Watch The Thief of Bagdad For Free

Best movie ever!

Awesome Movie

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

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)

Here is another of the classic Douglas Fairbanks swashbucklers that were so popular during the 1920s. The story is long, but it does not bore. It tells a magical tale that must have delighted children young and old when it premiered in 1924. The sets are enormous, the cast excellent. There are dragons, underwater sirens, trees that come to life, and a host of other magical items that keep one watching. Doug Fairbanks is so athletic (almost balletic) in this that one can see why he was so popular during the silent era. Julanne Johnston, who plays the princess, does a good job with her role. Sojin is possibly the most repulsive villain to come along until Ming The Merciless in the old "Flash Gordon" serials. Here is a long silent film that I never tire of watching.

I watched this the other night at the academy of motion pictures arts and sciences special screening and was annoyed at one film historian introducing it telling us to "bear with it"" and making excuses for its pacing and style. I have watched and enjoyed many silent films, but evidently the influence of NIjinsky was not such a good thing on this one. I really found it dull and Douglas Fairbanks was too old for the part and went about it like a ham and cheese sandwich with extra meat. Anna may Wong was very good. the sets were a let down, everything about it was a let down. It doesn't help of course that the Michael Powell Alexander Kora version from the 50s with divine Sabu is one of my favorite films. I enjoyed hearing the rim sky korsakov cut and paste score actually, at least there wasn't some really annoying music slapped on as in the Gloria Swanson version of "rain" "sadie Thompson" also directed by Raoul Walsh and an infinitely better movie.