If anything, Shane is underrated. I'd rank it among the best Western films. It's got a tragic story with a heartbreaking finale. Put all of that together with great acting and action scenes, and you've got yourselves a classic!
What I will compare this movie most to is To Kill a Mockingbird. Mockingbird is one of my favorite movies of all time. The vibe of Shane (and perhaps many of the themes) are similar. Sure, Scout was significantly less annoying than the kid in this movie, but that can be forgiven. The tie that I see between both of them is the innocence of youth on a larger than life adult situation. In Mockingbird, the central view was racism. Shane has to deal with the power of big business and the importance of humility at the proper time.
Jon Stewart hosted the Oscars a few years ago and showed a clip of famous "gay cowboys." I had no idea how many clips were from Shane. I can't really say that there are gay overtones in Shane (I ran out of things to say about this movie a long time ago. Bear with me.) but there is a very interesting relationship that Shane shares with this homesteader family. The best part is that George Stevens doesn't really let us in on the background of the title character. That would have been what most movies would have done. But nothing that the director could have told us would match up to child's or the family's expectations of Shane's background.
I do have to address the fact that the movie is called Shane. Yes, Shane is a major player in this movie, but I think most of the burden and stake of this movie falls on the patriarch of the family. Shane may have an emotional investment in the outcome of this movie, but the patriarch has emotional and financial attachment in this movie. He's also one who develops an almost equal relationship that his son does with Shane. He sees him as a brother. Sure, he doesn't get to be involved in the big showdown at the end, but he fights all he can to be involved and save his brother's life because its his fight. That's the kind of sh*t I like in movies. This could have easily been a slugfest movie, but it wasn't. That's probably the strongest choice of this movie. It's all about character and I'll take that any day over the razzle dazzle western.
I won't say it's the best western (hotel) that I've ever seen, but it is mighty solid. I do understand why it is a classic, but I don't think this will ever be my absolute favorite movie. I do enjoy it and will probably watch it quite a few times in my own collection.
Mediocre, boring, and unmemorable are all words to desribe Shane. In other words, it was a very hard movie to sit through. Afterall, there is nothing special to watch within the uninteresting plot that the movie has. This is certainly not complimented by the only average acting and cinematography in the film. If you want to watch a truly great western, then don't watch Shane. You'll just be stuck with a disappointment. Watch with your own discretion.
Am I allowed to think that Alan Ladd makes a VERY attractive cowboy? Wow. Westerns don't usually excite me, but I really liked this one. The sexual tension between Shane and Marion was just so amazing to watch.
the kid in this movie is so annoying .....makes it hard to watch at times, slow paced , but still a descent western alan ladd is awesome as shane, plus jack palance as the opposing gunfighter is a added bonus.
One of the questions I always have when a novel is adapted to film is whether I should read the book before or after seeing the movie. In the case of Shane, I decided to read the book first, and that may have been a mistake. Then again, if I'd seen the movie first, there's every possibility that it would have informed my viewing of the film, and that wouldn't have been good, either. One of my big problems right off the bat is that the character of Shane himself just isn't rugged enough. Being a fan of such films as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Unforgiven, I imagined Clint Eastwood as I read the book, and Alan Ladd doesn't have anything approaching Eastwood's weathered authenticity. That ridiculous-looking buckskin outfit he wears doesn't help, either. (Palance's Wilson looks much cooler with his black vest and hat.) Brandon De Wilde was also quite irritating, and I didn't understand the point of renaming his character Joey. (The character was named Bob in the book, and he wasn't the only character to get an inexplicable name change. I at least understand changing the first name of Wilson to Jack, since Stark sounds a little too much like Starret.) That said, this movie was still highly enjoyable and featured a lot of great cinematography. Many of the themes of the novel were kept, so that helped a great deal. In a way, this movie reminded me of the aforementioned Unforgiven--yes, I know Shane came out first, but I saw it after Unforgiven--in that it's about a killer who realizes just how impossible it is to become something else. This movie has rightfully become a classic because of the different levels on which it works, but I think reading the book first kind of spoiled the experience for me. I just couldn't help thinking how superior Jack Schaefer's novel is throughout the movie's running time. So I recommend that you see the movie and then read the book. Just try not to picture Alan Ladd in that ridiculous costume as you read.
One of the great movies of all time. Sometimes you have to take a stand. Whether or not you have something at stake or not, it's just the right thing to do.
This is a very simple story, elegantly told though very dated now. Its snail-like pace, sluggish direction and heavy, stressed dialogue make it perhaps harder for the Empire generation to watch without sniggering than much older westerns (for instance Stagecoach or Destry Rides Again). Certainly, there's little I can offer in defence of two particularly glaring technical problems: very poor day-for-night and the horrible sets of the July 4th celebration scenes. These are shallow aesthetic problems, however, and shouldn't (for me don't) affect the overall experience. Shane is blank. He has no surname: he is both past and future. Though the time he operated in was little more than thirty years in "real life" (whatever that is), the West of the screen is an everlasting period of history to which normal rules of time and space do not (or need not) apply, though which Shane will drift forever, haunted by Brandon De Wilde's doleful cries...
The main reason I saw this disappointing oldy is because of a referencing dialogue in "The Negotiator" (a much more satisfying flick). Even then, i didn't get what I was looking for -- the tape was too poor quality.
Stevens shifting perspectives throughout (often to the point of disorientation) were interesting, but his greatest achievement was establish Wilson as evil personified.
Typical western, and though I'm not big on westerns, I thought this film was very good...Main character is one of my fav western heros mainly becuase of his restraint...story was well done for back then...
Another great western in my eyes. But then again, I don't think I enjoyed it as much as I did High Noon, for instance. I just love George Stevens' directing. He really brings the scenery to life. Go rent it.
Some fifity years after its original release Shane remains the bench mark for all westerns, having no equal. Clearly the greatest western ever to have come out of hollywood.
Anyone who doesn't enjoy this film has no heart! THE CLASSIC "gunslinger coming out of retirement" movie! Jack Palance plays one evil dude!
Sod buster: "You're a low down Yankee liar!"
Jack Wilson: "Prove it!"
I really wanted to like this film, but it didn't do anything for me. It felt dated, and I don't understand how people can look past one of the worst performances in the history of cinema (the kid).
MCT:August 26, 2008
MCT:August 9, 2008
MCT:July 11, 2008
MCT:July 1, 2008
MCT:May 28, 2008
MCT:March 27, 2008
MCT:March 10, 2008
MCT:October 10, 2007
