Christoph I watched the German dubbed version of the movie. It has a nice opening, great effects and a beautiful setting and goes well until they meet with "her". Then there is simply too much unnecessary dialogue instead of action :) I was wishing for some nice giant creature to appear... that would have made a great movie out of it. But unfortunately that didn't happen. I guess they were running out of money. The actors were quite OK, but nothing special. Apart from Nigel Bruce and Helen Mack maybe, who looked really nice as Tanya. On the other hand Helen Gahagan as "she" seemed miscast to me. The remake from 1965 was slightly better in my opinion. Overall I rate it 5/10.

Nuck Chorris Watched again this film after many many years and frankly it was better not to. Besides the magnificent, bizarre sets, there's very little memorable in this movie. Everything feels really dated. It's a pity because there are elements in the story which great potential for a good film. I missed more craziness. It looked like the film didn't dare to go all the way with its intentions and stayed half-way through story and tone-wise. Take another film made that same year, "Mad Love", with Peter Lorre. That's a film that wasn't afraid of ridiculousness. And it still works. The acting in "She" is bad, the dialogue is pedestrian and the story is contrived and clichéd. Watch other Merian C. Cooper productions instead, like "King Kong" or "The Most Dangerous Game".

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.

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.