The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.
No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.
Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.
Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)
Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."
This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.
"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.
9/10.

This is a typical example of technically highly skilled directors of video clips/commercials trying to do their first full feature length movie. On one hand the imagery, camera, lighting, CGI and even the sound are highly polished and have a truly "expensive" look and feel. Even the actors show a certain amount of potential - unto the point where even the best acting could not hide a bad plot.
In this case it is not a bad plot but hardly a plot at all.
So 50% of the dialog consists of "What the hell was that ?", "What was that ?" and "What the hell was that ?". In none of the cases any of the characters nor the audience is provided with the slightest hint of an answer though. In most of the other dialogues one gets the feeling that there never was any form of dialogue book and the actors had to freely improvise to a plot that wasn't ever explained to them.
The only reason why Skye Bennet's performance could be so good is that her character as an autistic girl didn't allow giving her these tragically horrible dialogue lines the other actors had to deal with. That way she was able to just show her acting talent which the rest of the cast couldn't even get close to. I mean there's not one actor in the world that could make up for a dialogue like this:
Ben: Is this real, huh ? Emily: Stop it. Ben: A mass psychosis, huh ? Jon: Somebody has to take control of this situation. Ben: This situation can't be controlled. Not by you, not by anybody. Emily: Not by you either. Ben: No
Got me goosebumps. But not for horror, more for the horrible attempt. In some moments I felt ashamed for the actors to have added this to their vita.
2 stars for the excellent technical work.