Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

utgard14 Leo Vincey (Randolph Scott) and Horace Holly (Nigel Bruce) search the Arctic for a hidden land where a mystical blue flame is kept. Along the way they pick up lovely and innocent Tanya (Helen Mack), who falls in love with handsome Leo. Eventually they arrive at the place they were seeking and discover it ruled by a merciless and immortal woman (Helen Gahagan) known as "She who must be obeyed." She believes Leo to be her long-lost love returned to her at last and She is none too pleased with cutie Tanya's affections towards her man.Fun lost world escapist fare made at a time when there were still unexplored regions of the world and imaginations ran wild at the thought of discovering lost civilizations or hidden treasures. We still get movies like this every once in awhile today, particularly about lost treasure. But back then it was a common staple of fiction, print and film. There was a sense of wonder and excitement about exploring the unknown. Not to get on my soapbox but this type of storytelling does seem to be lost to us in the cynical age we live in today.Future Congresswoman Helen Gahagan (she coined Nixon's nickname "Tricky Dick") gives a melodramatically memorable performance as She. Randolph Scott, years away from his western stardom, is very good as the heroic leading man. I especially liked that he was tempted at the prospect of immortality. It makes him seem a little more human than this type of character often was allowed to be back then. Helen Mack is pretty but can't say the name Leo to save her life. She keeps pronouncing it as Lay-o throughout the movie. Still, she's better here than she was in Son of Kong. Nigel Bruce is solid as ever. Samuel S. Hinds has a brief but good part at the beginning as Leo Vincey's dying uncle.Striking sets, costumes, and special effects. Adapted from H. Rider Haggard's novel, "She" was produced by King Kong's Merian C. Cooper, written by Ruth Rose, and scored by Max Steiner. So, in a way, it's like a cousin to that great film. "She" has been released in colorized form. While I am NOT a fan of colorizing black & white films at all, I will say that the colorization for this particular film is probably the best I've ever seen. It resembles the kind of color that would have been available at the time and not the more lavish Technicolor from years later, so the muted colors that usually come with the colorization process seems to work in its favor. But still, I prefer the original black & white film and would recommend it more.

1bilbo You might want to watch this more than once ! The story is really great – real stirring adventure material that people used to read before the advent of TV. Then there are the sets, as some body else said if only Ming the merciless had sets like these – they are truly breathtaking. Let us not forget the magnificent musical score and the choreography – there is a foreboding menace within the ceremonies which soon becomes self-evident.The sets are fantastic as are the choreographed execution dances and rites, I wonder if the ideas for some of the horror has come from real life journeys into primitive tribes.There are two disappointments in the film, firstly Nigel Bruce who sounded and looked exactly the same as he did as Dr Watson, whoever told this person that he could act? Then there is the fireside epilogue - it was as though Hollywood insisted on an upbeat ending. If you can put up with these distractions this film is an absolute classic.The Hammer remakes are good but this is the definitive film – watch and enjoy.

tavm I just watched three versions of this movie from RKO Radio Pictures-the original black and white, the colorized one, and one with commentary by stop motion animator Ray Harryhausen and Mark Vaz, author of "Living Dangerously: The Adventures of Merian C. Cooper". Cooper is the producer of She and had previously done King Kong. The black and white version was pretty compelling on its own but the added color version supervised by Mr. Harryhausen made some sets, costumes, and the dance and action sequences really stand out. Not to mention many of the visual effects especially the aging sequence near the end. I was also impressed by a zoom shot on Randolph Scott as he was lying on some stairs as She (Helen Gahagan) was looking at him. Besides those two, there were also good performances by Nigel Bruce-familiar to Sherlock Holmes fans as Dr. Watson in the Basil Rathbone series, Samuel S. Hinds as Scott's uncle, Helen Mack as Tanya who loves Scott, Lumsden Hare as Tanya's father, and Gustav von Seyffertitz as an associate of Gahagan. Max Steiner's music also adds to the enjoyment especially during the dance sequences and the commentary from Harryhausen and Vaz are entertaining and informative throughout. Since I'm reviewing basically three different versions of the same picture, I'll post three different ratings here: Original Black and White version-*******, Colorized version-*********, Commentary version-**********.

dr_praetorius35 Having recently finished the reading of Haggard's masterpiece (which I recommend as one of the best English classic I have read along Stevenson's Treasure Island), I was eager to view this movie, considered the best of all the adaptations made out of the book. Knowing that Cooper was on the producer chair, my expectations were somehow high...And those were not necessarily met, but it might be because I am so fond of the book. The main fault of this movie is, in my opinion, the fact that the writers decided to drop all the Freudian subtext and philosophical considerations of the story. Well, of course, this is a movie and we were in 1935, but those were the elements that set Haggard's book apart from all the other adventures book. Setting the story in the north rather than in Africa and making Leo Vincey the reincarnation of an English adventurer of the 1500s have riped Ayesha of some of her mystic too.Yet, there is some things to enjoy in this well made adventure. The settings are appropriate and so is the acting (well, for the era...). The soundtrack is one of the best and the scene of the sacrifice is a must-see (complete with mickey-mousing and a very interesting choreography!!!!!). The first apparition and the ending of Ayesha were worthy of Haggard's character too and are more than well-done (althought Helen Gahagan is not as beautiful as Ayesha is supposed to be, but still: who can be THAT beautiful... It might explained why Leo Vincey and Holly are not so overwhelm by her presence as they are in the source!!!!!!!!).To the credits of the writers, they have preserved some of the key scenes of the story (the scene with the cannibals and their judgement by Ayesha are prime examples) and give the titular character enough of her self-awareness and pride to make her a juicy role for Gahagan (it's a shame that she were not able to make another movie for she obviously have talent).This is not as well-made and interesting as King Kong, but it is still a good movie, complete with adventures and mystery from the dawn of time (Indiana Jones was not the first to make such discoveries!) And you're likely to appreciate it more if you have not read the book... but this one is much, much better!!!