualize and execute a work of fantasy for the big screen. It's a big production, with huge sets, a huge crowd of extras, lavish costumes, and convincing special effects. It all works together to bring to life a fantastic world of flying carpets, magic ropes, mermaids, giant apes, and invading foreign armies, all contained within an exotic Arabian backdrop.The film is pretty long, and it drags at certain parts (mostly the middle). However, it does have a lighthearted whimsey to the tone, and in the characters, which keeps it entertaining and fun, even after all these years.This story is a big and sprawling adventure, but thanks to the way it's told, with simple dialogue and exaggerated acting, it's never convoluted. It's successful at telling a complicated series of events without losing the audience, and with a cast of decent and lovable characters. I have no idea how this film compares to its original novel, but it appears to maintain the appropriate tone and all the right elements of a proper Arabian fantasy.This film uses solid photography and editing. Acting is very exaggerated and over-the-top, which can be laughable at times, but for a silent film it's quite forgivable. Writing is simple but effective enough. This production has huge sets, props, and costumes; a lot of it seems to reflect a more stereotypical view of Arabian and Asian culture, rather than trying to be anything realistic. Special effects are great though; even after all these years, there are many shots that you can look at and wonder, how did they do that? In spite of that, the imagery is often great. The music score is great too.The Thief of Bagdad is not only a seminal classic for fantasy films, it's also one of the biggest and most imaginative silent-era films I've seen.Recommended! 4.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

Michael Neumann The acrobatic skill and charisma of Douglas Fairbanks fits well with the magnificent sets and magical special effects of this timeless romantic fantasy, but all the histrionic mugging and florid over-emoting only makes the silent epic look sadly dated when seen today. Thankfully the title role of the penniless thief who becomes a prince doesn't demand much acting prowess, allowing Fairbanks plenty of opportunities to express himself physically: jumping over walls, battling fierce supernatural creatures, riding his valiant steed over desert sands, and so forth. To win the hand of a beautiful princess he must embark on a quest to find the most wondrous object on Earth, and after triumphing over every adversity the two lovers are last seen floating away into the Arabian night on their flying carpet. The moral of story is spelled out in the twinkling stars overhead: Happiness Must Be Earned, and who can argue with that?