Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Sean Jump "She" is an adventure film, but in fact is much more than that appellation might imply. The script deals with the nature of love and the lengths to which that powerful emotion might drive us, and it also explores the way in which ultimate power unfailingly corrupts. Production values are simply exquisite for 1935, and the film still looks better than most similarly-scaled movies of today. Helen Gahagan is very effective as the title character--Ayesha, or She Who Must Be Obeyed--while Randolph Scott is convincing as the movie's protagonist and the object of Ayesha's dubious affections. The gorgeous Helen Mack is Ayesha's rival for Scott's heart, and if her mortal's love lacks the awesome power offered by Ayesha's it is also truer and frankly more human. The climax is tragic but just, and the whole story echoes with the resonance of legend.

LeonLouisRicci Time almost Forgot this Treasure seemingly Covered by the Inferior Hammer Remake. It has now been Resurrected in Pristine Prints with a new Colorized process and the DVD and Blu-rays include the Original B&W for Purists.This is a rather Unique Adventure and Early Sci-Fi Film with Wonderful Art-Deco Sets, SFX, and one of Max Steiner's Best Scores. Elaborate Costumes and Dance sequences also Highlight this Beautiful mix of Lost Civilizations and Enduring Love.It is a Treat for the senses and this is what it was like in the Early Days of Hollywood when Imaginations abound and Cost was Not a Factor. There is much to Enjoy, it places the Audience in a Land Long Lost with much Beauty and Awe. The Pacing is a bit Slow but its Rhythm is Riveting and there are a number of Set Pieces that are Memorable and the Production as a whole has a Look that is like No Other.

jayraskin This can be seen as one of five great fantasy films produced by Meriam Cooper. The other four are "Most Dangerous Game," "King Kong," "Son of Kong," and "Mighty Joe Young." This and the last three were written by Cooper's wife, Ruth Rose. It is the least seen and least appreciated of the five.The story and sets are as fantastic and spectacular as the other films. I think its emphasis on love might have made it a hard sell to kids and macho men and that is the reason it didn't do well.It does contain a fabulous performance by Helen Gahagan as the title character. She does make you believe that she is 500 years old and she manages a ruthlessness and passion that few actresses at the time could match. One might argue that her stage acting doesn't come off that well on film in every scene, but at moments it is exactly right for the story. Along with Falconetti's "Passion of Joan of Arc," this has to be considered one of the greatest single performances in film history.Helen Mack as She's rival for the affection of Leo (Randolph Scott) is also very good at times, although her accent seems to slip here and there. Scott is a bit wooden, but that is how he generally is on screen. Bruce Cabot seems to be in rehearsal for his great role as Dr. Watson which he would play several years later.The colorized version is quite nice. It seems to match the color of the period.The dance scenes seem quite dated, but they do reflect the revolutionary Ballet style of Nijinski.This movie is well worth seeing for any lover of fantasy films. It seems to have influenced Walt Disney's "Snow White," as well as the first Flash Gordon serial filmed the following year.It is probably time for a remake.

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!!!