The Thief of Bagdad

It's a fun adventure movie with wonderful technicolor, but it's a little too silly to really be great. The acting is sometimes too over the top and the effects, while great for their time look pretty odd at times.

a satisfying, but generally unfocused fantasy romp that easily proves to be more than eye candy and truly impresses. it's a wonder that this movie isn't remembered in a more kind and widespread manner.

Beautiful color, impressive sets and costuming, full of wonder and whimsy and a sense of fun. But I didn't LOVE it. I couldn't put my finger on it at first, but I narrowed it down to Conrad Veidt. He doesn't have the oomph to carry a leading man speaking role. He brings no life to the character, and that made it hard for me to get invested. An impressive and in some ways magical production, but the lackluster performances keep it from perfection.

terrible but good

There is so much to like here but it's also a flawed movie. It's absolutely beautiful to look at--I always love the way they handled color in this era. All of the art design is amazing (sets, props, etc.) and the film is historically significant as the first use of greenscreen (or blue screen at the time) technology, which obviously looks rough by today's standards but must have been mind-blowing 82 years ago. The acting (outside of Veidt's Jaffar) is generally poor, though.

Unexpectedly, I loved this. I don't always love Old Hollywood, but for a magical adventure like this it works. Oftentimes I feel distracted by campy sets or the extra-colourful costumes, but I was totally charmed by them in this context. The giant genie and giant spider were both horrible, but by the time we got to that part I didn't care. Just a lot of fun.

The design is truly unique -- unusual pastel sets and costumes (in Technicolor!) and wacky, cartoony sound. Unfortunately it's edited to pieces and contains very little of the meaningful action, adventure, or fantastical elements you'd expect. At least it's got banal romance! It just feels utterly lifeless. Bordering on spectacle for the sake of spectacle, yet remaining unspectacular -- just another saccharine epic.

Doesn't hold up all that well. Fun film but doesn't do much to fully grasp your attention.

There was some memorable moments I remember from seeing it for the first time as a kid, but otherwise it was not that successful film or story. Especially white main actors were funny. Some sets were impressively huge though. It would be nice to see the older version than this.

335

This production was seriously screwed up by the outbreak of WW2. It was shot by six different directors, not all of whom were on the same continent, and none of whom had a complete script. The result is a real mess. Beautifully shot, and great FX, but the story is disjointed and has all manner of logic problems. (Sound familiar?)

Viewed August 20, 2017.

I'm sure this was quite the spectacle back in the day, but it has not aged well. The dialogue is bloated, the acting banal, and the special effects laughable. John Justin is seriously embarrassing as Prince Ahmad, but the exception is Conrad Veidt as Jaffar.

Enjoyable fantasy film that makes do with a threadbare romance plot. The special effects aren't entirely impressive today, though I'd bet back in the 1940s the audiences gasped at them. Fun, with a few standout performances (primarily Veidt and Sabu).

87.50

Hasn't aged that well (especially the flying Genie "effects") but the sets are wonderful and it's quite charming.

booooring

50 score as 50% of the movie is good. And that 50% is when Abu becomes the main character instead of annoying Ahmad

The bright colors and well-shot special effects overcome the story to make a delightful film.

Its as goofy and madcap as a 40s fantasy can be, but that just makes it charming to me rather than stupid and childish. The effects are good for the time. I sought this out as a fan of old fantasy like sinbad and that one with basil rathbone dressed as a gypsy woman ( the magic sword) and was well pleased. Its also a bit of a history piece where you can see the days when color was the newest gimmick...and wow can this film get painfully colourful at times.

#306

# 337

A somewhat entertaining, colourful fantasy film. It is very much a children's film though, with stereotypical smiling heroes and scowling villains and cheesy and silly dialogue.

Everything looks so obviously, distractingly fake, including the acting, that I found myself having to make a conscious effort to stay interested in the film. But it does have some gorgeous exterior shots and great performances by Sabu, Veidt, and Ingram. I can see why Disney's Aladdin harvested so much from this film.

Star Rating: ★★★★

Colorful (in the most literal sense, that is, filled, stuffed, gorged with color) Arabian Nights tale, a United Kingdom/United States joint venture, produced by Alexander Korda, designed by his brother Vincent, associate-produced by William Cameron Menzies, who designed the Douglas Fairbanks silent version of the tale, and directed by three different people. All in all, richer in production values than in real imagination. Veidt is everything you might want in an evil vizier and more

Except for its place in history and a colorful presentation, there's really nothing exceptional to be found here.

Gives a more 1001 Nights spin to the 1924 silent version. A classic epic fantasy film with spectacular sets, costumes and art design rendered in lush technicolor. As ever with grand productions, the script is shallow, contrived and unsophisticated, but it does have an innocent charm. Justin and Duprez are dashing and radiant as Prince Ahmed and the Princess of Basra, but their acting is completely overshadowed by that of the masterful Veidt as Jaffar. Malleson as Sultan and Sabu are also good.

Veidt is a magnificent villain, but the acting of the rest of the cast is dreadful. A must-see for fantasy fans with its groundbraking special effects (blue screen in 1940!).

There are quirks about The Thief of Bagdad (1940), and in a way the characters don't match the personality of Douglas Fairbanks in the original The Thief of Bagdad (1924). But what positives it has! The splendid fairytale color! The wonderfully grandeur of the sets! All the exploits of genies, flying horses, gigantic spiders and wherever this dreamy trip took us! Brilliant escapism! And most of all.... Conrad Veidt, as evil as he was born to be!

320

For the time period, quite good.

I enjoyed the romance and the script in places, but it never really held my attention.

Maybe not the best movie, but incredibly entertaining with some pretty amazing effects, make up, and sets.

"A fable light on condescension but committed enough to the pleasure principle that the audience is served one giddy act of visual sorcery after another." - Bill Weber

"There is an innocence to The Thief of Bagdad that is notably unusual in today's theaters."

Moments here and there are great, and the sets are beautiful, but it's a bit too disjointed for my taste. The romance plot is compelling, all the diversions less so.