InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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

moonspinner55 Third version of popular story (without the musical score) involving beggar/magician in Bagdad who impersonates a prince. Meanwhile, the beggar's daughter falls for a camel-boy who's really a prince in disguise! Somehow, Marlene Dietrich gets shoehorned in as sheltered royalty who rebels by doing a hot dance routine which must've been pretty risqué for 1944 (she's slathered in gold paint). MGM adventure does a nice job rewriting the original play by Edward Knoblock, featuring a colorful production and welcome comedic elements. It's jaunty fun with a fairly fast pace, hindered only by Ronald Coleman's miscasting in the lead (and his surprising lack of chemistry opposite Dietrich). **1/2 from ****

Panamint Beautiful photography, fabulous costumes, fast-paced. Classy (although old-fashioned) orchestrated musical score. These qualities are worth a look, but can't save the film.When you consider that Colman is badly miscast, you must admire the fact that everything he does here is sheer acting technique. He certainly was a hard-working and skillful actor. Marlene Dietrich is cast as a "Greek Princess" visiting Baghdad but the blond German is no more believable as a Greek than as an Arab. She obviously could not dance but was savvy enough to deliver a sexy quasi-dance routine that makes you wonder what she could have done if not for censorship.Arnold's laughing villain leaves you scratching your head wondering if this movie is serious or tongue-in-cheek or just a stage musical without songs. The other supporting cast members are so miscast as to be painful to watch (especially Craig and Joy Page).Watchable for stunning photography and costumes, the likes of which will probably never be produced again.

MartinHafer Despite the full Hollywood treatment (the best sets, color cinematography and actors available), this movie was amazingly ordinary AT BEST. Much of it might be the extreme silliness of the plot and terrible miscasting of Coleman and ESPECIALLY Dietrich as Arabs! If you want to see BETTER similar films of the era, try Kim (with Dean Stockwell and Errol Flynn) or the superlative Thief of Bagdad (with Sabu). Both these movies are MUCH better written and succeed in sweeping the viewer away to a magical world of adventure, while Kismet just seems pretty but dopey--in fact, REALLY dopey. If you don't believe me, look at the pictures of Dietrich and her ridiculous hair styles in the IMDb gallery. This is one of the few Ronald Coleman films I dislike (the other being the VERY dull Story of Mankind).

Martin Bradley This seldom seen non-musical version has Ronald Colman as the beggar who tries to pass his daughter off as a princess in the Baghdad of the Arabian Nights. Colman was not a bad actor and when cast in tosh like "Lost Horizon" or "Random Harvest" managed to bring a touch of class to the daft proceedings, but this is way too camp even for Colman, ("I suppose queens do play around the streets of Baghdad at night", says Harry Davenport's old Agha at one point). His performance is a mixture of urbanity and dullness.The queen he is in love with is played by Marlene Dietrich with her blonde hair piled on her head like a snake and with her thick Tuetonic accent is even more out of place than Colman. When she moves she is like a drag-queen ill-at-ease in her costume. The young lovers are James Craig, that hunk of beefcake culled from ham, and someone called Joy Ann Page. Charles Rosher's colour photography is a bonus but really, this makes the Minelli version look like a masterpiece.