Review of Kismet

Kismet (1944)
3/10
The musical is better
3 June 2021
While it's a rare and much appreciated opportunity to see Ronald Colman's beautiful brown eyes in Technicolor, Kismet isn't really worth watching. It has a very tongue-in-cheek style that fits with the musical version but feels odd without the songs. Howard Keel is fantastic in the musical, and the added fairy tale quality is lost in the original version. It just feels like a very strange comedy that couldn't quite find the right direction.

As you'll see in most of the publicity photos, Marlene Dietrich plays the irresistible sex symbol in Kismet. She was clad all in gold, including her hair and painted legs, for her exotic dance. I'm not a fan of hers anyway, but I found her quite repellent in this movie. It felt like her ego fed off itself for hours before each take, and it was all she could do not to look in the camera and ask, "Aren't I incredible?" Plus, she and Ronald Colman looked like they couldn't stand each other, which really dampened the attempted electric energy in the film.

If you do want to watch this version, you'll see horrendously miscast supporting actors who couldn't possibly be found in an Arabian fairy tale. Edward Arnold's thick New York accent, Harry Davenport's unmistakable twang, and James Craig's modern American delivery feel very out of place. I feel bad for Ronald Colman, since he probably thought this was going to be another Lost Horizon. But you can't win them all, a fact all actors learn at some point in their careers.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed