Wordiezett So much average

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

MissSimonetta I like this one, but I do not feel it represents Doug Fairbanks at his best or even at his most entertaining.Of course, the production is gorgeous, an art deco dream of the Arabian Nights fairy tales. But lush costumes and sets are not enough.My score would be higher were this film one hour shorter, because the paper-thin plot and characters at play in The Thief of Bagdad do not warrant a two and a half hour run-time. The stunts and gags are great fun until 90 minutes roll by. By 100 minutes, you'll already be checking your watch and sick of it.If you want prime Fairbanks, go for The Mark of Zorro or The Black Pirate.

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)

tomgillespie2002 Having made his name primarily in the comedy genre, silent superstar Douglas Fairbanks continued his transformation into swashbuckler with this lavish fantasy epic. Made on grand sets that rivalled the likes of Cabiria (1914), thanks to some spectacular set design by William Cameron Menzies, and featuring some ground-breaking visual effects, the real attraction of The Thief of Bagdad is Fairbanks himself, who compensates for some quite outlandish over-acting with an irresistibly athletic performance. The 1940 remake (for which Menzies was once of a few uncredited directors) cast Sabu as the titular thief, but relegated him to the sidekick of John Justin's Prince Ahmad. Perhaps the makers felt that making a petty thief the hero was a little more than the audience could accept, and so this works as a testament to the effortless likability of Fairbanks.The Thief (Fairbanks) roams Bagdad, taking what he pleases and going wherever his legs will take him. Unmoved by religion, he seeks any opportunity to steal, telling a holy man "What I want, I take!". Seeking the ultimate treasure, he and his associate (Snitz Edwards) break into the palace of the Caliph (Brandon Hurst), where he discovers the Caliph's beautiful daughter (Julanne Johnston) laying asleep. Yet when the guards are alerted, the Thief flees. With the Princess' birthday the next day, Bagdad awaits the mighty rulers and Prince's of other kingdom who will pay tribute to the Princess in the hope of winning her heart. The Thief plans on stealing her, yet when a twist of fate causes the Princess to love him back, he must embark on a mighty quest to bring her the rarest gift he can find, in the hope of winning the favour of her father.With a hefty running time of 150 minutes, The Thief of Bagdad naturally suffers from some lengthy un-eventful periods, occasionally shifting its focus to the plans of the Mongol Prince (Sojin) to win the Princess by force and take over the city of Bagdad. But this is fantasy in its purest form, with magic ropes and carpets, various giant monsters, and a winged horse, all giving the opportunity for some dazzling and charming special effects that prove to be quite spectacular retrospectively. The film is an absolute visual delight, with the grand sets simply blowing my mind in an age of lazy CGI work. But like I said before, the true star is Fairbanks, failing to convince as an Arab but giving a performance of wonderful athleticism that pose no question as to why he was an absolute superstar in his day. The 1940 remake is certainly better remembered, especially for its glorious Technicolour cinematography, but Raoul Walsh's 1924 effort is simply beautiful, with some genuinely thrilling moments during it's climatic final third.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

D_Burke It's a funny thing about watching silent movies in the 21st Century, even silent movies that have been well restored. Especially in the case of fantasy films like "The Thief of Baghdad" and others like it that require special effects, it is not just that the special effects look archaic compared to the CGI effects of today. There are a lot of things modern day audiences have to get used to, such as the fact that spoken dialogue doesn't appear in subtitles unless it absolutely has to. If two people are arguing and no words appear on the screen, you really have to make your best guess as to what they could be saying.There's also the case of timing. "The Thief of Baghdad" runs 2 hours and 19 minutes, and it's safe to say that if the film had sound (dialogue too), the running time would probably be cut down by at least 20 minutes. There are also the other hang-ups of silent movies, such as the movement of the characters being too quick, and how some of the actors and actresses look very strange and out of the ordinary. The lack of color added to the overall darkness of the film due to lack of lighting also is a deterrent to watching these very, very old films that were made when my grandparents were infants (literally).If you are not a fan of old movies, you really have to keep those things in mind when watching "The Thief of Baghdad" for the first time. The fact is that this film's audience was probably people who didn't go to the movies often, and were still amazed by the novelty of moving pictures.Keeping in mind all I said about why most silent films have not exactly stood the test of time, is "The Thief of Baghdad" a good movie? For many reasons, yes, and it should be watched by people who are fans of action and fantasy movies, because this really paved the way for what CGI and other special effects sciences only made better in the years to come.The movie tells a good story, although one that sputters and stalls a few times in the first 30 minutes. Douglas Fairbanks, the epitome of the ultra masculine hero, plays the thief here who goes by no other name. You see him steal to make a living in many clever ways. In fact, the first five minutes of the film are incredibly entertaining the way he manages to pickpocket wealthy patrons, and effortlessly fling his way up to a balcony with just a long rope and a donkey.The story really begins, though, when the thief disguises himself as a prince, and attempts to woo the princess. He does successfully, though he is filled with guilt about deceiving her. Long story short, he is put on a quest to obtain a rare gift for the princess, in competition with three other princes with whom the princess wants no company. Whereas the three actual princes rely on their servants to get them their gifts, the thief goes alone on a long journey. He has help along the way as to where to go, but he really does the grunt work himself.Of course, the filmmakers did nothing to make Fairbanks look Arabian or Iraqi, but that's just one of the ways you really have to suspend disbelief in this film. Fortunately, "The Thief of Baghdad" didn't make the same mistake that "Birth of a Nation" did in portraying racist stereotypes (whether or not that was a mistake really depends on the viewer). Instead of making white men and women into embarrassing stereotypes, this film used actual actors of Asian, African, and (I'm guessing) middle Eastern descent. They probably had the artistic liberty to make such politically incorrect assertions about those in the Middle East, but they thankfully avoided it in this film.Being a moviegoer who you could say has been spoiled by CGI special effects, I actually found myself wondering how some of the special effects in this movie were pulled off. There are scenes where a boy mysteriously reappears on a rope that is hanging in mid air, a giant scorpion attacks the thief as he searches for the lost treasure, and a magic carpet flies over the city of Baghdad. I was amazed to find myself saying, "Given what the filmmakers had to work with, how did they do that? How did they edit the film so that that particular effect worked?" If you have that sort of wonderment out of a moviegoer who just went to see "Avatar", you've got a good movie.The movie was also probably shot on a studio lot, but the set design is so detailed with its tall buildings and plants carefully placed in the makeshift Baghdad that there are few indications of such a location. The movie was probably a big hit at its time because so much artistic effort was put into bringing this Arabian Knights tale to life. These scenes within Baghdad made me wish more that the film was in color, but I would not settle for colorization. That process would have ruined the film.So "The Thief of Baghdad" is a bit slow at times, and some scenes require the point of view of someone who has never heard of television. Still, the movie told a good story, the special effects were awe-inspiring considering its time period, and the message of the film is something to take away: "Happiness Must Be Earned". These words are written in the sky as an old man is sitting in the Arabian desert presumably telling a young boy this story. This scene, identical in the beginning and end of the movie, go against the traditional rule of "Show, don't tell", but the scene is still a very artistic and beautiful way to bookmark such a film.