VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,9/10
24.675
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Una donna chiede aiuto al suo ex amante per salvare il marito fuorilegge da una gang che vuole ucciderlo.Una donna chiede aiuto al suo ex amante per salvare il marito fuorilegge da una gang che vuole ucciderlo.Una donna chiede aiuto al suo ex amante per salvare il marito fuorilegge da una gang che vuole ucciderlo.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
Kristin Hansen
- Woman #1
- (as Kristen Hansen)
Robb Janov
- Fiddler
- (as Rob Janov)
Recensioni in evidenza
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
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
Heck of a Western, I expected it would be good before I viewed it when I saw Joel Edgerton had a major role in the movie
Edgerton can really bring it as a lead or support role. And he didn't disappoint.
But I was extremely impressed with Portman. She has picked some stinker roles in the past however she proved IMO she is no longer just the pretty face and she has honed her craft to be a very good actor.
Blows my mind that IMDb is only giving this movie a rating of 5.9 I am a big fan of westerns and I don't hand out high ratings with a whim or fancy.
Good to see Ewan McGregor in a small role. I thought he nailed his part, as well.
Edgerton can really bring it as a lead or support role. And he didn't disappoint.
But I was extremely impressed with Portman. She has picked some stinker roles in the past however she proved IMO she is no longer just the pretty face and she has honed her craft to be a very good actor.
Blows my mind that IMDb is only giving this movie a rating of 5.9 I am a big fan of westerns and I don't hand out high ratings with a whim or fancy.
Good to see Ewan McGregor in a small role. I thought he nailed his part, as well.
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
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
.. 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
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
A nice, solid, little Western starring Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton. The two were engaged before Edgerton had to go off to war, but she took off west after not having heard from him in three years. She ended up in New Mexico married to a former outlaw (Noah Emmerich) who saved her from a white slaver (Ewan McGregor? That doesn't seem right; I definitely didn't recognize him if he was the villain, and the character name on IMDb seems wrong, too). Most of that history is told in flashbacks throughout the picture. The main bulk of the story has Emmerich wounded by McGregor and his men. Portman has to defend him, and she rounds up Edgerton, who settled in the area after he found out what happened to his former fiancée, to help her protect them. The story's simple, but Portman and Edgerton carry the film nicely. They have a believable sense of history between them. It's not an action-packed film, but it delivers well when it gets to the climax. There are some weaknesses in the details of the film, especially in the flashbacks, which often seem skeletal in their scripting (Joel Edgerton co-wrote the screenplay with two others). Not great, but good.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAfter a long period of production issues since 2012, involving director and casting changes, principal photography began on March 21, 2013. Jane Got a Gun (2015) was released in Europe in November 2015, and in the U.S. on January 29, 2016. It was filmed on location in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
- BlooperEarly in the film, Jane says she is looking for gunslinger, the term gunslinger was not used until the 1920's.
- Citazioni
Cunny Charlie: Maybe ten... maybe a hundred
Dan Frost: [finishes him off with a point blank shot] Minus one
- Colonne sonoreWhen You and I Were Young, Maggie
Written by George W. Johnson and J.A. Butterfield
Arranged and Performed by Dave Bourne
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Jane Got a Gun?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Tay Súng Nữ Miền Tây
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 25.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1.513.793 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 835.572 USD
- 31 gen 2016
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 3.067.531 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 38 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Jane Got a Gun (2015) officially released in India in Hindi?
Rispondi