Scheherezade puts herself in danger to save Sultan Schariar, her childhood friend, from the madness that has gripped him since the death of his cheating wife at his own hands.
Reviews
Please don't spend money on this.
Fantastic!
A Disappointing Continuation
The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.
Arabian Night also belongs to one of the fantasy-movies which you can also put in the table with Sinbad and the 10th Kingdom. Arabian Nights is a very interesting and nice movie to watch because it takes you to a world of fantasy and mystic, in which the stories told by an Arabian woman, form actually the movie. So we will find the famous stories about Ali Baba and Aladdin and his wonderlamp. The other day i bought this movie and i don't regret it. I think that a 8 out of 10 is a qualification Arabian nights deserves because i enjoyed it 3 hours long. Don't think too much and let yourself lead back to the old legends of the Middle East, you won't regret it.
I saw this on free to air tv tonight and thought it was excellent. It moves along quickly but manages to explore each story nicely. The costumes and set pieces are wonderful, and the mood is set well.If Disney has done nothing else it has butchered the stories of old cultures... Aladdin was not originally the story of a persian peasant with a pet monkey and an eccentric genie. Aladdin was a chinese fable, and was never as child friendly as it became. I like that they have told the original tellings (of most of the stories anyway) rather than regurtitate the disney versions
The movie was a real turnon. I thought the costumes were Realistic for the period. The story though an old one is timeless. I truly enjoyed it . I have a few of Vanessa Maes CDs and appreciate her violin expertese.I had no idea she was so pretty. And young.
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".
Top Streaming Movies
