Strong and Moving!

Captivating movie !

Admirable film.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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.

for many of its viewers, it remains unique. yesterday, in the period of early years of childhood, today, in the era of 3D, this "Thief of Bagdad" has not term of comparison. sure, one of the basic motifs is Douglas Fairbanks. and the seductive story, and the Oriental impeccable architecture and the special effects. in one word - its fantastic freshness. because it has the virtues who are out of contemporary examples of success. maybe a coherent , charming story and the naivety and the surprising eroticism and the science to build a story in each detail. maybe the princes and the princess and the flavors of Bagdad are causes of a special emotion when I see it again. because it is magic. and this does it a real fantastic film.

Easily and by far this is the best version that I have seen of "The Thief of Bagdad". It does not have the Technicolor opulent look of the 1940 version, and Douglas Fairbanks is not as handsome as the 1961 thief, played by Steve Reeves, but this 1924 production intelligently blends comedy and drama; the framing, angles and camera movements used by director Raoul Walsh and cinematographer Arthur Edeson are visually elegant; and sets, costumes and effects were beautifully conceived and executed. The film moves with a fascinating rhythm during the first two acts in Bagdad, before the Princess' suitors travel in search of the strangest treasures: there are countless sets to stage all the dramatic and action scenes: the marketplace, the sewers, the palace garden, the throne room, the Princess' bedroom, immense stairs, doors, walls, halls and vines, lavishly designed by William Cameron Menzies. Where it not for the overlong adaptation (I saw the 149 minutes restoration, with the Carl Davis score based on Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherazade"), this would have been an undeniable masterpiece. The narration drags a bit after the suitors leave Bagdad, the Mongol Prince's machinations, and the extended return of the thief (who inexplicably does not ride on the winged horse to the city), although there are also wonderful scenes in this third act, as the trip to find and test the magic apple and the creation of the new Bagdad army. Everybody is fine in this film: Fairbank as the thief is all smiles, but when he has to show the dramatic nuances of his character he excels; Sôjin Kamiyama is excellent as the Mongol Prince (especially when compared to the 1940 and 1961 villains, more than aptly played by Conrad Veidt and Arturo Dominici), and Julanne Johnston's Princess is both attractive and funny, but I especially enjoyed beautiful Anna May Wong as the wicked Oriental maid and hilarious Snitz Edwards as the thief's sidekick. A true cinematic gem.

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.