The Vengeance of She (1968)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

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

"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)

!!!THIS REVIEW CONTAINS PLOT SPOILERS!!!This is one of the few well-known Hammer films I had never seen, until a few days ago. I had very low expectations and so, sat down to watch this with no preconceived ideas of real enjoyment; just of ticking another Hammer film off on my head as "seen".The Vengeance of She is oddly enjoyable if totally trashy. The script goes in a vaguely similar line to the original 1965 She. It has minimal characterisation, has no inner continuity and the actions and deeds of some of the characters are totally anachronistic (e.g an Arab who seems steeped in Western magick rites and philosophy).By the end I found myself totally disinterested if Carol (Olinka Berova) is the reincarnation of Ayesha or not. I was unmoved by the loss/love of Killikrates (John Richardson)and his dilemma of being immortal without his soul-mate. The actual events lost momentum for me even before reaching the Lost City.So why watch this film? There is an ethereal beauty to this film. Other reviewers have mentioned the beauty of the lovely Ms Berova and she is stunning, so that is enough said about that. But the ethereal beauty is beyond just her looks alone.The film has some wonderful images: Berova walking down a long winding road in a white fur coat, the desert sequence, the entry to Kuma, etc. The music score by Mario Nascimbene, including the song title (sung by Bob Fields), uses a haunting but very simple melody heard throughout the film in various guises. For the scenes set in the "modern world" it is played as a jazz miniature with solo saxophone. In Kuma, it becomes a chant with an ostinato figure derived from the main melody. I find this very effective.The ethereality of these features combine to produce something unexpected. This film has stayed with me. Shallow, disjointed and incongruous as the whole thing is, there seems to be something of a 60s acid trip side-effect from this film that I cannot explain. The notions of exoticism; love unrequited or lost; beauty and decay; and glamorous adventure that are not really explicit (due to ineptitude in narrative and performances) in this film are what will now stay with me.Perhaps in five years time or more, I will have a notion to return to this film... and be totally disappointed, wondering where the effect of this film, that stayed with me in the following days, actually came from. Yet, it is there and for this I give it a tentative recommendation and a very over-generous rating.

I was let down by Hammer Films' version of SHE (1965), so I wasn't particularly looking forward to its even less regarded sequel (concocted by Peter O'Donnell, who had earlier scripted the Joseph Losey camp classic MODESTY BLAISE [1966]!). Still, given that the film begins in a modern-day setting, I have to say that I found it mildly intriguing at first (following an unintentionally funny opening scene in which leading lady Olinka Berova is nearly raped by a loutish trucker who ends up trampled by his own vehicle!); however, once the scene shifts to the mythical city of Kuma, the film grinds to a halt - and, being one of Hammer's longest efforts at 101 minutes, this does it no favors at all! Though Mario Nascimbene is best-known for his scores of epic films and was probably assigned to this one for just that reason, the lounge music (including a title tune which is not half bad) he composed for the modern early scenes is actually the most effective part of his soundtrack! The cast is, again, worth discussing: Berova, who's involved in some very mild nudity throughout, is undeniably gorgeous and yet rather petite to act as a stand-in for the statuesque Ursula Andress (trivia note - reportedly, she was deported from the U.K. on suspicions of espionage!); John Richardson, repeating his role from the original film but who has turned villainous in the interim, gives a wooden performance; rugged Edward Judd always makes for a compelling lead in this type of film (I especially loved the way he put-down an exotic dance number secretly organized for his entertainment while a prisoner in Kuma!); Colin Blakely and Jill Melford as a wealthy vacationing couple (on whose yacht a distraught Berova finds herself) make a fine impression, but they unfortunately exit the proceedings very early on; Noel Willman is virtually unrecognizable as a wizened learned man of Kuma; Andre' Morell, appearing in a different role from the one he played in the original, is an embarrassment as a sort of shaman spouting mumbo-jumbo.As was the case with THE VIKING QUEEN (1967), there's some confusion with respect to the culture and the geography depicted in the film: the city of Kuma is supposed to be situated somewhere in North Africa, yet the natives - whom Judd meets during his journey to locate the kidnapped Berova - speak in Arabic. Similarly, both Morell and the high priests of Kuma are seen to be well-versed in the occult arts: I can't recall if this was as prominent a feature in the original Hammer film but, somehow, it all feels incongruous to the material!

The Vengeance of She is a badly done adventure movie with elements of the supernatural. It is a sequel of sorts to She (1965), but the action has been updated to the 1960s. The plot is pretty wacky, though it could have made for an enjoyably ludicrous film if handled with a bit more verve (see The Lost Continent for a film which had an outrageous storyline, but worked OK because the makers had the courage to stand by their own absurdities). Unfortunately, in this case the film doesn't really work at all. The story progresses unconvincingly and humourlessly in a very dull, workmanlike manner, with largely unenthusiastic performances, and dated, jazzy music which doesn't suit the events on screen.A young blonde woman, Carol (Olinka Berova)wanders around the southern part of France, her mind muddled and tormented by recurring dreams. It seems that a strange force is driving her in a particular direction, and only by following this direction can she stop the constant torment. Her dreams are riddled with haunting images of a faraway kingdom, and she repeatedly awakens from these semi-nightmares inexplicably screaming the word "Ayesha". Carol boards a yacht owned by womanising millionaire George (Colin Blakely). One of George's friends, psychiatrist Philip (Edward Judd), is also aboard the yacht enjoying a holiday. Philip is interested by Carol's bizarre condition and tries to help her to make sense of her dreams. Gradually, it becomes clear that her thoughts are being corrupted and manipulated by the denizens of a lost city in North Africa, who are trying to psychically guide her to their land so that she can replace their long-dead Queen of Ayesha (whom she closely resembles).Berova may be a beautiful woman but her acting ability is almost nil, so immediately the film is faced with an uphill struggle since her character is so crucial to all that's going on. Judd also is a very bland, laid-back leading man (he resembles Peter O'Toole, but with dark hair and about a tenth of Peter's acting ability). Saddled with these two uninspiring main actors, the film further digs its own grave by having all the characters from the lost city speak line after line of the most dire mumbo-jumbo imaginable. They talk about magic, destiny, power, mind control and other such stuff, but the dialogue is written in a weird, lofty fashion that comes across like an 11 year old child attempting to imitate Shakespeare. I really wanted to be kind to this film - to give it the benefit of the doubt, if you like - but in the end I just couldn't manage it. As a well-told, well-made film it doesn't even register. But it also can't be enjoyed on the level of a likably oddball curiosity. It's just a totally ineffective, inconsequential and inept dud.