Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

HeadlinesExotic Boring

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

stevenrotherforth Jane got a gunThe performances by the leads in this movie allow it stand a little taller than your run of the mill western. Never the less this picture is just that, run of the mill, ordinary, nothing to write home about. The story of Jane (Natalie Portman) who asks for the help of her former lover to protect her shot up husband from some nasty men. It's a simple premise but not that well delivered. Ewan McGregor plays a convincing villain with what little screen time he has. As does a rather undernourished Boyd Holbrook. Joel Eggerton proves once again he's every bit the leading man but no amount of on screen talent can raise this movie above the norm. The whole picture seems rushed and as if many a scene was most likely left on the cutting room floor. This film runs lean at 1hr 38mins and you get the sense that there's been some meddling here and there. McGregor's underdeveloped character warrants this as does the flash back scenes which are merely inserted to help at least give the audience an inkling of what's gone on. Jane got a gun isn't a bad Western but in today's world where they are few and far between it hasn't much competition to compare it against.

joncha "Unforgiven" meets "True Women." The worst thing about this movie is the title. The implication is that, once her husband went down, Jane grabbed a gun and did a lot of her own fighting, but as shown by the altercation with the cretin in the back alley, she needed more help even though she was packing heat. The movie can't decide if it's mainly Jane's story, or that of Jane and her former fiancé, Dan Frost, teaming up to protect her wounded husband and defend their hardscrabble ranch against a band of demented desperados. Considering the trouble this film went through in its opening days of production, with the director quitting and new actors having to take roles when others dropped out, you can see why Natalie Portman (who co-produced it) had such a sour expression most of the time.

RustyShacklefordd With the history behind the troubled production and numerous delays for this film, I had prepared myself for the worst. While Jane Got a Gun isn't the trainwreck I expected it to be, it's still a snooze of a western that won't do any favors to reigniting a dead genre.The two things that helped keep me from falling asleep are the performances and the production. The cast actually does a great job despite having to work with weak material. The production also is really good here with some decent cinematography and captures a gritty version of the wild west that exhibits the dirtiness we don't always get to see in westerns.The big problem with the film is the characters. Despite a talented cast who is trying their best to work with what they have, they can't make these characters work. This is because the script provides barely any development to these characters aside from what is presented in several flashbacks to feel completely out-of-place and detached from the rest of film. Despite being the title character, Jane is giving almost nothing to do here and Joel Edgarton seems to be the only character is is bringing some life into this dull western. Combine this with a sluggish pace, there is almost nothing to invest in.As someone who want's to see more westerns in the mainstream, I really wanted to like Jane Got a Gun and somewhere in it there's a decent film, but it's trapped behind a poor script and weak direction. I honestly wonder how this film would've turned out if it hadn't faced so much trouble during it's production instead of the misfire we've got.

tom-43722 I literally didn't recognize Ewan McGregor throughout the entire film. I didn't know which of the outlaws was John Bishop until I looked it up on the internet later. Sadly, that's not a compliment to Ewan's acting but simply a note of how much he's changed since Revenge of the Sith. He's a talented actor - I think he actually surpassed Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi - but John Bishop didn't stand out as a character. The only thing I can remember about him is that he never killed children. That showed a hint of honour, which is good, but apart from that, there was nothing notable about the character. I couldn't even tell which villain was which because on the back of my DVD case it said Ewan was playing a guy called Colin. I kept waiting for someone to call him Colin so that I could know that the guy playing him was one of the three greatest actors in the Star Wars prequels, the other two being Christopher Lee and Samuel L Jackson.As someone who actually liked the Star Wars prequels, even though I know they're flawed, I feel like Natalie Portman wasn't as good in this film. For example, when she found out that her daughter was presumed dead whilst Jane was a prostitute, she was way too over-the-top. Yes, I get it, Jane was upset that her daughter was presumed dead but good god, could she have opened her mouth any wider in that scene? When Padme found out about Anakin's crimes on Mustafar, she was just as distraught but she didn't look ridiculous. It doesn't help that the only reason Jane stood out at all in the film was because she was the only woman who had any real presence in the story. She wasn't a particularly interesting character.The flashbacks were annoying too and it's partially because of them that the plot was so incoherent. Half the time, I didn't know what the hell was going on and only managed to make sense of it by reading a summary on the internet.Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman have both done great work in the past, including Star Wars and I have no doubt that they will do great work in the future, but sadly I think this movie represents a low point in their careers.