A_Real_Hip_Dude

The characters development is sufficient, the connections to the protagonists are established easily, and the visuals are stupendous. One of the best parts of this movie is the way they film and present Supermans powers. This is nothing like the Avengers (which I also loved), it's just a different way of presenting super-hero stories. Highly recommended; it's something to see, with iconic screen moments that have to be viewed in a theater. The fighting is over-the-top awesome, without contrived action just to drag out the movie. Lastly, the references to additional characters that will be appearing soon are dropped in just briefly enough to draw a connection without trying to do too much. Long story short: It all works, and it works very well.

Because Blockbuster video had a section titled "Westerns" people seem to have come to the expectation that anything taking place during the 1800's has to follow a certain formula, centering around gunfights. But really, "Western" is more a category for it's time placement, which can fall into different genres. Jane Got A Gun is first and foremost a Drama-Suspense-quasi-romance; it's a story that could be told, in the large view, anywhere or anytime. But then there are the particular details of this story that make it unique to the west and help to dictate the decisions that have brought the characters to where they are in life.

The good-guy vs bad-guy line of this movie is somewhat standard, but the characters who are caught up in it have a uniqueness to them that makes the story worth seeing. Of course, with sub-par acting it would not be so easy to take, but each of the main characters plays their roles very effectively; especially Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton.

Some have complained that the movie is not feminist enough, but you can't end the movie with Portman being elected the first female president in 1880. No matter how cool that might seem for some, it would take the movie from a well-grounded, realistic western to the realm of fantasy. This is a much more pragmatic feminism that doesn't get caught up in anachronistic wish fulfillment (think of Mattie Ross from True Grit).

Lastly, I'll say that the movie (and director Gavin McConnor) does a great job of giving just the right amount of insight to each of the characters to give us the proper level of connection to each. There are ways in which we could have become too overly sympathetic, or conversely, too jaded to certain characters, making it difficult to reconcile the ending, but as it was it all wrapped up efficiently and effectively.

Definitely recommend this movie, but keep in mind it is a slow-build, character driven, western story. Not a bang-bang shoot 'em up.

I know there is supposed to be an element of depth as rancher and father Dan Evans (Christian Bale) struggles to find out what kind of man he is, but the process of how this plays out is just painful. Aside from Bale's performance, the majority of this movie is really just silly in it's ridiculous story execution. Too many elements don't play true to the old west. In this movie the setting of the old west is just that and nothing more; it's a backdrop to a story. But it's not real enough for the environment and place-in-time to be something that really impacts the characters.

As an example, in Tombstone, the atmosphere contributed to the circumstances. The time and place, and the political entanglements, fed directly into what was going on with each of those characters. Conversely, in Yuma, the "Old West" is just a back drop and the setting and characters are worked to fit the twists and turns of the plot. It could easily be told in modern times, or probably any other time.

I do think that the movie could be a lot better if the characters were shaped to behave more like real people from that time. However, as a fun western it is totally understandable that the average movie-goer would enjoy it, but as a well-done western it really is lacking.