Why so much hype?

A different way of telling a story

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Sequel to Hammer's version of She is actually more interesting than that film, at least to me. I loved the 1935 version of H. Rider Haggard's She. But the Hammer version did little for me. I found it very dull with only Ursula Andress' beauty to recommend it. This sequel is hardly a masterpiece but has enough going for it that it surpasses the previous film. The opening with the corny song playing while hitchhiking Carol (Olga Schoberova) is cornered by a rapist then saved by something mysterious is a moody start to things. The film keeps up that mood as the girl swims out to a yacht and hops aboard. She's being compelled towards Kuma, the lost city from the last film. Turns out Ayesha (again, from She) is attempting to possess the girl. As they make it closer to Kuma, the movie becomes a lot less interesting.Olga Schoberova is beautiful but brings little to the part other than that. The scenes of her having nightmares screaming out "Ayeeeesha!" will give most viewers giggle fits. Still, she's not as wooden as Andress. Derek Godfrey is the bad guy but there's nothing bad about those awesome eyebrows. Edward Judd and John Richardson are solid. The great Andre Morrell has a small part as a man who helps Carol. Like She, this is pretty dry stuff. Worth watching for a nice score, atmospheric touches, and for Olga's beauty.

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.

Three years after their reasonably entertaining version of H. Rider Haggard's classic adventure 'She', Hammer Studios produced a sequel, 'The Vengeance of She'. Lacking the star power of the original (Ursula Andress, Peter Cushing and Bernard Cribbens are noticeable by their absence), the film is a dreary retread of events from the earlier movie, albeit with the roles reversed: this time around, it is the immortal Killikrates (John Richardson) who is pining for his long-dead love Ayeesha.Convincing Killikrates that his soul-mate has finally been reborn in the form of a stunning European blonde named Carol (Olinka Berova), power-hungry occultist Men-Hari (Derek Godfrey) strikes a deal with the lovelorn leader: if he can successfully lure Carol to the lost African city of Kuma (using his powerful black magic), then he must be granted permission to pass through the sacred blue flame that would bring him immortality (and give him a pop at taking over the world!).Compelled to travel to Africa by the voices in her head, the confused Carol is joined on her journey by Philip (Edward Judd), a concerned psychiatrist who is determined to ensure the beautiful young woman's safety.On arriving at Kuma, and discovering the real reasons behind Carol's mysterious calling, Philip sets out to stop the poor girl from being brainwashed into believing she is Ayeesha, and prevent Men-hari from achieving his nefarious goal.'The Vengeance of She' starts promisingly enough, with the sex-kittenish, mini-skirted Berova (think along the lines of Bardot, and you won't be far wrong) making quite an impression as she walks through the French countryside (accompanied by a haunting theme song), but it soon descends into a messy mish-mash of boring mystical mumbo-jumbo, lacklustre adventure, and unconvincing melodrama.Director Cliff Owen wisely makes the most of Berova's awesome physical attributes to try and distract his audience, having her slip into clingy white robes that give viewers a tantalising glimpse of her marvellous milky puddings (please note: my workmate Phil wanted me to use that phrase in one of my comments), but even with endless gratuitous lingering shots of her semi-clad form, the film still winds up as something of a snooze-fest.

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.