The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it.

In Bagdad, the young and naive Sultan Ahmad (John Justin) is curious about the behavior of his people. The Grand Vizier Jaffar (Conrad Veidt) convinces Ahmad to walk through the city disguised as a subject to know his people. Then he seizes the power telling to the inhabitants that Ahmad has died while he sends his army to arrest the Sultan that is thrown into the dungeons and sentenced to death. Ahmad befriends the young thief Abu (Sabu) that helps him to escape from the prison. They flee to Basra and plan to travel abroad with Sinbad. However Ahmad stumbles upon the beautiful princess (June Duprez) and they fall in love with each other. But the evil Jaffar has also traveled to Basra to propose to marry the princess. When they see each other, Jaffar uses magic to blind Ahmad and turn Abu into a dog. Is their love doomed?

Watching "The Thief of Bagdad" is a journey to the childhood of many generations, when television was in black and white and this film was one of the favorite of the children. In 2016, "The Thief of Bagdad" is still delightful with impressive special effects for a 1940 film with magic flying carpet, jinn, flying horse and fantastic journeys. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Ladrão de Bagdá" ("The Thief of Bagdad")

Believe it or not, but the 1924 silent version had a distinct advantage over this remake. Because it was a silent film, the singing at the beginning of the film is noticeably absent--a plus because the singing tended to detract from the film. Additionally, I think I liked the special effects more in the earlier version because they seemed more spectacular for the time. This may surprise some, but I just think they looked better in the good ol' days--not that this 1940 version looked bad--it was still very nice for 1940.

The film bears some similarity to the more recent ALADDIN from Disney, though only a similarity. Some of the names and characters are the same--to a degree. Jafar is named 'Jaffar' in THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and the characters of Abu and Aladdin are actually combined into one character--and this time, Abu is a dog! As for the Princess and her father, they are quite similar but a king who had his kingdom stolen is a major character in this film. Finally, the genie in THE THIEF is a jerk--not especially nice and not to be trifled with by anyone! The story is a rousing adventure set in what would today be Iraq, though this was set during some undisclosed time period. The story is filled with love, magic and the like and is not especially deep but a lot of fun. Not a great film by today's standards but quite nice for 1940. Also, as you watch the film, notice the unusual Technicolor palate--it sure has a lot of intense colors and emeralds and pinks and baby blues seem to dominate.

The final verdict is that this is a very good film and should appeal mostly to people who appreciate older films. Some people may laugh at the special effects, as they are used to CGI and amazing effects today, but if you can appreciate anything made before 1990, then by all means give this a try--it is a lot of fun.