The sum of the parts exceeds by far its result!
We have a delirious picture. Filmed in the late years of the WW2, and after making the penetrating and Faustian "Devil and Mr. Webster", Dieterle decided to bet for this tongue in the cheek movie; inspiring in Budu saved from waters, the central character is a sympathetic and talented beggar who practices magic and decides to break the walls with just an intention in mind: to bring the expected happiness of his daughter who is love with a Caliph; but on the road there will be more laughable and funny situations.

Marlene Dietrich stole the show with her erotic appearance in an Arabian dance painted of gold (a pioneer device for Goldfinger, perhaps?).

Go for this version that to my mind remains several echelons respect the 1955 version. But in last instance you have the last word. My reason to maintain this statement is to underline the rhythmic precision and edition work that do not seem to faint just for a second.

Three Good Stars Do Not a Hit Guarantee
Well, I don't usually say this, but I agree with review karen kullers, who really pans this film--it really isn't a good picture at all. It should have been, though, with Colman as a beggar pretending to be a prince, Dietrich as a harem lady, and Edward Arnold as the wily villain.

You can also tell it was an expensive movie, with costly sets and costumes, but it is ineptly directed and negligently cast in its supporting roles. Colman makes repeated statements about the magnificence of his daughter, and the shame is that his boasts would be completely unfounded. The daughter is played by the same actress who appears in "Casablanca" as the young wife that Claude Rains almost seduces in exchange for transporting her and her husband to safety. She is really not much to write home about. A sweet-looking girl in some shots, but without any star appeal at all. She struck me as the REALLY poor man's Linda Darnell. And the caliph, her lover who disguises himself as a gardener's son, has no bearing and no talent to boot. He isn't even handsome.

Ronald Colman has long stretches where he doesn't encounter the other two talented stars, but must instead interact with the bad supporting cast. This strain is too much to be borne. Marlene Dietrich turns in possibly the worst performance of her career. And as for the gold paint on her legs, I thought that missed by about a mile. Her legs looked heavy and dirty consequently--and the choreography looked like it was for a WPA mural. Only Edward Arnold made out okay (he even looked slimmer, thanks to the unusual tailoring), but the final climactic grappling with Colman drew hoots from me and the other watchers, one of whom remarked that it looked like two fathers-in-law fighting at a wedding reception. Very undignified and unconvincing.

Perhaps my brother said it best: "TutorGal, this ought to teach you--there are no forgotten masterpieces."

You have heard of the word, now see the movie "Kismet"
"Kismet" is an Arabian Nights fantasy about Hafiz (Ronald Colman), a scheming beggar in the court of the Caliph (James Craig), who wins the hand of the dancing girl (Marlene Dietrich), the mistress of Mansur, the Grand Vizier (Edward Arnold). There are all sorts of palace intrigues going on, but Hafiz has an edge because knows magic. This 1944 film, directed by William Dieterle, cost $3,000,000, which was considered by many to be extravagant given the wartime shortages. "Kismet" had been filmed three times previously and while it is a luscious production, the main problem is, surprisingly enough, the two stars. Colman is not well suited to this particular role and Dietrich does not really have much to do besides dance and look good. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The musical version, featuring the song "Stranger in Paradise," was filmed in 1955. It is a toss-up as to which one is better.

The shame of Marlene
In this picture Marlene looks stupid. The costumes and the dance are silly. The story is not original and the script is bad. Only the colors are good. Just for Marlene's lovers.