hyped garbage

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Steve Reeves stars in this classic without showing his skin, but his charm is still intact.Karim (Steve Reeves) is the thief who princess Amina (Giorgia Moll) is secretly in love with. She falls ill due to the side effect of a love potion. Only the man who can deliver the blue rose can cure her. Now its race to find the rose between Karim and the prince of Osman, but first they must pass through the seven doors.The movie is a classical fantasy. I believe that this was what family entertainment was all about back in the '60s. Looking back, it definitely looks dated, but people have more gentler demeanor and is pleasing to watch. It is less famous than the same movie starring Zabu, and is of lower key. The movie's story is pretty flat, and is not worth the watch unless you're a die hard Steve Reeves fan.

Although not as impressive as the Powell/Berger/Whelan/Korda version (1940),this might be the only movie in which Steve Reeves is not relegated to muscle man routine,rather recalling some parts of Errol Flynn .His thief is actually almost a romantic hero ,half Arabian Nights half fairy tale in which the man of common birth has to suffer great hardships before marrying a princess.And the princess ,the gorgeous Georgia Moll,makes Karim's task worthwhile.The genie of the lamp (of the bottle) is present.My favorite sequence is that of the treacherous lady who tries to make Karim turn to stone,which proves that Steve Reeves' characters can be smart too.

It's been about thirty years since I'd last seen this film, but thanks to the miracle of Youtube I was able to watch a rather cut up version via compressed video.I have to admit right now that the black and white silent version with Douglas Fairbanks is actually a more thorough film, and superior in many respects. But this version has a very delightful charm to it.And truly, that's about all I can say about it. I really don't want to get into the technical aspects of the film because they come from the stone-age of modern special effects. The shots are basic, and the acting (actor depending) is basic.The story itself sticks with the basic Thief of Baghdad legend, but diverges here and there in a unique Italian way.A treasure from the past sees life again via the internet. Still, what I wouldn't give to have the original restored version on DVD. preferably in hi-def.I have a personal fondness for the film. Its beautiful score married to some imaginative imagery makes it sight for sore eyes in today's day and age of CGI SFX and highly-sexed cinema. I only wish I owned a copy.

I don't really remember much about this movie except that as a child I really liked the quest for the blue rose. When I went to rent from Netflix I discovered the versions they had were from 1924 and 1940 which are different story lines.It was a movie that made the matinée circuit where kids could plunk down part of their own allowance and go see it on Saturday afternoon, so I expect a lot of us boomers went to see it when we were children.The thing is this movie probably still has a pretty big demographic given the fact that many boomers have delayed having children, but MGM (which has the distribution rights) hasn't made a DVD out of it. They probably should.