Calamity Janef

A nice mumbo jumbo of a "Western" , having unlikely and unrealistic characters, spearheaded by Calamity Jane, though ironically and convincingly played by the multifaceted actress that Emily Bett Rickards is. It is mindlessly enjoyable and believe me or not, would have made a nice 6 to 8 parts mini-series.

Hope Stephen Amell does more quality productions, series and movies alike, clean-shaves more and would make a nice operative. If Henry Cavill can do it, he sure as hell can too.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4
• Production value/impact: 2
• Development: 6
• Realism: 2.5
• Entertainment: 4.5
• Acting/self: 5.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 3
• Flow: 5.5
• Western: 4
• Ending: 2.5.

Ready to settle down for an enjoyable new western movie than you have found it with Calamity Jane. Good nicely paced story - fast real looking action scenes and realistic gun fights and physical fights. Striking cinematography of the western landscape. An enjoyable western to watch. Realistic and natural sounding dialog that makes you feel that you are right back in the 1800's in the fabled Dakota territory. Deadwood was a rip roaring place full of rough and tough characters such as Wild Bill Hickok and Calamity Jane and the characters in this movie seem very true to life and believable and are well played by the selected actors.

It started out good and went south from there.

These Writers don't no anything about Calamity Jane or the wild west. The producers are sadly off base and the casting, was Lame as hell. Well not much more to say about this except I have to post 600 words to be able to post it. Yeah it is that bad a film. Too bad because Calamity Jane was a colorful character to say the least in real life. Perhaps the producers should go visit Deadwood or read a book or two and get some better actors. And what was up with Abagail? Braces were hard to come by in the 1800 out west, unless you were a rich eastern era.

Poor acting and direction is what putting me off. Not sure why the first review had it as 10? Perhaps their relative who enjoyed the family show. There are plenty of actions and kilings just like typical western movies. I suggest the old western movies had alot better actors then this film has. It is like watching C Grade western movie with students from drama school. They definitely need a far better director who can able to see what the audience can see. Nah, it was a waste of time for me. If you don't mind poor acting and enjoy watching them like on stage, then this will be you. I give a three.

In 2024 I expected that they would be able to produce a movie far better than in 1953. It's far from that! Bad amaturish acting with an overexaggerated played accent. The sets and clothing are not authentic enough. Most scenes are predictable. The jail scene, the poker scene, the scene at the mine. With more creativity this could have been a better movie.

The good part? I have to think! Maybe it's the part with the undertaker. It comes pretty close to some exitement. But as said, I had to think about it.

I had to do my best to keep watching. All in all very a very dissapointing western for me.