Arabian Nights (2000)

For a TV production, this rendition of "The Arabian Nights" is far above the average in almost every respect. The CGI is magnificent, the acting is superior - particularly by the versatile and underutilized John Leguizamo as a bad-tempered genie and his overweight, barely competent supernatural rival, and the Peter Barnes's narrative structure is unusually sophisticated for Hollywood.So the problems with this production are especially regrettable. The various threads of the story are confusingly presented, with needlessly abrupt and disorienting cuts from one to another. This certainly interefered with my enjoyment. The other problem, which may not bother others, is the very frequent use of modern allusions (like a comic monkey-wrench in the hands of a genie) and ironic attitudes. This sort of thing can be amusing in moderation, or in an animated cartoon like Disney's "Aladdin" where no level of realism is expected. But here it clashes with the gorgeous imagery and the generally "realistic" style of storytelling. As somebody else has mentioned, there's also a problem with pacing. Events, while never boring, often lose their momentum in magnificent visuals and trivial dialogue.Altogether, though, "The Arabian Nights" is well worth seeing, though some of the bizarre images may disturb very young children. Otherwise it really is a show "for the entire family."

This is (once again) a loose version on the Nights theme, and is not the story collection known by most fans of the works. There are so many departures from the original that it would be ridiculous to list them all; however the dropping of the character of Dunyazad, Shahrazad's little sister to whom she actually tells the stories, is not only a great shame but it has created a problem, because it has left Shahrazad telling the stories directly to the King; thus making the film script less credible than the original. Shahrazad is depicted as being the first potential victim of the Sultan's wrath, rather than the one to break the mold of his killing spree; thus making Shahriar seem more of a nice guy than he actually was. A handy way of removing the most distinctive characteristic of one of the cruellest kings in literature also partially removes Shaharazad's underlying motive for telling the stories in the first place, because in the original Shahriar's track record has been proven and the city has been nearly decimated of available young ladies. However, the chosen script has been acted well and looks visually stunning, helped by magnificent Turkish and Moroccan backdrops. In the first part of the film Shahrazad tells the tales of "Ali Baba", "The Hunchback" and "Aladdin". Only the first half of the tale of "The Hunchback" is told, which is a shame because it has been done well; and I was looking forward to "The Story of the Tailor". Curiously the character of ‘the Christian' was replaced with a totally out of place Englishman (who just happened to be wandering through Basrah in the 11th century). In this movie Aladdin's cave is filled with terracotta warriors rather than treasure! These warriors are guarding the lamp, which is therefore quite easy for Aladdin to find because its position behind the statues is obvious. The second part of the film concludes the story of "Aladdin" (rather slowly) and tells the tales of "The Sleeper Awakened" and "Prince Ahmed and the Fairy Peri Banou". "The Sleeper Awakened" is in fact a telling of a part of the original, this version ending with the Polonius-like death of the eves-dropping Haroun Al-Raschid. Also in this part an invented dispute between Shahriar and his brother Shahzaman becomes more and more intrusive. NB. Shahriar was a Persian king; not an Arabic sultan - and his capital may have been Ctesiphon. It certainly was not Baghdad, which was not built until 762 AD, 121 years after the end of the Sassanid dynasty. Whilst this is enough of an inaccuracy, the original story actually implies that he ruled the eastern half of the Sassanian empire and Shahzaman the western half, so his capital may well have been much farther east - after all we are told in the prologue that Shahriar "lived and ruled in India and Indochina".

My English teacher recommended me to watch this movie and display it to all the members of the English Language Society in my school.At first sight,this movie didn't look very tempting with its larger than life genie and introduction.But as the story evolves,I began to enjoy it because of the familiarity that I felt in watching the Alibaba and Alladin story.Unfortunately,I do wonder whether some of the kissing scene would be appropriate for our rather imaginative young mind.

It was one of the most enchanting movies I've ever seen. It draws you in and holds you there. It has everything, action, romance, comedy. You cheer for the good guy, and boo the bad. None of the damsels are in distress, they heal it. three thumbs up.