I know it's an old movie, but it's incredibly slow paced! Some scenes take forever, it's just too slow for my taste.
And I've seen far better westerns, this ranks pretty low in my opinion. A 2 hour trudge of old music and slow scenes for a quick finale. We all knew the outcome anyway, so it was a bit of an anticlimax.
Sorry. I can't agree. Then again -- it takes all kinds to make a world . . . eh?
shareYeah I can see a lot of people like it, that's probably why I was disappointed. Maybe I expected too much. It is an old movie, I just find the 50s style a bit slow for my taste. I like a lot of the later westerns, but they had a different style.
As for the pace of the movie, I thought it was very slow. For example, I remember in this movie when Joe's wife was pleading with him not to go, it went on forever. Literally minute after minute, the whole scene dragged on. I got the point and wanted the story to move on, but it stayed in that house.
I love every scene in the movie and all the nuances and character development in the narrative. And I'm a guy who can take in a rapid fire action flick with the best of 'em. Sorry SHANE doesn't do it for you.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
[deleted]
When I compare Shane to From Here to Eternity I can definitely tell that FHTE is the more original, innovative, meticulously, carefully and sensitively made movie and deserved Best Picture, Director and Supporting Actor more.
Well said, SteveRG! I did like FHTE, though. And since it belongs to a completely different genre, I won't compare it to SHANE.
It would be easy to chastise critics for calling SHANE "too slow & drawn out" but the sad fact remains that today's audiences aren't the audiences of the 1950's and earlier. The new crowd seems to crave action and excitement in every frame of every movie; and they want the narrative to hurry along and just skip this old hat business of taking time to smell the roses.
As mentioned in my last comment, however, I enjoy most action flicks about as much as anyone else, but I also can take in the epic grandeur of panoramic outdoor scenery (which SHANE has, in spades!) and the kind of unhurried storytelling and characterization that directors like George Stevens bring out in their filmmaking. It's too bad Millennials and other young movie goers are less moved by the artistic merits of classic films than are "us older folks" and maybe the occasional young people who are unabashed film freaks.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
Hi Vinidici,i should have added in my previous comment that i too enjoyed FHTE,a fine film with some excellent performances,especially Montgomery Clift,FHTE was the prestige film of that year,from a best-selling book,with an all star cast and is well directed.
I agree,that with each passing generation,tastes change and so has cinema,if a film does'nt float your boat then that's fair enough,but people should keep in mind the subtle influences Shane has had in more modern films from De Niro's "You Talkin To Me" monologue in Taxi Driver,comparable to Shane's "You Speakin To Me" which he says to Ben Johnson in the bar,to the ending of Terminator 2,where the kid cries and pleads with Arnie not to leave him,to the more obvious influences as mentioned before like Pale Rider,High Plains Drifter.
Ya see, Steve, that's exactly what the OP is missin' the boat on! Chances are soaringly high that the kind of pictures he prefers are made by writers and directors who absolutely idolized classic movies like SHANE and directors like Ford and Stevens -- so much so, that the style and technique of modern filmmakers have been markedly influenced. And then there are the "swipes" and "homages" such as you've mentioned. Never ceases to amaze me how shallow minded it can get when it comes to some who express a total disinterest if not disdain for older movies.
Not that I'm judging the OP as necessarily belonging to the type I've just mentioned but it certainly seems to be a good occasion here and now for me to point these things out!
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
Steve and Vini, good posts. Yeah not to jump on the OP too much but sometimes it seems to me that many who have issues with some "older" films aren't putting things in context, aren't students of history- film or otherwise.
Well, I am perfectly capable of "putting things in context", and I never studied film or history during my university days. Thankfully I chose math as a major. Now I can enjoy my beloved classics without having to write essays on them. 
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
I like the plot to move on once the point has been established. I still like artistic scenery, but this movie wasn't particularly scenic. If you like 1950s cinematography then good for you, but after seeing modern digital cinema, it pales in comparison.
I'd urge you to go see something in an imax cinema, then you'll see what scenery is all about. I think you'll then understand that this movie just doesn't come close to modern production values.
Nice night for a walk...
Not scenic??? The Teton Mountains define scenic!
Modern "production values" usually consist of green-scene fakery, machine-gun editing that often makes it difficult to tell what's going on, and no sense of setting -- establishing shots and setting the stage so you know what's where are rarely considered. Blech.
As I get older, I find myself very much appreciating the fact that I got a chance to see movies prior to the MTV-ification of everything.
How can a sixty year old film compare to what you call "modern production values"? Your statement is pretty laughable anyway, since those production values are usually computer-generated, which takes no creativity whatsoever.
sharesince those production values are usually computer-generated, which takes no creativity whatsoever.
If CGI had existed in the fifties, then kids of that time period would have been enjoying it.
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
It's too bad Millennials and other young movie goers are less moved by the artistic merits of classic films than are "us older folks" and maybe the occasional young people who are unabashed film freaks.
Your generation scares me. It really scares me. Go play with your smartphone.
shareYour generation scares me. It really scares me. Go play with your smartphone.
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
I love that Plato quote!
I've been discussing classics on the boards for about three and a half years now, and the reality is that I will never be considered a "true" classics fan, simply because I'm not over the age of 40. (I will be in 15 months. By that time, they will have "upped" the cutoff to 45 or whatever works for them.) These particular people find all sorts of sly and sneaky ways of insulting younger fans of classics. They'll make comments like "have you ever seen a typewriter?" and "do you know what phones with cords are?". Any fan of classics will have seen these things in movies, and of course, I'm old enough to have used typewriters AND phones with cords. They'll tell me that I can "learn a lot" from movies like All About Eve. (I learn by living in the real world and by reading books, not from films.) Oh, I've heard quite a bit from those who will do anything to insult younger viewers. Frankly, my movie tastes are really none of their business. I don't owe them any excuses for what I watch, nor any explanations.
Besides, when they saw this film back in '53, it wasn't a classic. It was just a modern movie to see in the theaters. And if CGI had existed back in those days, then they would have been enjoying it, too.
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
Wow. Each time I come across a thread on the individual classic movie boards in which someone says that he didn't enjoy the film, there is always a complaint about his generation, even though the OP doesn't state his age. The only thing "missing" on this thread is a comment about the OP's grammar.
I am a huge classics fan, but I don't see the big deal if some folks don't like certain highly acclaimed classics. I'm no fan of Citizen Kane and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
Ladd wasn't a particularly great actor, but he was well cast in Shane. So was Heflin, and I've always loved Jean Arthur. The whole film itself, was about as finely crafted as a western could be. The only westerns I like better than Shane are ' The Ox-Bow Incident ' and ' Red River '. Actually, my reply to the OP was based on many of his/her previous posts. I kind of determined that he/she isn't very old. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
FYI, I'm not particularly enamored of ( or, is it ' with ' ) Citizen Kane, either. I'd probably rate it a 7. If I had to choose an Orson Welles directed film, it would be ' The Stranger '. My favorite OW acted film is ' Tomorrow Is Forever '. Also FYI, I've never even seen GWTW. I also feel that Brando is a bit overrated, unlike most critics ( professional and living room ). I find ' Streetcar ' to be a bit annoying. You might never guess who my favorite actor is, but here are some hints. In one of his films he hates Jews. In one of his films he hates African Americans. In one of his films he hates the Japanese. Can you guess? My favorite actress is Stanwyck. For the first three decades of her career, nobody could touch her. Just my opinion, of course. Sorry to bend your ear. I just enjoy talking film.
" You know you drank too much last night when you left the bar with Cindy Crawford and woke up this morning with Broderick Crawford "
I love classics, too.
I love Van Heflin in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, which stars Barbara Stanwyck (a favourite of mine, too). I was deeply moved by The Ox-Bow Incident.
Mostly I love 1930s B-movies (especially whodunnits), 1940s film noir, late 1950s and 1960s comedies, and a lot of post-1980 films.
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
I just enjoy talking film.As long as someone shares your opinion; otherwise, it's "Go play with your smartphone."
my reply to the OP was based on many of his/her previous posts. I kind of determined that he/she isn't very old.Based on your reply to the OP, and many of your previous posts, I've kind of determined that you're a bit of a prîck.
To the OP: why did you watch it? And regarding "old music," what would you have us do, throw out everything that's more than a year old? Idiot.
shareJust watched it again for the umpteenth time. The music perfectly punctuates each scene as it moves from idyllic to menacing. Presaging expectation of events to follow. Constantly throughout the movie the Grand Tetons are shown in the background framing the plain they live on. As great as this movie is (One of AFI's ten greatest westerns), anyone who watches this cannot miss the regal Tetons. Today this property must be among most the valuable living space in the country. What a View!
shareTo the OP: why did you watch it? And regarding "old music," what would you have us do, throw out everything that's more than a year old? Idiot.
If you go to the site of any great old classic, there will always be a thread like this. The OP is just looking for attention and knows a famous, highly regarded classic has many fans who will froth at the mouth to the delight of the OP.
Soy 'un hijo de la playa'
If you go to the site of any great old classic, there will always be a thread like this. The OP is just looking for attention and knows a famous, highly regarded classic has many fans who will froth at the mouth to the delight of the OP.
...and there will always be those who will resort to name calling and putting down the OP's generation, just because the OP doesn't care for that particular classic. Maybe the OP prefers other classics, like I do. I'll take Double Indemnity over Shane any day.
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
One day, many years from now, young people will take ahold of your favorite modern, fast-paced films and tell you how slow and boring they are.
And you'll say, well that's for character development so you can get to know the people in the film and feel something about them. And they'll tell you, we don't want that crap, we want to see the action, 80 mins is too long anyway, glad that there are no movies that long anymore, we can barely sit still the 15 mins that they are now.
You probably could not take Greed, one of the greatest films ever made, coming in at several hours long, and silent as well. It would probably kill you to try to watch something of such artistry because it was "slow-paced".
Go eat your fast food, I'll take a slow-cooked home meal anyday.
-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)
Comment dismissed as it's from an uneducated moron. See my Plato quote above, and stop whining about "young people", you complete *beep* moron.
Terrible things, Lawrence. You've done terrible things!
People in the FUTURE will be saying that 80 minutes is too long? A lot of B-movies released in the 1930s weren't longer than about 70 minutes. If anything, films have gotten longer over the years on average, not shorter.
~~
đź’• JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen đź‘Ť
The first half of the movie is great. The second half could've been done in 15 minutes. It went on forever.
share15 minutes? What, they bury Stonewall and then what? All leave their farms? All go into town and shoot it out? What? These days, almost everyone knows what's going to eventually happen next but in 1953, the movie goers may not have - not unless there was a book that the movie was based on. How could the movie show how torn the farmers were on whether to stay and fight or leave their homes in 15 minutes? How could Shane's internal struggle be determined in 15 minutes? As he explained to Joey at the end, once a gunfighter, always a gunfighter. He tried to live a more "normal" life but his past was defining him and he didn't think there was anything he could do about it. Why would the movie maker go through all of the first half of the movie to develop the characters and the menace they were up against to make a hasty and unbalanced ending? You must have gone into a coma watching Unforgiven (1992).
KS
Note: After reading some earlier posts, it looks like there was a novel of this story so movie goers could have known the outcome of the story but still, it would have ruined all of the movie's build up to the half way mark to finish it up in 15 minutes. That's why guys like George Stevens are movie makers and you/we aren't.
You can always point to pacing. It's a weak argument, and every director who has ever made a slow movie has made the same points you're making about Shane. When I said 15 minutes, I was being hyperbolic. That doesn't change the fact that the second half of the movie was needlessly long and drawn out. I'm not exactly making a controversial statement, as evidenced by dozens of people on this message board who has said the same thing.
shareEveryone's entitled to their own opinion, but I can't understand how anyone could find the 2nd half of Shane to be, in any sense, "needlessly long and drawn out". Takes all kinds to make a world, I guess.
shareThe first half of the movie is great. The second half could've been done in 15 minutes. It went on forever.
I just saw it this week for the first time. I quite enjoyed it and can understand why people will always treasure this movie. It's quite like how people, particularly men, responded to Dead Poets Society and Field of Dreams, though Shane has always been held in regard by critics. I'm not a fan of westerns, so this was one of the better and more entertaining ones I've seen, but I wasn't blown away or even particularly moved by it. Maybe I would've felt differently if I had seen this as a child.
For the record, I gave it a 7/10. I didn't think it was too slow for an old western, though you're all right, the last half was pretty simplistic in plot and drawn out with fight scenes in the dark. Nothing too great or complex going on in the narrative.
I also gave From Here to Eternity 7/10, though I love its cast. Ultimately I think FHTE is the better picture, though it's obviously close and Shane clearly has more enduring cultural value. I gave Roman Holiday, which was probably third in line for Best Picture, 8/10, but I see it as little more than an iconic, charming vehicle for Audrey Hepburn. Kind of a weak year. Some of the most interesting and entertaining films that hold up best weren't even nominated, like Peter Pan, Stalag 17, Pickup on South Street, I Confess, Mogambo, Kiss Me Kate, and The Band Wagon.
OP, I'm curious, what other westerns have you seen that you preferred to Shane? As I've said, I'm not a fan of the genre, so none of the John Ford westerns I've seen really do it for me. Here's my list so far:
10: The Wild Bunch, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
9: Once Upon a Time in the West (though long and technically a spaghetti western, it's to me the best traditional western film I've seen)
8: The Ox-Bow Incident; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; Red River; Unforgiven; True Grit (2010)
7: Ride the High Country, How the West Was Won, My Darling Clementine, The Searchers, Shane, High Noon, Django Unchained, All Quiet on the Western Front
6: Cat Ballou, Stagecoach, Blazing Saddles, The Last Sunset, The Westerner
5: Rio Bravo
I think High Noon and Shane are solid films, but nothing extraordinary. I must say I preferred them to The Searchers, where I can't get over Natalie Wood's casting. Of all the 7 films, Ride the High Country was actually quite engrossing.
OP, I'm curious, what other westerns have you seen that you preferred to Shane?
I just saw it this week for the first time. I quite enjoyed it and can understand why people will always treasure this movie. It's quite like how people, particularly men, responded to Dead Poets Society and Field of Dreams, though Shane has always been held in regard by critics. I'm not a fan of westerns, so this was one of the better and more entertaining ones I've seen, but I wasn't blown away or even particularly moved by it. Maybe I would've felt differently if I had seen this as a child.
For the record, I gave it a 7/10. I didn't think it was too slow for an old western, though you're all right, the last half was pretty simplistic in plot and drawn out with fight scenes in the dark. Nothing too great or complex going on in the narrative.
I also gave From Here to Eternity 7/10, though I love its cast. Ultimately I think FHTE is the better picture, though it's obviously close and Shane clearly has more enduring cultural value. I gave Roman Holiday, which was probably third in line for Best Picture, 8/10, but I see it as little more than an iconic, charming vehicle for Audrey Hepburn. Kind of a weak year. Some of the most interesting and entertaining films that hold up best weren't even nominated, like Peter Pan, Stalag 17, Pickup on South Street, I Confess, Mogambo, Kiss Me Kate, and The Band Wagon.
OP, I'm curious, what other westerns have you seen that you preferred to Shane? As I've said, I'm not a fan of the genre, so none of the John Ford westerns I've seen really do it for me. Here's my list so far:
10: The Wild Bunch, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
9: Once Upon a Time in the West (though long and technically a spaghetti western, it's to me the best traditional western film I've seen)
8: The Ox-Bow Incident; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; Red River; Unforgiven; True Grit (2010)
7: Ride the High Country, How the West Was Won, My Darling Clementine, The Searchers, Shane, High Noon, Django Unchained, All Quiet on the Western Front
6: Cat Ballou, Stagecoach, Blazing Saddles, The Last Sunset, The Westerner
5: Rio Bravo
I think High Noon and Shane are solid films, but nothing extraordinary. I must say I preferred them to The Searchers, where I can't get over Natalie Wood's casting. Of all the 7 films, Ride the High Country was actually quite engrossing.