Am I Missing Something?

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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".

This can be seen as one of five great fantasy films produced by Meriam Cooper. The other four are "Most Dangerous Game," "King Kong," "Son of Kong," and "Mighty Joe Young." This and the last three were written by Cooper's wife, Ruth Rose. It is the least seen and least appreciated of the five.The story and sets are as fantastic and spectacular as the other films. I think its emphasis on love might have made it a hard sell to kids and macho men and that is the reason it didn't do well.It does contain a fabulous performance by Helen Gahagan as the title character. She does make you believe that she is 500 years old and she manages a ruthlessness and passion that few actresses at the time could match. One might argue that her stage acting doesn't come off that well on film in every scene, but at moments it is exactly right for the story. Along with Falconetti's "Passion of Joan of Arc," this has to be considered one of the greatest single performances in film history.Helen Mack as She's rival for the affection of Leo (Randolph Scott) is also very good at times, although her accent seems to slip here and there. Scott is a bit wooden, but that is how he generally is on screen. Bruce Cabot seems to be in rehearsal for his great role as Dr. Watson which he would play several years later.The colorized version is quite nice. It seems to match the color of the period.The dance scenes seem quite dated, but they do reflect the revolutionary Ballet style of Nijinski.This movie is well worth seeing for any lover of fantasy films. It seems to have influenced Walt Disney's "Snow White," as well as the first Flash Gordon serial filmed the following year.It is probably time for a remake.

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.

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