StunnaKrypto
Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Lidia Draper
Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
gringoley
The WTF is strong in this film. Lots of head shaking and bewilderment to be found here. Including a bow and arrow powered dildoe. I've read 1001 nights and found it completely different but there are those that argue this film is the most accurate of all! Such as "Adaptation Essay Prize Winner Pasolini's Splendid Infidelities: Un/Faithful Film Versions of The Thousand and One Nights" by Michael James Lundell. Where believe it or not he argues that "Pasolini's 1974 film Il fiore delle mille e una notte seems to be the most faithful adaptation, in its emphasis on sexuality, of The 1001 Nights in its oldest form. This success is surprising and possibly inadvertent but it presents a potentially measurable connection between the written and filmic Nights."
Bene Cumb
Similar to the Bible or most of epics, it is impossible to create some smooth and comprehensive work of art from Arabian Nights. It is a bunch of stories of different eras and angles and places of actions lie thousands of kilometers from each other. Pasolini has taken some hectic picks, invited plump women and skinny men (incl. his own lover) and made a loosely combined film where male bodies have full nudity as well, if required (would be interesting to know how the director made those teens and young people to perform so naturally). The 2 hours seems a bit long though, i.e. 1st half of the film is more dynamic and catchy. But the background and habits of the Arab past is well expressed, and Pasolini himself is less profound or less degenerated as usual :)
dancebeneaththebrokensky
That the appalling disfigurement of this film should draw nothing but clichéd comments of 'poetic', 'mythical beauty' and 'lush', the last of which this film is so obviously not, that I am forced to wonder if this isn't a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Surely, a man Sartre admired would not have made this tripe?Oh but what tripe it is. Poetic? Bergman is poetic; this is the sputtering realisation of a non-vision. Where is the grandeur? More often than not there is chaos, a shuffling, unfocused composition exacerbated by an unsophistication of dialogue worthy of ancient primates. I cannot believe anyone could find this film aesthetically pleasing, but I am willing to be corrected. The one shot of true beauty is on the DVD cover of the film. Grand it isn't.Subversive maybe? Of what? The fact that Arabian Nights is meant to be an ornate and gilded tale of beautiful people and beautifully woven moral tales. Take the beauty, wit and wisdom out of the characters and make them country bumpkins who grin like apes throughout the film and you have a subversive film, yes? Not to mention the 'bold' frontal nudity (mostly male) and gratuitous intercourse (neither art nor realistic but revolting and redundant); old men who bugger young boys for what joy, God alone knows; the shooting in Yemen, Iran and where-not and make it a slice of untouched Arabiana.No. That the director has forgone the sublime is obvious, but that he should forgo unity of design, is unforgivable and the results are obvious. What is the point of this deviant retelling? If I were a less confident being, I'd almost be worried that the constant, incessant and continuous (sic) giggling throughout the film were aimed at me. Most trying and exasperating film I have ever seen.
rbverhoef
'Il Fiore delle mille e una notte', or 'Arabian Nights', is Pier Paolo Pasolini's final film from his "trilogy of life" and his second to last film in general. His last of course is 'Salo, or 120 Days of Sodom', the controversial first film from his "trilogy of death".With 'Arabian Nights' Pasolini combines a couple of stories from the book 'A Thousand and One Nights' into one story, although the film itself still feels very episodic. All parts of the story deal with love, or actually I should say lust, ending in sex. Especially the penis gets enough screen time here, it might as well be the leading character. The sex scenes themselves are, in my opinion, not very sensual or erotic (although they admittedly are when you compare them to such scenes in any other Pasolini film) which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it becomes exactly that when more than half the movie exists out of them.On the other hand the film is pretty entertaining, mostly for its oddness. That again, is something we see in almost any other Pasolini film. His distant approach adds to that feeling, especially when he shows violent images. One might not expect them in a film that arguably celebrates love and sex. Another factor for the oddness is the terrible acting, especially from the men. Maybe good acting is impossible for them here since Pasolini presents them as a bunch of whiners who would do anything for love. Of course, once again, with love I mean sex. The Italian language in the Eastern setting is another thing that feels pretty weird as well. All these elements add to the oddness which makes the film more entertaining than it probably should have been.I have to conclude with saying that I sort of admire Pasolini. I think only his 'Il vangelo secundo Matteo' can be considered as a truly great film, mostly since his approach is the distant one. I think that is a good thing when it comes to a religious film like that. that approach in his other films is not always the right one, but it is one aspect of why his films are different, often daring. Even when not much is happening, or when we have no clue what is happening, or when we normally would not care that much, Pasolini keeps it kind of interesting.
