Jane Got a Gun

.. a ranch and a bunch of other stuff (including something attributed to men when they are fearless/a lot of courage). While many have seen or rather predicted the death of the Western "genre" (some might argue it's not a genre itself, just putting this out there), it's still alive and kicking and this movie is testament to that fact.

Natalie Portman is a great actress and she saw something in the character here, that made her want to play the role. It had to do with both the toughness and the vulnerability of her. The script may be predictable (the flashbacks give out bits and peaces, but you can put it together far ahead of the time, so I don't think there are too many surprises, except maybe for the ending), but you can't fault the setups and everything the film does to portray what is going on. Some might feel it's too long and there is definitely not enough action for others, but those who stick with it get a nice story

After years of a troubled production, Jane Got a Gun finally got to the big screen, albeit in the month for cinema to dump their weak films, January. Although for me, that may have improved my enjoyment of the picture. I went in barely seeing any of the trailers or TV spots (were there any?) and with barely any expectations, so perhaps that improved my likeness of Jane Got a Gun.

The film stars Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, and Ewan McGregor in a production that once had names like Bradley Cooper, Michael Fassbender, and Jude Law attached among others. I actually think the ending cast turned out pretty good as Portman and Edgerton shared unexpectedly great chemistry. I think the problem with the film is that I'm not sure the film had anything new to add to the world of cinema. There isn't anything special about Jane Got a Gun, but it is a well made film by Gavin O'Connor. His last film Warrior, is one of my favorite films of all time, and while it's nowhere near as good as that film, I think I can consider it one of the first surprises of 2016.

O'Connor's choice of using flashbacks to fill in the gaps between the years in which Edgerton and Portman are apart, was a mistake. We get all of the character development we need in a few sit down scenes between the two later on in the film. The ending is also an extremely well handled shootout climax even if McGregor's character is very under developed. Overall, I think this a solid entry in for the western genre and O'Connor's filmography. But I also think that it doesn't feel like a polished project even though it has taken years to get to the big screen. There's plenty to like, including the incredible lead performances, but there's also plenty to shrug your shoulders about. No matter, I definitely enjoyed my experience watching Jane Got a Gun.

+Portman and Edgerton

+Tense finale

+Much better than expectations after a troubled production

-Still doesn't feel finished

-No need for flashbacks

7.2/10

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

I went into this movie with no expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. It's being called "slow," which I suppose it is, by Thor and Iron Man standards, but not in a way that bothered me - I wasn't expecting an action-packed story, because, well, I don't mind if a movie has dialog. I thought the pacing was great, and I loved the way the audience slowly finds out what happened, through flashbacks from several different points of view. I didn't mind that Jane wasn't a super hero, just a determined woman, who was strong because life demanded it of her. It felt very realistic. It's not a perfect movie, but it's worth seeing for great performances and gorgeous scenery (filmed on location in New Mexico). I think this movie will do well on video or streaming, if it finds the right audience (that is, people like me) - I'm certainly telling my friends about it.

I was among the lucky people to have seen the movie premier in Paris tonight. Going in I was mildly excited for the film, wondering how much of an effect the tumultuous development had on the final product.

Jane Got a Gun is interesting for sure but it's slooow. The first two acts are desperately trying to built tension with a slow dead like pace, and long silences, that only puts the audience to sleep. I actually dozed off a few times. It's a shame because I think there's something special about it.

The story is good with a few minor surprises and solid acting. Even in the long silences the actors were engaged and conveyed the adequate emotions. Joel Edgerton and Natalie Portman have some great moments, their performances are riddles by subtleties that make for powerful scenes, ruined by shots a couple of seconds too long. The movie picks up though, it come as a breath of fresh air, after slogging our way through the first two acts.

So after all of the cast and recast of actors and directors what suffered? My guess the editing because some scenes could have been cut short while maintaining the message. Jane Got a Gun could probably be one of those movies that will become a cult classic.

By @garcwrites