Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

utgard14 Ronald Colman plays 'the prince of beggars,' who schemes to marry his daughter to royalty while romancing Marlene Dietrich, the wife of grand vizier Edward Arnold. This is a different kind of role for Colman. He doesn't seem suited for the part, in my opinion. It's just hard to buy classy Ronald Colman as a beggar, though he gives it his best. I really hoped to like this one more than I did. It's got nice Technicolor, a great director, and a good cast. It's from MGM so you know it has quality sets and costumes. But the whole thing is just dull and boring. Marlene Dietrich's dance scene is the film's highlight but even that's not that impressive. Also it features the poor man's Clark Gable, James Craig. Not a fan. See it if you enjoy Dietrich or Colman but keep expectations low.

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.

bruno-32 Color was beautiful, Coleman a delight and thats it. I never watched a more ridiculous dance routine that Dietrich displayed. All she did was prancing around in so-called seductive poses, rather than actually dance, exhibiting what was then called Hollywood's best looking gams. Sorry, Betty Grable was still the queen of the legs department. BTW, I was sort of shocked, if that is the right word, where at the beginning of the credits, it said Starring Ronald Coleman in Kismet, with Marlene Dietrich. She didn't even get co-star billing, and the role was not a cameo. The chorus girls had definitely better movements than she. Of course they are professional dancers..not Marlene.

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).