Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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

runamokprods Nice, fun family friendly mini-series retelling of '1001 Nights', with Scheherazade telling tales (Ali Baba and the 40 thieves, Aladdin and the lamp, etc.) to keep her crazed husband from having her killed, and to lead him back from madness. The effects are good for a TV piece, and the acting is generally pretty strong. There's nothing wrong with it, but unlike Barron's adaptation of 'Merlin' there's not a lot that's inspired either. There are some funny moments of anachronistic wit (many provided by a goofy by effective John Leguizamo in a dual role as the fat, cowardly ring Genie and the scary and powerful lamp Genie. Not at all a bad mini-series, but not one I can imagine feeling the need to watch again. It's too aimed at kids with it's somewhat simplistic and heavy handed morals, and sudden changes of characters. Some nice visual inventiveness from director Barron, who creates terrific transitions into and out of the stories.

miksko Normally I put TV productions into a category of their own; very few of them stand a comparison with productions made for the big screen. There are however a notable few exceptions; most of them Brittish, like "Prime Suspect", "Walking with Dinosaurs" and "Queer as Folks"."Arabian Nights", a Jim Henson Production, is yet another one. I won't try to fool you; there are tracks left from the TV format and its commercial breaks. But the casting is good, the acting is excellent and the story is told in a quick but relaxed pace, with some interesting quirks.In short: It has all the sence of wonder you expect from a good story book.

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".

monsterltd I saw ARABIAN NIGHTS and enjoyed it . the movie was greatly produced and the cast was perfect. but there is a point which annoys me and that`s the role of persia in this story. the real book is named "Hezar O Yek Shab"(1001 nights) Which was written by an iranian author "Abdollatif e Tasooji" and the stories related to persia. you know that persia consisted of a lot of countries like Iran , Afghanestan , Pakistan, part of Iraq , Greece , India ,etc. it means that all the stories should happen in persia but i saw the movie without a word about persia. Shahrzad is an iranian (Persian) name like a lot of other names which used in this film. there was another parts in this film like Aladdin , who was living in Samarghand , but why should he , his mother and his princess live in china!!although the movie has such mistakes but i think it is a very enjoyable movie.