Shane
0.5/4
Starring: Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur, Van Heflin, Brandon De Wilde, Emile Meyer, Jack Palance
Not Rated
I am not an "old movie" hater. While some, such as "All About Eve," are either overrated or outdated, many have stood the test of time. "Casablanca," "Gone with the Wind," anything by Alfred Hitchcock...just because it's in black and white and stars actors who haven't been around for more than a few decades doesn't mean it's bad or boring. Of course there were crappy movies then too, just as there are now. "Shane" is one of them.
Oh, this is a terrible movie. I mean, it's really bad. The fact that many consider it to be a classic makes me wonder what those critics were actually watching. There's almost nothing here worthy of praise. The only good things about this movie (and there aren't many) are undone by one of the movie's many egregious flaws.
The story takes place on a farm shortly after the Civil War. The Starretts have a good farm going, but a local rancher by the name of Ryker (Meyer), is trying to chase out all the homesteaders so he can move his cattle herd to grazing territory with much more ease. Joe Starrett (Heflin) won't stand for it, but Ryker and his cronies are making staying in their homes much more difficult. One day, a stranger who calls himself Shane (Ladd) wanders into their farm. He's kind, upright, and moral. The Starretts take a liking to him, especially their young son Joey (De Wilde). Joe hires him as a helping hand, and he's going to need it once Ryker's methods start escalating into violence.
This is a good idea for a movie, and one that could have worked within the constraints of the Hays Code. Unfortunately, the script is awful. Not only are there lots of clunkers and some conversations run on too long simply because the characters are repeating each other, but it allows no depth to the characters. They're boring. There are so many cliches that the only way to survive watching it may be to count them: the harmonica player, the precocious kid, the moral hero, the whiskey, and so on.
The acting doesn't help matters. Alan Ladd makes Shane as interesting as he can, but in the end the script turns him into a generic hero. The character, a mysterious man, deserves a better movie than this. Van Heflin is stupid and dull. Jean Arthur is just awful; at no point is she ever convincing. Young Brandon De Wilde earned an Oscar nomination at the age of 11 (although the film was made two years earlier), and I'm at a loss to understand why. Joey is just another one of those precocious kids who worships the hero and asks him obvious questions in an attempt to look cute. He's annoying. Emile Meyer is okay, I guess. We hate the character, but that's the script's lone success. Jack Palance is sufficiently creepy as Wilson, the notorious gunslinger, but he has so little screen time. The film would have been better served had director George Stevens concentrated more on him.
George Stevens was one of the most famous directors in the Golden Age of Hollywood. He directed films such as "Giant," "A Place in the Sun," and "Woman of the Year." About the only good thing I can say about his work here is that the film looks great in the day time, although the camera trickery to turn day into night onscreen couldn't be more obvious. Editing problems also abound: awkward cutting, plotholes and jump cuts are all present. The film is also far too long. A movie about attrition between two people (or groups of people in this case) can be compelling, but only when time is used judiciously. I kept thinking of "Hight Noon," another film that is sort of similar, and did it to much better effect.
The bottom line is that this movie is awful. Just horrid. Don't make your mind up about how all the classics are boring. If you want a Western, just watch "High Noon" instead and leave this one to the tumbleweeds.
Starring: Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur, Van Heflin, Brandon De Wilde, Emile Meyer, Jack Palance
Not Rated
I am not an "old movie" hater. While some, such as "All About Eve," are either overrated or outdated, many have stood the test of time. "Casablanca," "Gone with the Wind," anything by Alfred Hitchcock...just because it's in black and white and stars actors who haven't been around for more than a few decades doesn't mean it's bad or boring. Of course there were crappy movies then too, just as there are now. "Shane" is one of them.
Oh, this is a terrible movie. I mean, it's really bad. The fact that many consider it to be a classic makes me wonder what those critics were actually watching. There's almost nothing here worthy of praise. The only good things about this movie (and there aren't many) are undone by one of the movie's many egregious flaws.
The story takes place on a farm shortly after the Civil War. The Starretts have a good farm going, but a local rancher by the name of Ryker (Meyer), is trying to chase out all the homesteaders so he can move his cattle herd to grazing territory with much more ease. Joe Starrett (Heflin) won't stand for it, but Ryker and his cronies are making staying in their homes much more difficult. One day, a stranger who calls himself Shane (Ladd) wanders into their farm. He's kind, upright, and moral. The Starretts take a liking to him, especially their young son Joey (De Wilde). Joe hires him as a helping hand, and he's going to need it once Ryker's methods start escalating into violence.
This is a good idea for a movie, and one that could have worked within the constraints of the Hays Code. Unfortunately, the script is awful. Not only are there lots of clunkers and some conversations run on too long simply because the characters are repeating each other, but it allows no depth to the characters. They're boring. There are so many cliches that the only way to survive watching it may be to count them: the harmonica player, the precocious kid, the moral hero, the whiskey, and so on.
The acting doesn't help matters. Alan Ladd makes Shane as interesting as he can, but in the end the script turns him into a generic hero. The character, a mysterious man, deserves a better movie than this. Van Heflin is stupid and dull. Jean Arthur is just awful; at no point is she ever convincing. Young Brandon De Wilde earned an Oscar nomination at the age of 11 (although the film was made two years earlier), and I'm at a loss to understand why. Joey is just another one of those precocious kids who worships the hero and asks him obvious questions in an attempt to look cute. He's annoying. Emile Meyer is okay, I guess. We hate the character, but that's the script's lone success. Jack Palance is sufficiently creepy as Wilson, the notorious gunslinger, but he has so little screen time. The film would have been better served had director George Stevens concentrated more on him.
George Stevens was one of the most famous directors in the Golden Age of Hollywood. He directed films such as "Giant," "A Place in the Sun," and "Woman of the Year." About the only good thing I can say about his work here is that the film looks great in the day time, although the camera trickery to turn day into night onscreen couldn't be more obvious. Editing problems also abound: awkward cutting, plotholes and jump cuts are all present. The film is also far too long. A movie about attrition between two people (or groups of people in this case) can be compelling, but only when time is used judiciously. I kept thinking of "Hight Noon," another film that is sort of similar, and did it to much better effect.
The bottom line is that this movie is awful. Just horrid. Don't make your mind up about how all the classics are boring. If you want a Western, just watch "High Noon" instead and leave this one to the tumbleweeds.
Comments
Post a Comment