Watch Arabesque For Free

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

One of my all time favorites.

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

This mystery/thriller is from director Stanley Donen. It follows on from the director's previous film, Charade starring Cary Grant. Charade was very much a Hitchcockian thriller which could pass as the work of the 'Master of Suspense' himself. That film totally delivered whereas this one is brilliant entertainment but with a few clunky scenes and a slightly disappointing plot reveal towards the end.Donen directs brilliantly with exciting action scenes, sophisticated scenes of dialogue and BAFTA winning cinematography featuring very stylish and interesting camera work. Viewing this in HD is a treat for the eyes, it looks beautiful. The acting is of a high standard throughout the cast with some good villains and a top class performance from Sophia Loren. Gregory Peck is his usual brilliant self as the Oxford professor dragged into a dangerous game of spies, plots and murder due to his abilities in deciphering hieroglyphics. The part was meant for Cary Grant and Peck is not usually seen in this kind of role where amusing quips are delivered in the midst of danger and romance. A star of his quality takes it in his stride, though, and he is spot on in the role.The mysterious plot goes along well and keeps you really interested but there are scenes which are badly thought through and as the truth behind the mysteries gets revealed towards the end it does not quite make sense to the degree it could. There are a number of things which jar a bit as being too improbable or inadequately explained: A royal guardsman inexplicably collapsing due to a comment from Peck and his fellow guard totally ignoring the incident, people running into and around London Zoo at night with no security barrier or anything to stop them, people using various methods of trying to kill Peck when a simple gunshot would do and the revelation of the hieroglyphic message all seem symptoms of the hastily rewritten screenplay.Scenes in the zoo, a horse race, a cornfield and a viaduct all have that Hitchcockian stamp on them and Donen at this stage seemed to be trying (or being told by film studios?) to become the new 'Hitch'. In Charade he managed to achieve that level. In Arabesque he does a really good job in the entertainment, action, use of great actors and visual style but falls down a bit on plot execution.7.5/10

Definitely not Peck's best effort. A potentially interesting idea that is let down by some poor acting, inane dialogue and some ham-fisted editing, most noticeable in action sequences i.e. when someone is struck, etc. Loren is quite beautiful but appears to be running on autopilot. Compared to To Kill a Mockingbird, Peck's acting doesn't find its feet and he appears unsure of whether to be serious or play it for laughs; all in all an uncomfortable performance. Both principals have done better. Some minor characters are quite annoying though probably because of the inanities of the script. Easily eclipsed by some telemovies of the period. Camera work is typical of the era but nowhere near as arty as The Thomas Crown Affair. Forget it. It comes across like one of those eastern European flicks where they blew the budget (such as it was) on the principal actors and had nothing left over to refine the script or hire better supporters. Watch Charade instead.

When James Bond was so successful, a lot of folks went to the London studios are tried to make their own film. This one enlisted a top director, Stanley Roper (kidding), Gregory Peck, Sophia Loren, Christian Dior, and the MGM British Unit of the 1960's.The best features of this film - the cast, the opening and closing credits and the scenery. The worst part is the script. I mean if your going to try and clone James Bond, at least find someone who can write a good script to do so. If your going to fake Hitchcock, well even Hitch knew the writing was super important in his work. Most clever touch in the film - Peck using a wooden ladder to take down the bad guys helicopter. Worst touch, the total insane crazy plot and the way the sequencing was done. It was kind of cool seeing a bad guy blast open a fish tank in an aquarium but that touch could have been done more effectively.Sometimes, imitation of success does not really come off. The cast looks like they have fun, and I envy Peck being able to look at Loren nude and taking a shower in front of him. Could this have been better, yes and 007 did so. Legend has it Peck was supposed to be Cary Grant. I think in 1966 that Peck was the better option. He can even make bad lines sound like they have real authority.

is it good ? is it bad ? really, I do not know. the presence of Sophia Loren and Gregory Peck, precise pieces from Hitchcock style, the romance crumbs and the ball of adventures does a not boring result. sure, it can be version for Charade or soft Bond slice but, in fact, it remains itself. charming, not always credible, a little crazy, with few nice exotic drops, chain of masks and noble feelings, smart and ironic, pink and serious, authentic show from good times. it is a kind of meeting with an old friend. a delight and entertainment like cherry jam from a lost age. so, final verdict - it is really inspired story. is it enough ?