dickwinters: so "Shane looked like a gay", therefore he's not a viable heroic character? Because gay men can't possibly be gunfighters or cowboys, can they? You certainly live up to your name "dick", you idiot.
Anyway, dick aside, it's a strange western- terribly sentimental and simplistic, especially next to the complex and fascinating characters of a Ford or Mann western. Ladd is quite wooden in the underwritten title role, particularly contrasted to Van Heflin's spiky landowner and Jack Palance's sneering, amoral gunslinger. It all goes wrong with Joey though, one of the most annoying kids ever put on screen... just one more "aaaaawwww Shaaaaaane" and I might throw up... Brandon de Wilde made up for it ten years later with a decent showing in "Hud", but this is just horrible. Some of the dialogue is unintentionally funny as well - the relationship between Shane and Joey reaches a great climax when Shane tells him to "grow up straight". Some chance.
In the positive the scenery is beautiful, although completely over saturated, the assorted showdowns are well paced, there's a couple of great movie dogs, and the bar fight is impressively brutal for an otherwise dramatically limp and obvious story. Not the classic I expected.
Shane: "A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."
...aaaand everyone in the NRA just came in their pants.
Shane the man ends up feeling as one dimensional as Shane the film....despite efforts to the contrary. The running theme of "that damn annoying kid" in the comments is hilarious lol
Hailed as one of the greatest westerns ever made, Shane both manages to please and disappoint. It looks pretty, even bagging an academy award for best cinematography in colors, and the actors all do a fine job, but the story is clicheed and weak. I was hoping for some kind of surprise along the way, especially considering it is based on a novel, but it all plays out excactly as expected from the very beginning. It does manage to build up most of its characters, but gives far too little room for the development of Jack Palance's demonic gunslinger to build up a proper climax. I was, however, fairly entertained along the way, but struggle to see any kind of future motivation to rewatch this by-the-numbers tale of a lone gunslinger helping out some kind, decent nice folks against a greedy cattle baron. I give it seven points out of ten, including a bonus point for some nice saloon brawl action.
I liked this and was surprised by the depth and complexity of the story. The setting was very picturesque, so much that I wished that it were set in widescreen. The arc and subtly of Shane’s character was well done if not predictable but satisfying. The scene in which Ryker explains his side of the story to the Starrett family actually gained some sympathy from me, despite their obvious problems. I liked that Shane stepped out of his western cowboy role, and then back into it. However I felt that it lost a little steam in the middle section, with not much new development for the settlers other than repeated claims of ‘we need to get out of here’. Joey’s love of Shane was quaint but believable, but the constant refrain of “shaaaaaannnne, shaaaaaannne, come back!” were a quite grating.
I like the cinematography, I like that it is a simple story that gets my daughter invested (c'mon everybody, it is clear that it is supposed to be from the kid's viewpoint), I like the lack of cynicism, I like the mythologizing of the West, blah blah blah.
BUT
The bad guys, despite their aggressive tactics, they are in the right, right? The big bad gives a monologue about how he built the area, and the new settlers are literally breaking apart his ranch and disrupting the feeding of his cattle. Jack Palance calls the Confederates "trash." Again, I understand that they need to be framed as the villains because that is how movies work, and while I admit that I don't have expertise in the settling of the West, the good guys were all pro-Confederate squatters who stole land from the people that had already built it for themselves, so......
Guess I will have to watch it again to confirm. Lucky for me, I like this movie, so a rewatch isn't problem, but I tell ya right now, in my next watch I am going to try to view the whole thing from the bad guy's POV.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 17
chryzsh
The kid's voice will haunt me for years. Like watching a cardboard cutout squeal for two full hours.dombrewer
dickwinters: so "Shane looked like a gay", therefore he's not a viable heroic character? Because gay men can't possibly be gunfighters or cowboys, can they? You certainly live up to your name "dick", you idiot.Anyway, dick aside, it's a strange western- terribly sentimental and simplistic, especially next to the complex and fascinating characters of a Ford or Mann western. Ladd is quite wooden in the underwritten title role, particularly contrasted to Van Heflin's spiky landowner and Jack Palance's sneering, amoral gunslinger. It all goes wrong with Joey though, one of the most annoying kids ever put on screen... just one more "aaaaawwww Shaaaaaane" and I might throw up... Brandon de Wilde made up for it ten years later with a decent showing in "Hud", but this is just horrible. Some of the dialogue is unintentionally funny as well - the relationship between Shane and Joey reaches a great climax when Shane tells him to "grow up straight". Some chance.
In the positive the scenery is beautiful, although completely over saturated, the assorted showdowns are well paced, there's a couple of great movie dogs, and the bar fight is impressively brutal for an otherwise dramatically limp and obvious story. Not the classic I expected.
NoMatterWhat
"Mother wants you! I know she does!"Lord X
Shane: "A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."...aaaand everyone in the NRA just came in their pants.
PrinceJax
Shane the man ends up feeling as one dimensional as Shane the film....despite efforts to the contrary. The running theme of "that damn annoying kid" in the comments is hilarious lolacoltismypassport
That was some bar fight!ClassicLady
Although every step of the way you know how it's going to turn out, it's still a marvelous watch."Shane! Come back!"
Pigsthreedifferentones
pretty boring standard narrative but a psychological gold mineZeltaebar
Hailed as one of the greatest westerns ever made, Shane both manages to please and disappoint. It looks pretty, even bagging an academy award for best cinematography in colors, and the actors all do a fine job, but the story is clicheed and weak. I was hoping for some kind of surprise along the way, especially considering it is based on a novel, but it all plays out excactly as expected from the very beginning. It does manage to build up most of its characters, but gives far too little room for the development of Jack Palance's demonic gunslinger to build up a proper climax. I was, however, fairly entertained along the way, but struggle to see any kind of future motivation to rewatch this by-the-numbers tale of a lone gunslinger helping out some kind, decent nice folks against a greedy cattle baron. I give it seven points out of ten, including a bonus point for some nice saloon brawl action.starnamedstork
Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!Vinsmid
Shane. The wild west's Shaft!...Shane. Just standing there, in the rain....
canaan
I liked this and was surprised by the depth and complexity of the story. The setting was very picturesque, so much that I wished that it were set in widescreen. The arc and subtly of Shane’s character was well done if not predictable but satisfying. The scene in which Ryker explains his side of the story to the Starrett family actually gained some sympathy from me, despite their obvious problems. I liked that Shane stepped out of his western cowboy role, and then back into it. However I felt that it lost a little steam in the middle section, with not much new development for the settlers other than repeated claims of ‘we need to get out of here’. Joey’s love of Shane was quaint but believable, but the constant refrain of “shaaaaaannnne, shaaaaaannne, come back!” were a quite grating.nosex
very freudian.Duval Spit
I like the cinematography, I like that it is a simple story that gets my daughter invested (c'mon everybody, it is clear that it is supposed to be from the kid's viewpoint), I like the lack of cynicism, I like the mythologizing of the West, blah blah blah.BUT
The bad guys, despite their aggressive tactics, they are in the right, right? The big bad gives a monologue about how he built the area, and the new settlers are literally breaking apart his ranch and disrupting the feeding of his cattle. Jack Palance calls the Confederates "trash." Again, I understand that they need to be framed as the villains because that is how movies work, and while I admit that I don't have expertise in the settling of the West, the good guys were all pro-Confederate squatters who stole land from the people that had already built it for themselves, so......
Guess I will have to watch it again to confirm. Lucky for me, I like this movie, so a rewatch isn't problem, but I tell ya right now, in my next watch I am going to try to view the whole thing from the bad guy's POV.
Limbesdautomne
Some films replace some myths in their context: those who carry firearms, and use them, are thugs. Cowboys are cow boys.5cents for this divine thought, or you may read more in French on La Saveur des goûts amers.
Showing items 1 – 15 of 17