The Vengeance of She

1968
The Vengeance of She
4.6| 1h37m| G| en| More Info
Released: 01 May 1968 Released
Producted By: Seven Arts Productions
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Beautiful young European girl, Carol, is possessed by the spirit of Ayesha – “She, who must be obeyed” – and led to the lost city of Kuma, where she is destined to become queen.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Seven Arts Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Wuchak "The Vengeance of She" is a 1968 Hammer film (British), a a sequel to 1965's "She" with Ursula Andress. Whereas the events of the first film took place in 1918, this sequel takes place 50 years later in the modern day (1967).THE STORY: A beautiful blond named Carol (Olinka Berova) is plagued by voices calling her "Ayesha" and is drawn by a mysterious force toward the Southeast. During her journey she meets Dr. Phillip Smith (Edward Judd) who decides to accompany her, likely because he wants to attain boyfriend status (even though he's obviously old enough to be her father). They travel through the desert with Philip (Edward Judd) and eventually reach a lost city in the mountains. John Richardson is back as Killikrates while Derek Godfrey and Danièle Noël play Men-Hari and Sharna.Although the storyline is sometimes kinda lazy you'll no doubt enjoy this film to some degree if appreciate Hammer films. What's it have going for it? Well, it's a serious adventure for one thing; don't expect any goofiness or camp here. It's got great locations including breathtaking shots of the Mediterranean coast. It also has one beautiful leading lady in Olinka Berova. Yes, Ursula Andress is gorgeous as well, but Olinka beats her out IMHO. Olinka may lack Ursula's looks-that-kill stunning-ness but she makes up for it in gentle, sweet innocence. Seriously, Olinka possesses a quality that's rare today. The film's worth watching or owning just to behold this.As to the "G-rated" issue, an Amazon reviewer -- "A Customer" (May 27, 2002) -- spends his entire review ranting about how mediocre the film is because it's rated G. First of all, the DVD is not rated G; it clearly states that the film is "unrated." Secondly, even if it WAS rated G at some point (like when it was originally released in theaters) it would be at least a PG or PG-13 today. Want proof? - Olinka is shown for long shots in just her underwear. One scene shows her walking into the ocean where her panties are wet and clearly see-through. Does this sound G-rated? - There's a fairly long belly dancing scene where the girls are less than half-dressed. Does this sound G-rated? - There are quite a few violent fights that end in death. Plus a woman on a sacrificial altar has a sword dropped into her bosom and a man staked to a wall is speared in the chest. Does this sound G-rated? Suffice to say that reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about.One last thing about this reviewer's piece. The guy appears obsessed with film ratings. Personally I never pay attention to these ratings. Why? Simply because a film is either great, good, mediocre or bad period. The rating is irrelevant. Does more gore, more nudity, more cussing, more overt sexual situations determine the worthiness of a film? Maybe for 13 year-olds. Is "The Wizard of OZ" a lousy film because it's rated G? How about the original "Planet of the Apes"? BOTTOM LINE: Although "The Vengeance of She" is not a hard R-rated film, it's neither a tame G-rated film either. It's worth watching or owning for the breathtakingly beautiful Olinka Berova, the fine locations and the serious spirit of adventure. It's only real flaw is that it has a bit of a lazy vibe, but it makes up for it with an ethereal ambiance. Regardless, "The Vengeance of She" delivers the goods if you're in the mood for a serious adventure flick à la 60's James Bond, but without the goofy super-spy elements. If you appreciate Hammer films it's a must.The film runs 101 minutes and was shot in Monte Carlo (Mediterranean coast), Spain (the desert) and England (the studio sets).GRADE: B (6.5/10 Stars)
1bilbo I think this is a worthy sequel to the Cushing "She".Olga Schoberová hasn't much to say but did not need to be dubbed as she can at least string a sentence together. (Unlike Ursula.)The story follows up where She left off but that is not obvious until half way through the film. If you are looking for a modern day formulae (obligatory love scene with 20 seconds of bare breasts, three way love triangle with lovers screaming at each other, etc. etc,) you will not find it. Just a good story with a host of good actors – no all became famous.The opening sequence has a terrific theme tune and has Olga wandering down a lonely road. We never find out who she is or where she comes from or how she manages to be immaculately dressed despite being lost and weary but this is the 1960s. The mythology of an eternal flame that grants everlasting life – at a cost – is central to these films as is the deceit and betrayals that go with people's lust for what they cannot have. Sit back and enjoy the ride.
h_palka First the good part of the film. The beginning of the movie was beautifully and sharply filmed with an excellent view of the French countryside going towards Monaco with a highway cutting through. The opening theme song was haunting, especially with the supernaturally lovely Czech star Olinka Berova. When you see this miniskirted vision with the flowing blonde hair and long legs walking down the highway with her suitcase, you can't help but be hooked, especially with the aforementioned cinematography and theme music. Unless you saw the predecessor-film, SHE, with Ursula Andress(also called Undress) you wouldn't know what the film was about. The makers assumed that everyone who saw the film also saw SHE. Well, the vast majority of viewers did not and thought the movie's plot was unintelligible. QED Only Olinka Berova's ethereal beauty kept the film from being a total failure and is worth seeing for that alone. Judging by the pre-release publicity, the movie was expected to make Olinka into a major star. Unfortunately for all of us, it did not. Most of the films she made later were behind the Iron Curtain. She later married and divorced an American movieman. Today, she reportedly lives in New York under the name Olga Calley. Her retirement from film is a loss for us all. Update: Olga Calley has moved back to Prague.
jamesraeburn2003 *POSSIBLE SPOILER*A beautiful young Scandanavian girl called Carol (Olinka Berova) is lured to the city of Kuma by the immortal Killikrates (John Richardson) and Men-Hari (Derek Godfrey) who convinces Killikrates that she is the reincarnation of his lost love, Queen Ayesha, who died years ago. Killikrates intends to give Carol the secret of immortality so that he can live with her forever and restore her power over the city. Meanwhile, he has also promised Men-Hari the secret for bringing him back his old lover.The basic premise provides a fairly adequate sequel to Hammer's successful adaptation of H. Rider Haggard's 'She' (1965), which was something of a curates egg in itself (see separate review). The main problem here is that the Peter O' Donnell script is unconvincing in that one ludicrous situation hardly runs smoothly into another. There is also some unbelievably inept dialogue like when the heroes are chasing after a desert peasant who is on horseback in a Land Rover but they still have difficulty keeping up with him. I bet the British Motor Corporation would have been horrified because that wouldn't have been good publicity for their versatile off road vehicles! With the exception of Edward Judd's performance as the English doctor who is in love with Carol, a good cast is working well below it's capabilities, even though it includes Andre Morell who was superb as Dr Watson in Hammer's 'The Hound Of The Baskervilles' (1959). The film is made watchable by the direction of Cliff Owen who displays his skill at narrative pacing (his work partly redeemed the otherwise unfunny Morecombe & Wise vehicle 'That Riviera Touch'). In summary this film failed to repeat the success of it's predecessor.