August 30, 2016

Jane has got a gun. Great then maybe she can use it to put those of us that took the time to watch this movie out of our misery. Not a good western at all as Portman is poorly cast as Jane. Boring and slow which are bad things when watching a western. Because when done right they can be a very exciting movie expierience.

September 5, 2016

The Western genre is one that has struggled to find its own two feet to stand on in recent years. _Jane Got a Gun_ certainly does not buck that trend. Also I'm pretty sure not a single one of these Wild West folks was American.

_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

October 4, 2016

**A woman's preparation to fight the outlaws.**

Probably on underrated film, but for me, I'm sure it is an underrated film. From the director of 'Warrior', another excellent film to include in his filmography. A well written screenplay, but that's where the problem is according to those did not like it. Because it was kind of 'all's well, ends well' story. That does not mean it is full of cliché, maybe they expected the film to be more harsh a… read the rest.

**A woman's preparation to fight the outlaws.**

Probably on underrated film, but for me, I'm sure it is an underrated film. From the director of 'Warrior', another excellent film to include in his filmography. A well written screenplay, but that's where the problem is according to those did not like it. Because it was kind of 'all's well, ends well' story. That does not mean it is full of cliché, maybe they expected the film to be more harsh and violent like most of the high profile western films do.

Sorry to those who did not enjoy it, but I did. It was nothing like only for men, but still R rated. Yep, I understand the last 10-15 minutes was so intentional, so what, the story wrapped perfectly in a right way. I must appreciate the cast, particularly the lead two actors, Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton. This film is not an opportunity to give the best character display, but everyone did their parts quite finely.

Ewan McGregor was a disappointment with his useless role. I mean it was a good one, but not made for him. I think the villain character lacks the toughness. That leaves it a one sided theme, so you might not know how the developments happen, but you will know which way is it heading in the earliest. Particularly as it was focused more on the romance, despite it is not a romance theme. Though there is a twist and many turns in the narration. Overall film was very entertaining, partly predictable, yet totally worth a watch if you keep your expectation locked in a safe afar while watching it.

_8/10_

show less

January 19, 2017

Them Bishop boys are coming for you? You don't need a gunslinger. You need a goddamn regiment.

Jane Got a Gun is directed by Gavin O'Connor and collectively written by Brian Duffield, Anthony Tambakis and Joel Edgerton. It stars Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor, Noah Emmerich, Boyd Holbrook and Rodrigo Santoro. Music is by Marcello De Francisci and Lisa Gerrard and cinematography is by Mandy Walker.

Jane Hammond (Portman) has t… read the rest.

Them Bishop boys are coming for you? You don't need a gunslinger. You need a goddamn regiment.

Jane Got a Gun is directed by Gavin O'Connor and collectively written by Brian Duffield, Anthony Tambakis and Joel Edgerton. It stars Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor, Noah Emmerich, Boyd Holbrook and Rodrigo Santoro. Music is by Marcello De Francisci and Lisa Gerrard and cinematography is by Mandy Walker.

Jane Hammond (Portman) has to turn to her ex lover, Dan Frost (Edgerton), for help when it's revealed that the notorious Bishop gang are heading her way in search of her husband Bill (Emmerich).

It's going to be one of those films more talked about for what it could have been than what it is. Changes in production staff were unbound, from director, writer, photographer and some big name cast changes, it was a production blighted and destined to be on a loser. It hasn't helped that with it being a slow paced character based picture, and a Western at that, the market for a fan base was already running low on potential supporters. So what we left with?

It undoubtedly is one for hard core Western fans only, it's hard to envisage newcomers entering into the genre for the first time, perhaps lured by the casting of Portman, being won over to the point of seeking out other classic Westerns of past and present. Yet it's got a lot going for it, because if you have the want, then it may just take a second viewing to fully absorb and enjoy.

At its core it's a straight Oater of redemption, opportunities waylaid by fate, and of course a good old good versus bad axis. Relying on a flashback structure to set up the character dynamics, it can get a bit disorientating at times, hence the shout out for a second viewing. However, it may not be the perfect way to build the principal characters, but they are worth the investment for there's a big emotional pull there.

Having laid the foundation for the first two thirds of the pic, we shift to good old honest violence, for siege read backs against the wall, and not without invention, in fact there's much resourcefulness on show, with Jane at times very much leading the way. The last third pays off handsomely, even if there's the (arguably) inevitable sugar coated candy to swallow as part of the final deal. Cast are dandy and turning in perfs of note, though it needed more of McGregor's John Bishop, because with what little he gets he does make a villainous mark.

It looks terrific, Walker's photography bringing to mind the genre work of Roger Deakins, with the New Mexico locations blistering in their beauty, and while the sound mix for dialogue exchanges is a little poor, the musical score is thumping in its tonal appreciations. It's tricky to recommend with confidence even to Western fans, especially in a year when "Jane" had to compete with the more rambunctious Magificent Seven reboot, but give it a chance if you liked something like Slow West, and you may just be pleasantly surprised. 7/10

show less

December 12, 2025

**_Bleak Western with Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton and Ewan McGregor_**

This was shot in the spring of 2013, but not released until January, 2016, which shows that it sat on the shelf for a while. There were other production issues during the first year of conception in 2012, such as cast & crew changes. The original director walked off a day before shooting was scheduled after a three-day standoff with the key producer. I suppose we should … read the rest.

**_Bleak Western with Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton and Ewan McGregor_**

This was shot in the spring of 2013, but not released until January, 2016, which shows that it sat on the shelf for a while. There were other production issues during the first year of conception in 2012, such as cast & crew changes. The original director walked off a day before shooting was scheduled after a three-day standoff with the key producer. I suppose we should be happy that someone cared enough to even give it a final edit and release.

Forgetting all that, it’s comparable to Westerns like “Sweetwater” and “The Proposition,” but isn’t as effective, although it’s superior to “South of Heaven, West of Hell.” Some viewers complain about the constant flashbacks, which they found confusing, but I didn’t have a problem with this element (after 30-40 minutes, anyway). I just felt that a few scenes came across tedious and could’ve been tightened up or better executed. On the positive side, the ending is unexpected and great IMHO.

It runs 1h 38m and was shot in Santa Fe in north-central New Mexico.

GRADE: B-

show less