MovieChat Forums > Monte Walsh (1970) Discussion > Better than Shane?

Better than Shane?

posted 17 years ago by tmonigan
16 replies | jump to latest

Yes, some of grew up with Shane, and The Magnificent Seven, and we got to look back on John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy (plus The Searchers and Three Godfathers).
But this one (1st time directed by cinematagrapher Wm Fraker) takes its rightful place among the Classics.
Marvin & Palance are superb, the supporting cast is dandy and John Barry's score is a major plus. (Who knew Barry back then outside OO7?)
Plus you've got one of the lovliest "Camille" turns ever with Jeanne Moreau. Who among us hasn't dreamed of such a haircut?
And yes, Jack's "Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever" is the big keeper, but Marvin's "I ain't gonna spit on my whole life" is just as good. The big thing the remake lacks is something Fraker realized oh, so well. Conversation isn't constant. There ar those pauses and those gazes of intent when many lines are delivered. Serious heft, serious men, serious women, The Great American West.
In closing, let's just mention Jeremiah Johnson and Tom Horn, Monte Walsh's cinematic Blood Brothers.
"You had to sit him high, Shorty."

[–] rockmail 16 years ago

Better than SHANE? You are truly insane or bewildered.

Shane is a magnificently focused, emotional, strong story. Well directed and edited.

This mess is like someone made five movies and cut them all together. Are there good parts? Some, but overall it's neither high quality nor amusing camp.

A mess. Even the director admitted that he was more comfortable as a cinematographer, and it shows.

A lot of nifty little pieces, but a bewildering puzzle overall.

[–] LatigoMeans 16 years ago

Agree that Shane is a far better film, but I disagree that Monte Walsh is a mess. It is a bit fragmented, but a good tale none the less. Good performances from all and a nice mix of humor and pathos.

~LjM
Put your pants on, Spartacus!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] exglouguy 14 years ago

As a western lover even bad ones,I have to give this movie an extremely high rating.Is it better than Shane ...some parts ,but overall no.But that doesn't take away the fact that I feel this is an excellent movie.Great acting by a solid western cast.Sadness and joy.And a strong dose of reality.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bear022013-588-696101 11 years ago

What!You must have grown up in the suburbs of some big city.THIS FILM is without peer.

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

yeah. this is better.

'You can calm down a fool before you can resurrect a corpse.'-John Thompson

[–] mowbie 14 years ago

Of all the westerns you could have picked to compare Monte Walsh to you picked Shane?!?!?!

Maybe Lonesome Dove, but SHANE?

Anyway there are few, if any, westerns that are better than Shane.
Some are as good, ex Ox Bow Incident, High Noon, The Wild Bunch but
I wouldn't but Monte Walsh in with any of these.

Still it's a good, entertaining, under rated maybe, movie that
doesn't get much play.

[–] bravehome 14 years ago

Only way it could have been better than Shane is if the wolf he let go at the end began howling "MONTE!.....MONTE!...keep going MONTE!" :)

[–] rogerscorpion 13 years ago

Mowbie, I think 'Lonesome Dove' far exceeds 'Shane'. I'll grant, though, that it took about 4 times as long to do it.
Had it been edited down to 2 hours---I shudder @ the thought.

Carpe Noctem!

[–] joseph_dixon63 14 years ago

Yeah, I think OP titled the subject to be provocative, because Shane is superior (to so many movies in general, not just westerns, and in so many ways.)

Gotta give props to Monte Walsh in one way--maybe best bronco busting scene in a movie. What makes it especially good is the symbolism, and working on numerous levels. Even this technique, though, was reminscent of Shane.

I'll also credit Monte Walsh with getting much more engaging as it progressed; in fact, it hit its stride from Lee Marvin's bronco busting scene forward.

[–] jrholden43 13 years ago

Interesting discussion but the two movies are as different as night and day - this despite the fact that both are from Jack Schaefer Novels.

Monte Walsh stands pretty much with Charlton Heston's "Will Penny", as a movie that very authentically depicts the Cowboy life as it's undergoing major change as ranching techniques improve and the open range disappears. There is minimal violence, although when it occurs it's shocking, and the costuming is very authentic. The acting is above average, with the individual performances by Marvin and Palance both outstanding.

Shane, while a magnificent movie, is very idealized with a lot of "preaching" about good and evil, yet wonderfully photographed to depict exactly those points. Shane is a little too smarmy to me with the settlers and wives, particularly when the lead actress was actually 53 years old and really unsuited to the part. Again, the costuming was striking, but pretty standard for Hollywood rather than the actual times.

I wouldn't have compared the two, "Shane" and "Monte Walsh" as they are from different periods.

Actually I love Westerns, and even the bad ones often have something to offer.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 11 years ago

Well said.Tom Selleck should have known better than to waste Western lovers with his "weak" remake.
Marvin,Palance,JimDavis Green Bush....what a cast.

[–] King_Of_Fuh 10 years ago

Mentioning Shane anywhere on this film's IMDB pages?

X one trillion

If you put me on ignore, then how can I notify you when I win the lottery?

[–] Bobby_vs_Satan 8 years ago

Ridiculous, As long as Johnny Guitar exists who cares if Monte Walsh is better than Shane. Joan Crawford was better than both of them! LOL

....I like Shane better than MW....

Neither are better than The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

[–] wildbillharding 7 years ago

tmonigan - I went to the same school in York, England, as John Prendergast. He carved his name with pride on the lid of the desk! By then, in the early'60s, he had changed his name and was known locally as the leader of the John Barry 7, a jazz combo, which he hated performing with. He was on the verge of worldwide fame for his James Bond theme, which I think hit big with From Russia With Love. He was not given a credit on Dr No. My teacher, the same one that taught him, said he was a waster and would never amount to anything!

I agree that Monte Walsh is a true classic. Marvin was one of the all-time greats, along with Robert Mitchum and John Wayne and Robert Ryan and Richard Widmark and Burt Lancaster and in his own way as good an actor as any of them. Jack Palance doesn't disgrace himself, either! Jeanne Moreau brings a delicacy and vulnerability to her character and makes it unforgettable.

In terms of emotional impact, I'd put Monte Walsh ahead of Shane. Though George Stevens' masterpiece is a magnificent film, Marvin and Palance's performances are superior to Alan Ladd's.