WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Console best movie i've ever seen.

He_who_lurks Before Segundo de Chomón developed his own kinds of special effects, (such as stop-motion animation) his movies were pretty much the same as what you'd see his rival, Georges Méliès, making years before this. "The Magician from Arabia" is an excellent example. While this movie contains some nice tricks and is fun to watch, (with some nice coloring work) it really contains nothing new from what we've seen before. There's no ground-breaking camerawork, (such as closeups or medium closeups or anything like that) or new trick effects, like the brilliant stop-motion Chomón worked with later in his career. It's basically a lot of dissolves which serve to make pretty girls appear and disappear. It's all nicely done and is worthwhile for any Méliès fan....but then again, there's nothing new here from what we've seen before either.

MartinHafer If you didn't see the name Segundo de Chomón on the opening screen, then you would most likely just assume this is a film from the famous French filmmaker Georges Méliès. After all, Méliès pioneered the use of stop-motion and camera tricks to blend magic and filmmaking. And, the style of this film is 100% Georges Méliès from start to finish. So what gives? Well, back in the not so good old days, stealing was rampant in the film world. Sometimes filmmakers would slap their names on another artist's work (and this explains why the Biograph folks, for example, slapped an 'AB' on every frame to discourage this) and more often they would just copy the film's style and content. Because Méliès was so popular, lots of folks were 'inspired' (i.e., stole) by his work. And, Chomón is just one of many 'borrowers' (i.e., thieves).Despite all this, "The Magician from Arabia" is definitely a quality product. It appears every bit as good as the real thing and its production values are as good as any film of the day. As you see the magician make flames and women and wreaths of flowers appear and disappear, you can't help but admire the skill involved. And, like some of the best films of the day, they even added some color (various yellow-gold tones) to give it some extra class. Well done but essentially a knock-off!

boblipton When I look at one of Segundo de Chomon's filmed magic acts, my impulse is to compare it to one of Melies'. De Chomon tries for an air of realism. His set's floor is covered with dirt; Melies' act is undercranked slightly to lend more vivacity to the movement; the print of de Chomon's work is colored more elaborately than comparable prints from Melies, being tinted brown (not sepia) and stenciled. The last may simply be a statement of which prints survived a hundred years. Both make extensive use of cuts in service of their transformations. Melies also uses lifts and wires, which creates a lot more movement. There's much more posing in this film, from the chorines holding fans to the magician lying on a divan.It's the liveliness that makes the Melies films better. It wouldn't make much difference in the long run. Pathe, with their greater resources, including equipment manufacture and exhibition, could outspend Melies. Eventually, they would swamp him.