A waste of 90 minutes of my life

A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Casting Alan Ladd in the role of the dark and brooding larger-than-life Shane was perhaps the single great misdeed of this film; depriving Shane of his sinister getup (his black habiliments a part of his shrouded mystery) and cladding him in buckskin was tragic. But there are plenty of other ouchers that detract from the genius and not-just-another-Western story crafted by Jack Schaefer.As commentator Chuck Rankin noted, "the major flaw of the motion picture lies in its inability to translate into a different medium the complex point of view and nostalgia upon which much of the novel depends for its strength."A theme of Shane may be standing up for one's beliefs in the face of bullies, but there is much more that the movie does not convey. The frontier as a testing ground for humanity, the coming of age pains of an individual but also of a nation in the face of the cattlemen/homesteader rivalry, and the role of individuals to society get lost in the greater focus of the fistfights and shootouts.The supporting crew is largely unsympathetic in comparison to its literary counterparts. "Joey" (Bob in the book) is charmless and bug-eyed as he whines "Shaiy-ne!" ad nauseum. Marion is shrill.Van Heflin is tolerable as Starrett. But it is Jack Palance as Wilson who positively steals the show, thus looming larger and more appealing in some ways than its slight-statured fair-haired hero.All in all, the movie is better than many in its genre, but only because of the elements of the novel it deigned to adapt. It could have been much, much better.

That character referred to in the title is obviously Joey Starrett, played by Brandon de Wilde. Kids in main roles in movies is generally a bad idea and it has only been succesful so little times, yet it has been done ( To Kill a Mockingbird, Jurassic Park, The Sixth Sense, Taxi Driver to name a couple of movies featuring excellent children actors in lead roles ). But unfortunately in Shane this was not the case.Ofcourse, the good points of such a mixed film should be mentioned first. The cinematography is obviously the greatest part in this film. The scenery in Wyoming coupled with the excellent camera angles showing beautiful plains and mountains in the distance result in a breath taking visual experience. This results in many beautiful shots, such as the one with Ryker first appearing under the beautiful scenery. The acting of Alan Ladd as Shane, Van Heflin as Joe Starrett & Jack Palance as Jack Wilson especially was excellent, and seemingly could not have been better. Character development seemingly is also fine in order, with the audience slowly getting a better view on what kind of person Shane is, because that seems to be a bit of a mystery at the start, frequently getting startled by sudden sounds while quickly reaching for his gun. The music is also an excellent addition to what could have been a great film.Unfortunately even though the film succeeds on most primary accounts on what a movie should have, one annoying and irritating or badly acted character can ruin it all, and Brandon de Wilde managed to do just that. His repeated forced phrasing of the word 'Shane' just makes you cringe and regret every time he comes on the screen. The entire movie i was hoping there would be more scenes between Shane and Wilson and less with Shane and the terribly acted kid. Every word out of his mouth just has a terrible delivery and comes across as incredibly forced. Compare his acting to the raw natural acting of the two main kid characters in To Kill a Mockingbird for example. It is just such a gigantic gap in acting quality. Also combine it with the fact that Jean Arthur as Marian Starrett also gives off a pretty weak performance and Elisha Cook Jr. ( While being a great actor ) is simply miscast as i could never take him seriously as the tough guy that isn't scared of anything in the face of danger. While it is a film that has its great moments ( Most of these are ones where Brandon de Wilde is absent ) and has beautiful scenery, it is unfortunately a display of how one character can bring a movie down, which makes my verdict a mixed one.

If George Stevens' goal was to make the most boring, slow, uninteresting, and dreadful western ever, then he absolutely succeeded. I'm a fan of classic movies so I decided to give this "timeless classic" a watch. It was one of the worst movies I had ever seen. Sure, the cinematography is gorgeous but that doesn't make it a great movie. It seems Stevens tried to use extra stunning backgrounds to make up for the fact that he did not have a good story nor good characters. The dialogue is bland and incredibly corny...like when Jean Arthur sees her husband take out a gun and screams, "NOOO!!! You can't kill him!! That's so wrong!!" Plus I noticed quite a few continuity errors, which is not uncommon in movies but still.I honestly can't think of a single thing I like about this movie. I looked up a few clips on YouTube so I could browse the comments and see what other people thought of it. I was shocked that so many people loved it. One person mentioned having watched the movie "over a hundred times". Geez, I could barely sit through this movie once, let alone watch it a hundred times. I think the only way somebody could enjoy this movie is if they really love home-on-the- range scenery or have a crush on Alan Ladd or something. I'm not sorry I watched the movie though; it teaches a good lesson. The lesson is that a true masterpiece lies in the eyes of the beholder. While I despise this disaster of filmmaking, it has nonetheless been awarded the "greatest western ever made". But in my mind, this only proves that the audience had extremely poor taste in films.

Hoping to put his violent past behind him, a former gunslinger tries to settle into a small town, only to soon find himself compelled to fight again this iconic western starring Alan Ladd as the laconic title character. The plot is more complicated than just that as a young boy also comes to idolise Ladd and the film has some very good scenes as Brandon De Wilde slyly keeps looking at Ladd at the dinner table and silently sneaks out to watch him fight. De Wilde has such expressive eyes that it is almost no wonder that he was nominated for an Oscar back in the day; unfortunately, whenever he opens his mouth to speak, the magic is ruined. While his shrill, whiny voice is no help, he is not exactly saddled with the best dialogue either, and it is hard not to wonder whether the film may have come off better with more focus on Ladd's checkered history (and reluctance to fight once again) rather than De Wilde's idol worship of the man. Add in overbearing music and an underwritten character for Jean Arthur as De Wilde's mother, who may or may not have designs on Ladd herself, and 'Shane' is hardly a flawless masterpiece. The lush colour photography is a very nice touch though, the mysteriousness of Ladd's past is handled well, and topped off by one surefire memorable ambiguous ending, it is easy to see why some consider this to be a classic of the genre.