EddieVilliers 'Arabian Nights' is by far one of the best fantasy movies I've ever seen. Most so-called sci-fi movies are actually fantasy movies which need us to suspend our imaginations. Hence, as plot devices scientifically dubious not to mention laughable 'futuristic' technologies are thrown in. That's why in the sci-fi/fantasy genre I like to watch movies based on various mythologies. Those stories have stood the test of time - by having being refined in the most subtle ways. Arabian nights is one such set of stories and I am truly satisfied with the way this movie took to the stories. If some creative liberty was taken, it did not appear forced (says the unlettered! I have never read all the original stories and cannot attest to the authenticity of the stories presented.)In all the reviews I write on this website, I always write for movies that have good scripts and this one fits that category to the T. The direction, casting and the acting were also all very good. I have like Mili Avital since I first saw Stargate (1994) (a true disaster that spawned not one but two Sci-fi series no less). Her role was the cheese that held the movie's macaroni together. Some of the best scenes were between her and the storyteller the ones where he is giving her tips how to hold the Sultan's/audience's attention. I specially liked the one where the story teller tells her about the night when he came face to face to death. It was funny, yet gripping - the exact effect the storyteller was trying to achieve. I am not a big fan of any of the men in the movie but all did a great job. All the stories were done with a great sense of humor - the genies in Aladin's story, the sultan who switches places with a drunk (and meets his end with a smile on his face), Bac-bac's story - all done really well.Great movie and I would recommend anyone who come across this review.

Charles Herold (cherold) Since much is made in Arabian Nights of a cliffhanger ending that keeps you wanting more, it's ironic that after being thrilled by part one of Arabian Nights, Part 2 was not shown in New York when a war between ABC and Time Warner caused the ABC station to go off the air the night part two was supposed to air. I've been seething about it ever since, but at long last I have seen the whole thing (on the sci-fi channel, even though there's nothing remotely science fiction about the Arabian Nights) and I am thrilled.Arabian Nights is one of the best of those elaborate, special effects-laden fantasy TV movies Robert halmi Sr. has been producing since the success of Gulliver's Travels. The bookend story of the original book has been expanded, so the loose-knit collection of stories feel tightly woven together by the urgency of Scheherazade's plight. The stories themselves are wonderful, beautiful and magical and displaying the amazing sort of imagination one sees in the movies of Hayao Miyazaki. The movie is less star-studded than a lot of Halmi's films, or at least, many of the stars, being of eastern or African origin, aren't famous in the U.S., although for all I know they are all huge stars somewhere in the world. The cast is marvelous, particularly Mili Avital as Scheherezade and John Leguizamo in two very funny roles as as the movie's genies (although the genie of the lamp is a bit too hard to understand).This movies that is so amazing that it seems a shame it's TV movie status means it gets less notice than some inferior Hollywood fantasy. It is a must-see movie.

Xaolin I saw this on free to air tv tonight and thought it was excellent. It moves along quickly but manages to explore each story nicely. The costumes and set pieces are wonderful, and the mood is set well.If Disney has done nothing else it has butchered the stories of old cultures... Aladdin was not originally the story of a persian peasant with a pet monkey and an eccentric genie. Aladdin was a chinese fable, and was never as child friendly as it became. I like that they have told the original tellings (of most of the stories anyway) rather than regurtitate the disney versions

mijones3 This is (once again) a loose version on the Nights theme, and is not the story collection known by most fans of the works. There are so many departures from the original that it would be ridiculous to list them all; however the dropping of the character of Dunyazad, Shahrazad's little sister to whom she actually tells the stories, is not only a great shame but it has created a problem, because it has left Shahrazad telling the stories directly to the King; thus making the film script less credible than the original. Shahrazad is depicted as being the first potential victim of the Sultan's wrath, rather than the one to break the mold of his killing spree; thus making Shahriar seem more of a nice guy than he actually was. A handy way of removing the most distinctive characteristic of one of the cruellest kings in literature also partially removes Shaharazad's underlying motive for telling the stories in the first place, because in the original Shahriar's track record has been proven and the city has been nearly decimated of available young ladies. However, the chosen script has been acted well and looks visually stunning, helped by magnificent Turkish and Moroccan backdrops. In the first part of the film Shahrazad tells the tales of "Ali Baba", "The Hunchback" and "Aladdin". Only the first half of the tale of "The Hunchback" is told, which is a shame because it has been done well; and I was looking forward to "The Story of the Tailor". Curiously the character of ‘the Christian' was replaced with a totally out of place Englishman (who just happened to be wandering through Basrah in the 11th century). In this movie Aladdin's cave is filled with terracotta warriors rather than treasure! These warriors are guarding the lamp, which is therefore quite easy for Aladdin to find because its position behind the statues is obvious. The second part of the film concludes the story of "Aladdin" (rather slowly) and tells the tales of "The Sleeper Awakened" and "Prince Ahmed and the Fairy Peri Banou". "The Sleeper Awakened" is in fact a telling of a part of the original, this version ending with the Polonius-like death of the eves-dropping Haroun Al-Raschid. Also in this part an invented dispute between Shahriar and his brother Shahzaman becomes more and more intrusive. NB. Shahriar was a Persian king; not an Arabic sultan - and his capital may have been Ctesiphon. It certainly was not Baghdad, which was not built until 762 AD, 121 years after the end of the Sassanid dynasty. Whilst this is enough of an inaccuracy, the original story actually implies that he ruled the eastern half of the Sassanian empire and Shahzaman the western half, so his capital may well have been much farther east - after all we are told in the prologue that Shahriar "lived and ruled in India and Indochina".