Sheena, reine de la jungle

Sheena wasn't made to win any Academy awards. Nevertheless, for a "B" film the photography is actually quite good. Granted, Tanya's acting ability at this time in her life needed a lot of work. I'm sure the producers knew this going in and didn't care. They knew the attraction would be to watch Sheena doing her thing in her jungle outfit. Tanya was the perfect choice considering the reason for the film. Sheena was made to showcase Tanya Roberts stunning physical attributes and was successful in this regard. She is the reason the movie is still moderately popular after 20 years. So if you like this type of eye-candy film, enjoy! It wasn't meant to be anything else.

As several others have noted, the reviews seem a bit rough. This is not an Academy Award drama. It is a fun family film with a very strong female lead. There is much more nudity than is seen in PG movies today, yet it is still fitting as a family film. It is done in the sense of cultural norm and the body not being something shameful. I think it actually opens the door for discussion of the body in the family setting for those that are comfortable with the discussion. But if nudity offends you then this is definitely not a good family film choice for you.

First off, PG apparently at the time allowed a brief nude scene. A refreshing deal really. The violence really isn't too bad; surely of the comic variety. Not an "R" picture.

Second, the movie obviously is not to be taken seriously. As harmless entertainment, it is pretty good, especially if watched in the right frame of mind. The evil countess (best line was demanding equal harm to be done to Sheena ... no ERA stuff for her!), big city reporter (reference to his view of the Towers), mystical shaman (imdb has the actress having a pretty interesting backstory), and Sheena (talk to me in words I understand!) all are fun.

Commenting on Tanya Roberts' acting skills is a bit redundant. She is there because she fits into the costume, so to speak, and she does that rather well, thank you. As an actress ... well, she isn't THAT horrible, really. If Heidi Fleiss can be in a movie, TR can play Sheena! And, really, her performance adds to the fun too.

I saw this at about 2am. Perfect time.

Tanya Roberts certainly got the best part of her career (alongside the Roger Moore Bond movie, of course) in "Sheena". It's hard to pretend so much innocence and naivete after a life spent in NY and Hollywood, of all places. That's acting... I'd like to point out many scenes with the animals, arranged better than in many Tarzan competitors, and I am not afraid to admit I still am fascinated by this fairy tale that was kindalike the last survivor in 1984 - before digital FX took control. Seen the OTT animal scenes in Jumanji? Maybe you feel the same then.

I could watch the wonderfully appealing Tanya Roberts all day in slow motion riding that horse… Ah I mean zebra and swinging through the jungle. Who wouldn't? She looked great. However with the acting, I just don't know if that was her natural abilities shinning through because it seemed to be taking a lot out of her with her constant head grabbing. No that's right, she's telepathically communicating with the animals ala "The Beastmaster". As for the film itself… of epic proportions. Director John Guillermin kind of shoots himself in the foot. The material tries to be fashionable with it's comic-book origins that's based upon S.M. Eiger and Will Eisner's comic strip books "Sheena, Queen of the Jungle", but transcends into campy goofiness and lazy story-telling with an awkward sexual allurement. I don't know who this was aimed at. It pushes the boundaries of juvenile silliness that seems to be aimed at children, but its free flowing t&a (thankyou to a nekid Tanya) rules out that possibility. But how, this one has a family feel to it. The action set-pieces are often poorly staged and eye-boggling, with a rough around the edges quality coming through. Other than Roberts being pretty much eye-candy, the stunning Kenya locations managed to give the film a sense of place with Pasqualino De Santis' handsome widescreen photography being smoothly protracted. On the other side of the coin Richard Hartley's music score was relatively ham-fisted and out-of-place. Even the script tackles many issues in a tacky, forced one-note mode that's quite rib-tickling or pain-staking depending on the mood of the viewer. The romance between Roberts and Wass is pitiful. Starring opposite of Roberts is Ted Wass, who's capably charming in his role. Donovan Scott is given free reign in the comic part. I don't think this film is that awful, as its made out to be, but it has quite a few bad elements that'll give it a hard time in trying to fight off that stinker tag. At least the laughs keep on coming. Unintentional or not, is the question?