Intcatinfo
A Masterpiece!
Baseshment
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Nessieldwi
Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.
Wuchak
Released in 1935 and loosely based on H. Rider Haggard's novel, "She" stars Randolph Scott and Nigel Bruce as explorers leading an expedition to the Arctic to find a lost civilization. Helen Mack hooks up with them at some point. The journey leads to a quasi-immortal queen of some sort with Julius Adler playing her high priest. The hulking Noble Johnson is on hand as the Amahaggar chief. I saw the original B&W version, but there's also a colorized version, which I'd rather see since I find B&W to be a flat presentation for cinema and a lavish adventure pic like this deserves color. With the exception of the directors, the production team is the same as 1933's "King Kong" with Merian C. Cooper producing, Ruth Rose scripting (along with Dudley Nichols' added dialogue) and scored by Max Steiner. Speaking of the latter, the music is outstanding, particularly for such an old flick. You can tell that the adventurous adult tone, the sets and the music were a big influence on Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek. In regards to "King Kong," this is sort of the feminine flip side to that hallmark adventure fantasy. The architectural sets were influenced by cubism, expressionism, and art deco. The tribal dance sequence in the third act is a highlight, combined with the excellent score for an entrancing experience, as potent as anything by Igor Stravinsky.An aged yet youthful-appearing queen thinks that she has found her Shangri La, but something unexpected is in store. The flame of life can only last so long before it dies out due to ill-character of the power mad, vain, jealous and possessive queen. She's living in a fool's paradise and is as tragic as she is blessed. Her arrogance, acquired over hundreds of years of unchallenged rule, makes her view others' lives as paltry and transient. Vanity gets a real spanking with some remarkable F/X for the era. In the book, Ayesha was more stunningly imperious and not just a pasty control freak. She, by the way, is played by Helen Gahagan, a stage actress and opera singer who only made this single film before going into politics and championing migrant workers in California as a Democrat before the party became the Demoncraps. She had a not-so-secret affair with Lyndon B. Johnson on Capitol Hill and coined Nixon's nickname "Tricky Dick." While she's actually rather plain-looking, she has an impressive mane and a powerful presence; She could be the prototype for the wicked queen in "Snow White" or the evil Maleficent.The African setting of the book was obviously changed to the arctic so as not to compete with the popular Weissmuller Tarzan series that just released the hit "Tarzan and His Mate" the year before. There was also a great fascination with the arctic at the time dating back to the early 19th Century. They certainly did a good job with the studio-bound sets, giving the illusion of the arctic, except that you can't see the characters' breath.If you have a taste for 1930's adventure epics like King Kong, Gunga Din (1939), and King Solomon's Mines (1937), you will probably appreciate "She." The Hammer version from 1965 isn't as lavish or compelling, despite the quality cast with Ursula Andress in the titular role; it's also straddled with a lousy score. The film runs 101 minutes (original) and 95 minutes (reissue) and was shot entirely at Prudential Studios, Los Angeles, California. DIRECTORS: Lansing C. Holden & Irving Pichel.GRADE: B
Awaix Javaid
Well to write this review I must gather my mind and go back a long ago, almost a decade, when I was a child and my father gifted me this book "she" by rider haggard and ever since it was my favorite novel, I read it so many times and every time I felt I am reading it the first time. The imagination of the writer and how he created everything was marvelous. It's the height of man's creativity that he creates something out of nothing and you start believing in it. It was my all-time favorite novel.For a long time I had been searching if there had been any film made on this novel but I couldn't find it. I thought no one took this novel so serious to make movies, rather twilight, lord of the rings, harry potter wins this race, but just 2-3 days ago I was just searching some other films and by the way I searched for it and found this film. I was restless to get it.I saw the film, but let me tell you something, before watching it; I had high hopes from it. I expected it to be perfect in the black and white because I believe that the beauty of some things remain more enchanting in their originality. Therefore I started watching it, but I was quite disappointed to see it, as the director had skipped so much beautiful things which the write had explained in so much immense details. I wanted to see the old yellowish manuscripts of Vincy, the killing of goat/deer by a gun and showing it to bilali, on their way to Kor. The flame of life was also poorly shown and that there had been so much changes as the novel had, when finally "she", leo, and others were following to the flame of life, there were no one following them, as shown in the movie. I dare say that I was quite disappointed to see this film, as this novel was the first gift from my father and had a great value to me.I certainly keep in mind that in 1935, filming such thing would have been a challenge but there is a difference in skipping the details and altering the plot from original. When you alter the plot, then the director himself is throwing the film to black hole. I think probably that's why the film didn't gain much popularity and its rating is low. Well this was solely my view, in relation to my past memories and my expectations. Though it might be different for others who just see it just as a film. Overall it was a good attempt as many such novel remain in dark book shelves and never gain the hype as commercial novels does. I wish this novel and its filming be done again, making it a better one, though I am against, the efforts of introducing graphic touch to classics, as done in the film "clash of titans". There is a huge difference in its older version and the 2010 version, after all making "300" in that way was also a superb effort, but you know what, it was a perfect blend of classic filming with originality and graphic reproduction.I recommend everyone first to read the novel, "she" and "return of she" and then see this film.
bkoganbing
It might have been nice if RKO had gone through with the original budget for She with color and everything else they planned for it. It might even had meant a more substantial film career for Helen Gahagan Douglas.As it was Helen Gahagan Douglas left the screen and performing altogether for politics and a seat in Congress which she gave up to run against Richard Nixon for the Senate. The two Representatives set some new low standards for dirty campaigning, it wasn't completely one sided, but Helen coined the name 'Tricky Dick' for Nixon which clung to him the rest of his life.But in She, Douglas made an indelible impression as the ageless beauty from H. Rider Haggard's novel who tries to win the love of Randolph Scott, the descendant of a love several generations removed. It's on the quest for that ancestor that Randolph Scott and Nigel Bruce set off for the far reaches of Siberia where the widow of that ancestor left a journal telling of a lost civilization in the Arctic, built around an eternal flame promising eternal life for those who step into it. Along the way Scott and Bruce pick up Helen Mack and the three of them literally stumble on the cave entrance that leads to this fabulous place run by the thousand year old beauty Helen Gahagan.Randolph Scott is the stalwart hero that you see in many of his westerns. His American accent is explained by saying his branch of the family took off for America a generation or two back. Nigel Bruce is far from Doctor Watson, he's quite the two fisted action hero here, an aspect I never thought I'd see.For reasons I don't understand, the location was changed from Africa to the Arctic. Especially because RKO had that jungle set that was used for so many of their classics like, The Most Dangerous Game, King Kong, and Five Came Back, I don't understand the change. Maybe someone thought the jungle was starting to look familiar. This adaption of She contains all of H. Rider Haggard's sense of high adventure and drama. Unfortunately it lost money and killed the film career and started the political career of Helen Gahagan. It remains today though, not a bad film, the best known version of an often filmed tale.
John W Chance
This once seemingly lost, or at least taken out of circulation, film is now back in a magnificent Kino colorized version with restored footage and sound, all of which will surely bring new fans to this unusual film.The story has been filmed at least six times, with the Kino DVD showing excepts from the (poor) 1911 and (better) 1925 silent versions. The 1966 version may have had the best looking 'She', a regal Ursula Andress, but this one has great art deco sets (now even more amazing in color); bizarre Busby Berkeley like dance sequences (nominated for a 1935 Oscar, no less!); a stirring Max Steiner score; the cute as a button Helen Mack--also seen in the weak 'Son of Kong' (1933); and Nigel Bruce in a major role playing it straight. Helen Gahagan plays 'She' in a passionate, mannered way with almost Shakespearian dialogue. Unfortunately she is poorly off set by a dull Randolph Scott as Leo, making her 500 year old love for him seem a little unconvincing. Much better would have been RKO star Joel McCrea who had a more handsome profile, physique, energy and acting skill. McCrea does an outstanding job in 'The Silver Horde' (1930), 'Bird of Paradise' (1932), and 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1932). Why he wasn't in this one is a mystery, and a detriment to the film.The only other really weak spot is that though they were in the Frozen North, you never see cold breath coming from the characters' mouths. Contrast this with the impressive 'Lost Horizon' (1937) or 'The Thing' (1982), where when it's cold, you can see their breath!Other notes: The evil queen's purple costume in 'Snow White' (1938) is an exact copy of one of She's royal 'gowns' complete with spiked tiara! We also see the the Skull Island Kong Gate from 'King Kong' (1933).High points: The final sequences beginning with 'The Hall of The Kings' elevate the quality of the film tremendously. The colorization really is the best here. Helen Gahagan gets several strong scenes about the burden of immortality. The love triangle focus of the film actually works because of Ruth Rose's dialog and the acting skills of both Helens.Watching it in black and white (also included on the Kino DVD) gives the story a more nightmarish quality and is also recommended. For both, I give them a 7.
