I really wanted to like this movie; I really did. I figured that since I have always loved "The Wizard of Oz," "Forbidden Planet," and "Samson and Delilah," that "Thief" would appeal to me. After all, I figured, it would combine the best of the art direction and fantasy of "Wizard" with the otherworldliness of "Planet," along with the lush Hollywood exoticism of "Samson and Delilah." Unfortunately, this was not the case. I am sorry to say that all of those previously mentioned movies are much better than "Thief of Bagdad."
For starters, I was particularly disappointed in the story- it seemed to jump all over the place, and there was a lack of any really convincing character arcs for the leads. Sabu, who is adorable and energetic as always, made for an appealing hero, but we didn't really see enough of him- instead, we saw more of the insipid romantic leads, John Justin and June Duprez, who are only stunning in their absolute inability to emote. Conrad Veidt made a good villain, but I wanted to know a little more about why he was doing what he was doing. Granted, in "The Wizard of Oz," the Wicked Witch of the West is not given a detailed backstory, but Dorothy's house landed on top of her sister, which is a very good reason for the Witch to be after Dorothy! Unlike the Wicked Witch, I did not ever feel that Conrad Veidt's character was ever a real threat or menace. Perhaps it is because in "Thief" the characters are given precious little personality and motivation; also, there seems to be little continuity in the colorful incidents that occur. For example, one moment Abu, Sabu's character, has smashed the magical all-seeing eye- the next moment he is being bowed to by a bunch of elderly sultans in white. Huh? Did I miss something? Now, I understand that this is supposed to be a fairy tale, but even in fantasy worlds, things are supposed to make sense within the context of that world. Again, "The Wizard of Oz" is a good example of an early fantasy movie with excellent continuity and world-building.
The movie, on the whole, was very pretty to look at, and the sets, crowd scenes and matte paintings were spectacular. However, I must say that I found the color scheme of the film to be very irritating- everything seemed to be in shades of pastels, mostly pale pink and baby blue, as if it were one of those old "My Little Pony" commercials. I understand this is a matter of personal taste, since in movies I tend to prefer vivid colors. However, whenever I read the "Arabian Nights," I always pictured a very rich color palette, with scarlets, blues, golds, and desert browns. Maybe it's just me, but a pastel palette doesn't seem to go with the very nature of the stories "Thief" is claiming to represent.
In any case, I am glad that I have finally seen "Thief of Bagdad," but I would not see it again. Perhaps it's something that I needed to see when I was little to make any impression on me. All in all, I personally found it to be too mannered, precious and dull to sufficiently convey the earthiness, vigor and gusto of the original "Arabian Nights."
For starters, I was particularly disappointed in the story- it seemed to jump all over the place, and there was a lack of any really convincing character arcs for the leads. Sabu, who is adorable and energetic as always, made for an appealing hero, but we didn't really see enough of him- instead, we saw more of the insipid romantic leads, John Justin and June Duprez, who are only stunning in their absolute inability to emote. Conrad Veidt made a good villain, but I wanted to know a little more about why he was doing what he was doing. Granted, in "The Wizard of Oz," the Wicked Witch of the West is not given a detailed backstory, but Dorothy's house landed on top of her sister, which is a very good reason for the Witch to be after Dorothy! Unlike the Wicked Witch, I did not ever feel that Conrad Veidt's character was ever a real threat or menace. Perhaps it is because in "Thief" the characters are given precious little personality and motivation; also, there seems to be little continuity in the colorful incidents that occur. For example, one moment Abu, Sabu's character, has smashed the magical all-seeing eye- the next moment he is being bowed to by a bunch of elderly sultans in white. Huh? Did I miss something? Now, I understand that this is supposed to be a fairy tale, but even in fantasy worlds, things are supposed to make sense within the context of that world. Again, "The Wizard of Oz" is a good example of an early fantasy movie with excellent continuity and world-building.
The movie, on the whole, was very pretty to look at, and the sets, crowd scenes and matte paintings were spectacular. However, I must say that I found the color scheme of the film to be very irritating- everything seemed to be in shades of pastels, mostly pale pink and baby blue, as if it were one of those old "My Little Pony" commercials. I understand this is a matter of personal taste, since in movies I tend to prefer vivid colors. However, whenever I read the "Arabian Nights," I always pictured a very rich color palette, with scarlets, blues, golds, and desert browns. Maybe it's just me, but a pastel palette doesn't seem to go with the very nature of the stories "Thief" is claiming to represent.
In any case, I am glad that I have finally seen "Thief of Bagdad," but I would not see it again. Perhaps it's something that I needed to see when I was little to make any impression on me. All in all, I personally found it to be too mannered, precious and dull to sufficiently convey the earthiness, vigor and gusto of the original "Arabian Nights."