The Vengeance of She (1968)

"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 in no way is accordingly to the novel written by H.Rider Haggard. Even before there had been many attempts to make film on this novel, namely "she" in 1912 version, then some other. Even then I commented and explained.This was the first novel of my life, my father gifted me this book, and since then I had loved it. The imagination of the author is marvelous, astounding and grave. While showing in this film, the plot has been changed so much that it lost the originality and beauty. It became something else than the novel.Even watching the earlier parts, of this film, I said, SKIPPING the details due to technicalities and technology available when the film is made is something different and acceptable but changing the original plot and altering with something else makes the film go to worst. I mean this is totally meaningless to show, that Kelikretes is immortal and waiting for She, this was never been in novel plot. There was no Minhari, having lust for the flame of immortality. There is no girl being drawn towards the city of Kuma in the novel plot. Even the name of the city is not Kuma, it is Kor.I was disappointed to see even this version and I am waiting someone make a good and truthful version of this film because I believe the originality of the real plot makes it more interesting to see the film. I am sure whoever has read the novel, would agree with me that this film is something else, not the real one.Now I come to THIS film, well as a film (forgetting novel completely) yea it is good one. When you are in entertainment business, and when entertainment is show business, then it might have been a good attempt, and also as IMDb data records show, the film has done a good business. Not so much good, but good to see, if you are watching it for entertainment.

*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.

As the cover/poster of the film probably tells you, it cannot be taken completely seriously. It is full of silly sets, utterly bad taste skimpy dresses, bad acting and funny horror effects. The story, of course is something anyone could come up with in 20 minutes. Most enjoyable if you like "bad" films.