rsubber If you've read Haggard's novel it's hard to like this movie version of "She" with much enthusiasm. The movie venue is a polar wasteland, not Africa. Ayesha (She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed) has somewhat mysteriously been alive for only 500 years or so, not for 2,000 years after first stepping into the Flame of Life. Many of Haggard's plot details are casually bowdlerized in this film, and the film characters are cardboard cutout versions of those in the book. Ayesha is a somewhat pallid control freak, not stunningly imperious. Leo Vincey is a mawkish, comic-book style hero who's turned on by the hot queen, not a sensitive, heroic figure who is overwhelmed by Ayesha's irresistible beauty and power. Horace Holly is just a Hollywood supporting actor, with none of the moral power of Haggard's Holly. And finally, the girl ("Tanya" in the film, "Ustane" in the book) is a dime-novel sweetie in the film, naturally she's in love with Leo -- in the movie she stands up for her man with an outthrust chin once or twice, in the book she faces down the dreaded Ayesha and dies for her loyalty to Leo. Mostly the movie is disappointing because the director and the writers abandoned any effort to capture the spell-binding mystery of Ayesha's immortality, and the book's pulsing action and sensual seduction of Leo. For my taste there's just too much 1930s cinematography here: almost every word of dialog is a speech, the scene cuts are clumsy and abrupt, it's much too dark, there's way too much relentless, breathlessly beseeching conversation, too much striding, too much of "take two steps away then stop turn and look back" kind of stuff. Ayesha declares "my kingdom is of the imagination" both in the film and in the book. Too bad you need too much imagination to make the film worth watching. Read more on my blog: Barley Literate by Rick

gavin6942 Leo Vincey (Randolph Scott), told by his dying uncle (Samuel S. Hinds) of a lost land visited 500 years ago by his ancestor, heads out with family friend Horace Holly (Nigel Bruce) to try to discover the land and its secret of immortality, said to be contained within a mystic fire.The film was produced by Merian C. Cooper, who had previously made "King Kong". Apparently, this film initially lost $108,000 and only made up the difference upon its re-release in 1949. Not a bad film, I am unclear why the audience was not as receptive the first time around.Eventually, the film had two remakes: one with Peter Cushing and another set in a strange post-apocalyptic world with werewolves. But there is nothing wrong with the original, and we must thank Buster Keaton for getting it preserved and Kino for presenting it to the world yet again.

Michael O'Keefe Leo Vincey(Randolph Scott)is told of a legendary Flame of Life, that holds all secrets of eternal life. With his friend Horace Holly(Nigel Bruce), Leo will travel to the Arctic region of Manchuria, where a namesake relative made a partial discovery many years ago. The resting place of the flame is located in a deep remote cave and is under the guardianship of an immortal queen known as SHE Who Must Be Obeyed(Helen Gahagan), who believe's that Leo is her long-lost lover from 500 years earlier. Ruth Rose adapts this H. Rider Haggard story for director Lansing C. Holden. Photography and special effects are very good for a movie from the mid 30's. Also in the cast is the fetching Helen Mack.

disdressed12 this movie is very stunning visually.there is a lot of spectacle involved.the movie is very stylish,but for me lacks much substance or depth.it does get cheesy at times,breaking into weird dances that to me look ridiculous,even absurd.i thought the acting was very good,and i think the movie had a good moral at the end:the search for eternal youth does not end the way we want it to,meaning there are consequences for such obsession.this ideal is even more relevant today,as we try everything to slow down the aging process,hoping to eventually reverse aging sometime in the future.but there are many ramifications,both socially and economically to consider.anyway,i certainly didn't hate the movie,but i didn't love it either.it has its merits,and also its drawbacks.i think "She" deserves 6*/10