Dreadfully Boring

Did you people see the same film I saw?

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

It amazes me, that Valentino-as-the-sheik was able to start such a fashion in the 1920s. Watching this sequel of THE SHEIK I keep seeing everything that had already been recycled in the Broadway operetta DESERT SONG - also filmed as an early talkie, shortly after SONG OF THE SHEIK. Valentino far outclasses everyone I've ever seen play "The Red Shadow" - and visually the SON OF THE SHEIK is much better than any DESERT SONG film version (even the later, color one). Considering the intense interest in 'Arab Matters' today, it's sad that no one revives DESERT SONG done Valentino-style. Because even after all those years - his 'hypnotic gaze' in the film remains hypnotic.

Valentino's final film is unremarkable for its characters or plot - the latter is but a melodramatic trifle. It is, however, of some historical interest with regard to visual narrative.Of course, back then there were no 'vocal technician' actors. Every actor had to tell a story with his or her body, face, and especially with the eyes. On that count, there's plenty of trademark Rudy glares, modulated with knowing smirks and slight raises of his right brow. He was keenly aware of his power over women, and wasn't afraid to use it - it shows here.Likewise, Banky has to keep the male audience interested, so she has to project this without words - and so her dances are engineered to send men into smoldering paroxysms -- somewhat risible, today. Compare this to Samantha Morton's performance in "Sweet and Lowdown" to see how far we've come, not only in movie craft, but in the degree of competence we expect from the actors.The key technical feature is the split screen compositions with Rudy playing 'the Sheik' and 'the Son' in the same frame -- not original, but quite effective and nearly seamless. Simultaneously, it ties in the first "Sheik" AND this story; Rudy has to reinvent the first character - very clever.The big weak spot, though, is in the intertitles. These were not well handled - they aren't edited to any effect, they're simply cut right in between the actors' mouth movements. This could have been essential viewing if someone had the vision to manipulate us more effectively through the editing.

It is sadly appropriate that in his final movie Valentino plays a stronger and more nuanced version of his signature character: Sheik Ahmed, the impassioned lover who is initially impetuous, self centred and brutal, but who gradually matures into an admirable man. In this case, the male lead is actually the son of the original sheik, but Valentino also plays, just as engagingly, the father who is now middle aged, wiser (this is essentially the adviser role Adolphe Menjou had in the original movie) but still commanding and able to wield a sword.As wasn't the case with "The Sheik," the script acknowledges the luridness of its material in a tongue-in-cheek manner (one memorable title card reads "The night was young at the Café Maure. Not a knife had been thrown—so far") while not mocking it to the point at the movie would lapse into parody and lose its pulpy charms. For example, in one of the most famous scenes the sheik tries to put his rebellious son in his place by bending an iron bar; the son replies by straightening it out. This is deliberate camp that nonetheless clearly establishes the strength of character and body of both men. The film also departs from the original in the frank comic relief it provides in the form of a nasty but amusing little mountebank who seems to get on the good and bad characters' nerves in equal measure. For those expecting titillation, the film does not disappoint. Valentino and the leading lady Vilma Banky, were involved in real life and it shows in the spooning scenes. The film also has plenty of the rougher, even perverse sexuality that in one form or another is present in nearly all of Valentino's films (even "The Eagle," the closest to a family picture Valentino ever made, has that brief scene with the hero flourishing a whip before the frightened female lead). Here we have Ahmed's rape of Yasmine which is far racier than the merely hinted at ravishment of Lady Diana in "The Sheik," and a striking (and homoerotic) sequence in which Valentino, tied up, his tailored white shirt torn to shreds, is subject to a prolonged whipping by a gang of thieves, the most sadistic of whom addresses him as "My young lion." To me, this is the quintessential Valentino film and the one to show people who are curious about this actor's enduring mystique.

I agree with most of the other reviewers' comments about how beautiful this film is (especially the Kino dvd I saw, which has the original tints), and what good performances Rudolph and Vilma gave, but I was surprised that no one else was disturbed by the "ravishment" scene. It really made me wonder about the time period: did women of the 20's enjoy seeing rape fantasies onscreen, because of different attitudes about women and sex? Or was this something filmmakers of the period imagined women wanted to see, and the fans put up with it in order to enjoy the sight of Rudolph's face? (The filmmakers also seemed to want to have it both ways: Rudolph and Vilma remain elaborately clothed throughout every scene, so if you want to, you can imagine nothing very bad happened when the camera cut away!) Anyway, other than that I thought the film was rollicking--a textbook example of the wonderful extremes silent movies could go to.