Good concept, poorly executed.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

In itself, the movie is a good one. However it almost completely detracts from the original book, which is probably the greatest Western ever written. Sorry to say, but the movie is basically a dumbed down version for the masses, which rips the book apart and re-arranges and deletes many parts. Still a good movie to watch, but definitely not for people who fell in love with the book.

In her introduction of this film, Tiffany Vazquez of Turner Classic Movies stated that some viewers consider this to be among the best western movies of all time. Although I am not a qualified expert of the genre, "Shane" could never compete with the likes of a nearly perfect "High Noon", which happened to be produced in the same year. I could probably name at least a dozen other westerns that exceeded this one in overall quality, but I'll spare you those details.Although the setting of the spectacular Teton Mountains of Wyoming was breathtaking, for some reason I had trouble seeing the version that was aired on TCM this week. It seemed to be of poor quality.Aside from Brandon de Wilde's extremely abrasive voice and peculiar appearance as the boy, which was enough by itself to destroy the entire production, Jean Arthur was sadly miscast as Marian Starrett. Summoned from retirement by her friend George Stevens, the director, she would never make another film again. She didn't appear to be inspired by this role at all, a far cry from her light, airy, and comedic performances in "You Can't Take It With You" and "Foreign Affair", just to name a couple. Her portrayal here was dark and dreary. She whined and fussed too much to be a credible pioneer woman. I could have rated this even lower, but I thought that Alan Ladd and Van Heflin turned in very decent performances, as did a very sinister Jack Palance and Elisha Cook's faithful dog, (spoiler alert!) although the heartbreaking burial scene was reportedly very difficult to pull off. In the end, the dog was among the best features of the film along with those magnificent Tetons in the background. Unfortunately, the toxic combination of the kid and his mother could have dealt this movie a fatal blow, but they didn't, which was miraculous by itself.

I first saw this in the early 90s. Revisited it recently on a DVD which i own. When you love a western, it's a film like Shane that you go back to time and time again. Everything has already been said about this great film n there seems to be little left to say but as a fan of western films, lemme contribute by praising how good this film is. The single greatest asset is the wonderful cinematography. The mountains, the lakes, the hills, farms n houses all looked straight outta poetry n painting. Loyal Griggs did an amazing work with the film's cinematography. The story is about a mysterious gunfighter (Alan Ladd) who helps a farming family against cattle barons wanting the farmers land. Jack Palance in a role of pure malevolence with his evil smirk n few dialogues. George Stevens' direction is truly stunning. He made a very touching film. This film has contributed a lot towards the western genre.

After watching the massively depressing LOGAN (2017) and noticing that the closing scene pays homage to Shane (same dialog used to mark Logan's grave) I felt the need to do an update review on Shane.According to traditional Hollywood history, Shane is one of the 100 greatest films of all time, iconic, and even the dialog is multi-layered.There is a scene in the short-lived TV series THE OTHERS (done by the same two men who created X-Files) where one of the lead characters, who is blind, regularly goes to the movies to watch SHANE, over and over. In many ways, that has to be one of the grandest back-handed compliments you can pay to a film.I wish however to also suggest there is a great deal of hidden irony in what otherwise appears to be a straightforward western.For example, Ladd hated guns and, according to film legend (Wikipedia) had to do over 100 takes in the iconic scene where he teaches the boy to draw. Similarly, Jack Palance hated horses and was only able to do one successful "mount" after many takes. Director Stevens had to use this same piece of film over and over, even to the point of running the strip backwards to make it look like Jack was dismounting.Wait, it gets better. Director Stevens hated violence and wanted SHANE to be be an anti-violence film. However, the trope he invented for the gunfight, where the actors were violently pulled backwards by ropes as bullets struck, is considered by film historians to have "forever changed the face of film action" and led to an entirely new generation of gunfighting in films where the violence increased by a factor of 100X. Even the infamous Hong Kong action film directors consider they owe a debt to Stevens.The final irony is that, in the opinion of this reviewer, the film does not stand for what the screenwriter intended. To this reviewer, Shane is a metaphor for the evolution of the United States itself, an arc more visible when this review is penned (in 2017) than in 1953. Although even in 1953, at the end of WW2, the US as a nation was having to face introspection, as a nation which had hitherto prided itself on isolationism suddenly felt compelled to become policeman to the entire world.Still a great film. But also an ironic one.