Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:25 pm



Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
 Shane 

What grade would you give this film?
A 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
B 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
C 100%  100%  [ 1 ]
D 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
F 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 1

 Shane 
Author Message
 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 6385
Post Shane
Shane

Image

Quote:
Shane is a 1953 American Western film from Paramount. It was produced and directed by George Stevens from a screenplay by A.B. Guthrie Jr., based on the 1949 novel of the same name by Jack Schaefer. Its Oscar-winning cinematography was by Loyal Griggs. The film stars Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur (in her last film after a thirty-year career) and Van Heflin, and features Brandon De Wilde, Elisha Cook Jr., Jack Palance and Ben Johnson.

Shane was listed #45 in the 2007 edition of AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies list and #3 on AFI's 10 Top 10 in the category Western.

_________________
---!!---!!!!!!-11!!---!!---11---11!!!--!!--


Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:28 am
Profile WWW
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: Shane
I didn't like it much. Its status as a canonical Western is, frankly, baffling.

Oh sure, there's some great stuff in here, most notably the mythical battle waged between Ladd's titular hero and Palance's embodiment of evil. The film is at its best when it heightens the archetypal significance these two have, such as when they silently face off for the first time on the ranch, or their final showdown. In fact, most everything about these two characters almost makes the film worth it. Almost.

The problem is that almost everything else sucks. The acting (especially the kid's Oscar-nominated [!?!?!] "performance"), the story, the ideology (I'm amazed such a blatantly communist film got past the red-fearing censors) - everything. It's just plain uninvolving and bland. When Joe drones on and on about how the homesteaders have to band together to protect themselves, I had to fight boredom and fatigue. And the constant fisticuffs the heroes engage in - talk about unintentional hilarity.

On top of that, it's just a poorly made movie. Badly shot (save for the occasional inspired moment), badly edited, badly structured. There's no John Ford vistas or Howard Hawks drama to be found here; it's just a (admittedly strong) allegory hidden under a left-leaning morality tale with a thin covering of pure Hollywood cheese. And I didn't like the taste.

Plus that kid is fucking awful. Seriously.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:14 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.