Jane Got A Gun (western - Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Joel Edgerton)

[KOQ24]

If O'Connor manages to make this curse of a movie even halfway decent ,he should get an oscar nom

[jvince]

FWIW, this has been screened about as many times as Area 51.

[cinemaphile]

I know this film got an earlier release in some foreign markets. Anyone seen it yet?

[jamesdevil]

Awful title.

[spanky87]

No release in Canada!? What the hell Weinstein co?

[Holmes]

After he is nearly shot to death by a band of outlaws, fur trader and reformed criminal Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) rides home to his wife Jane (Natalie Portman) and their daughter. As he lays bleeding, he warns her the dangerous mob will come again, so she enlists a reluctant guardian: Union hero and former lover Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton). Jane and the two men reflect on their complicated and painful shared history as they prepare for a last stand. The pulpily titled Jane Got a Gun is already infamous for its tortured road to the silver screen: Scottish art-house director Lynne Ramsay quit the production just a day or so before filming began amid legal and personal conflict, precipitating a litany of changes in front of and behind the camera. Later, original distributor Relativity imploded during post-production; as a result, the film was sold to the Weinstein Company and ambivalently scheduled for release during the January doldrums.

This unenviable lineage invites contrary readings: it is a bit mystifying why so many incredibly famous and talented people endured so much headache-inducing behind-the-scenes drama to realize what is ultimately a minor siege Western with inconsistent pacing and an overly tidy ending. There is no major (feminist, genre-upending) revisionism nor is it a particularly detailed exploration of love and life on the frontier. The prestige of the people involved and those almost involved (Ramsay, Michael Fassbender, Jude Law) indicated, at least to me, a more intricate, lyrical, and/or visceral experience on par with The Proposition, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, or the 2010 True Grit, but this was either never the case or myriad idiosyncrasies were smoothed along the way.

Having said this, honorable replacement director Gavin O'Connor has not made a bad film. Far from it. As a small-scale genre exercise, it delivers certain pleasures, including expansive, parched vistas; a degree of slowly burning suspense culminating in a well-executed set piece; and dynamic lead performances by Portman and a particularly charismatic and stout Edgerton, as well as a welcome dose of camp antagonism courtesy of an underutilized, but game Ewan McGregor.

B

[movielib]

I knew nothing of this film's troubled production when I saw it yesterday. I didn't expect that much, even with the outstanding cast because RT had a low score (albeit with only a handful of reviews) but I was pleasantly surprised. There are still only 13 reviews (5 positive) and I wonder if the studio prevented critics from seeing it prior to release.

This film is far, far from great but it's a decent way to spend a little over an hour and a half (especially among the usual crop of bad January movies) and the cast, particularly Portman and Edgerton, elevate the movie a good star over what it may otherwise have been. I liked the slow pace although it may turn off some people. It deserves a bigger audience than it will get.

***½/*****

Edit: Voted in the poll and rounded up to four stars.

[Holmes]

I dig and largely agree with what Variety wrote in their review of the film:

There are movies that can make you feel nostalgic for a more innocent time — i.e., the pre-Internet era — when audiences (and critics) could approach each new release unburdened by detailed knowledge of its production history. “Jane Got a Gun,” a solidly made and conventionally satisfying Western, is one of those movies. For those who have perused the countless accounts of last-minute cast changes, musical directors’ chairs and repeatedly delayed release dates, it may be difficult to objectively judge what actually appears on screen here without being distracted by thoughts of what could have been, or should have been.

To be sure, a hefty percentage of the folks most likely to enjoy an old-fashioned oater such as this normally won’t devote massive quantities of time to consuming showbiz blogs and trade papers. But those unplugged genre aficionados may not know “Jane Got a Gun” exists, since the Weinstein Company opted to open it with only slightly more advance notice than is normally afforded a traffic accident. By the time word reaches most interested parties, this luckless sagebrush saga will have vamoosed from the megaplexes.

When it reaches home-screen platforms, however, “Jane Got a Gun” almost certainly will find a receptive audience for its revisionist yet respectful spin on genre conventions. Indeed, the only thing about it that might rankle traditionalists is the sporadic use of four- and five-letter words. (Yes, there still are people who get upset by the sort of thing. And many of those people feel under-served because Hollywood seldom gives them this sort of movie.)

[cinemaphile]

Poll added to post ratings

[Rinzler]

I enjoyed the film. I'm a little biased as I love Portman and wanted to support the film as a fan of hers, but beyond that, I did enjoy it. It took a little long for me to get into it, but once certain reveals take place, the film draws you in more and more. I look forward to revisiting it on BD. I just hope it doesn't crash and burn too badly at the box office. Such a shame it was so troubled.

Here's an EPK video which has Edgerton and Portman addressing the obstacles the production hit. While they have to keep things cheery for the video, it is still interesting to see them mentioning it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLMtU5WcdoE

[bowlingbilly10]

So my carmike I work at got fifty shades of black but not Jane got a gun smh. Guess I'll have to wait for the Blu Ray for Jane got a gun I was actually looking forward to this one.

[cinemaphile]

you might want to see this ASAP if you wanna catch it in theaters. My theater is already losing it this Friday. One week and gone.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by Rinzler

I enjoyed the film. I'm a little biased as I love Portman and wanted to support the film as a fan of hers, but beyond that, I did enjoy it. It took a little long for me to get into it, but once certain reveals take place, the film draws you in more and more. I look forward to revisiting it on BD. I just hope it doesn't crash and burn too badly at the box office. Such a shame it was so troubled.

Here's an EPK video which has Edgerton and Portman addressing the obstacles the production hit. While they have to keep things cheery for the video, it is still interesting to see them mentioning it.

[Show spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLMtU5WcdoE

Aaaahhh Natalie...still as beautiful as ever.

[format916]

i was really interested in the cinematography and the overall look of the film. some of the music was cool too. the story was whatever too me, coulda been better. but not a bad movie.

[FilmKoala]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Natal...rs-109567.html

I'm kind of in between funds at the moment so I wasn't able to go see this last weekend, and it may look like I won't get to at all. Opening weekend box office was less than a million. Which was expected with how little they promoted the thing.

[jacobsever]

Finally got around to seeing this, at 10:35pm on a Thursday night. I noticed that as of tomorrow (well, today), it's no longer playing in ANY theaters around me. From being on about 12 screens across the city, to zero. So it was now or never.

Anyway, I gave it 4 stars, which is definitely being a little generous. Considering 5 of my top 10 films of 2015 were Westerns, I was going into this with a positive bias. Not to mention, my undying love for Natalie Portman. (Yes, even after watching The Other Woman). Not to mention, I recently caught up with Black Mass, and really enjoy Edgerton as an actor. I gotta say, I did NOT recognize Ewan McGregor at all. I kept waiting for him to show up, until I looked up the Wiki page and realized he's been on screen a majority of the film. That damn mustache.

Anyway, the film itself was pretty good. I loved the cinematography. The camera movement and composition of the shots were great, and the color was wonderful. The landscape was a perfect setting, and didn't feel modern day at all. There were no visible telephone poles or wires, nothing that would make you believe this film wasn't actually taking place in the 1800's. Portman was good. Edgerton was great. The story itself chugged along, and even though the majority of action comes in the last 1/4 of the film, I enjoyed the first half more. I loved the build up, the back stories, etc.

I honestly just don't comprehend all the negative reviews and press it's getting. I don't know what these critics were expecting walking into the film, and I think their opinions were tainted by the troubled production and release of this film. Had everyone gone into this with an open mind, and judged it as a film by itself, there's no way this would be sitting at a 33%.

[FilmKoala]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Finally got around to seeing this, at 10:35pm on a Thursday night. I noticed that as of tomorrow (well, today), it's no longer playing in ANY theaters around me. From being on about 12 screens across the city, to zero. So it was now or never.

Anyway, I gave it 4 stars, which is definitely being a little generous. Considering 5 of my top 10 films of 2015 were Westerns, I was going into this with a positive bias. Not to mention, my undying love for Natalie Portman. (Yes, even after watching The Other Woman). Not to mention, I recently caught up with Black Mass, and really enjoy Edgerton as an actor. I gotta say, I did NOT recognize Ewan McGregor at all. I kept waiting for him to show up, until I looked up the Wiki page and realized he's been on screen a majority of the film. That damn mustache.

Anyway, the film itself was pretty good. I loved the cinematography. The camera movement and composition of the shots were great, and the color was wonderful. The landscape was a perfect setting, and didn't feel modern day at all. There were no visible telephone poles or wires, nothing that would make you believe this film wasn't actually taking place in the 1800's. Portman was good. Edgerton was great. The story itself chugged along, and even though the majority of action comes in the last 1/4 of the film, I enjoyed the first half more. I loved the build up, the back stories, etc.

I honestly just don't comprehend all the negative reviews and press it's getting. I don't know what these critics were expecting walking into the film, and I think their opinions were tainted by the troubled production and release of this film. Had everyone gone into this with an open mind, and judged it as a film by itself, there's no way this would be sitting at a 33%.

Not to go off topic and undercut your post about the film, but what does that mean?

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by FilmKoala

Not to go off topic and undercut your post about the film, but what does that mean?

It means that this



is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

[FilmKoala]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

It means that this



is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I liked that movie quite a bit.

[Rinzler]

Blu-ray pre-order is up - http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Got-a-Gun...=ATVPDKIKX0DER