Smoreni Zmaj It is considered one of the best films of all time. And once again, I'm too stupid to figure out why... Average tra-la-la western story. It is not bad for a western, although it is not much above the average in the genre, and within the entire history of the film, I'm not giving it a crumb above the six.6/10

beckr1 This movie has it all…action, family values, gunfights, fistfights, great humor, great dialogue, incredible editing (saloon fight and final shootout), beautiful Teton locations, breathtaking cinematography, incredible cast and incredible acting. As a Librarian, I usually say that the book is better than the movie, however, the book comes nowhere near the character development or having the reader visualize the locale. George Stevens accomplishes this and more. This movie operates on so many levels that it takes repeated viewings to understand all of the subtleties (especially in the actor's choices). Just like The Searchers, the sexual tension between the main character and the female lead contributes to a multi-layered screenplay that would make Freud proud. There are so many great moments in this film (Stevens is a master of great movie moments): Dixie on the harmonica, Shane's first dinner and the reaction of Joey when Shane gets jumpy, the stare-down between Shane and Jack Wilson when they meet for the first time, the fistfight in the saloon, Stonewall's death scene in the horse crap and mud and the subsequent scene at the Reb's funeral and his dog at the gravesite (the crew wept while filming this scene) and of course the final scene. In 1993, Shane was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

frankwiener 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.

erin_linds 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.