7/10
Jane Got A Past, Too
20 July 2018
The thing about this movie is that you have to have some "stick-to-it-iveness" to see it through to the end and really appreciate the story. The first time I tried to watch it I failed. I gave up about halfway in. It had put me to sleep a couple of times and I just wasn't able to focus on it. It seemed overly slow-paced; it dragged. But there was something there. Something needed to be revealed. And that's the key. There is, indeed, something there. Jane (played by Natalie Portman) is actually a very interesting character, and her story is slowly (very slowly) revealed in a series of flashbacks. In the present, she's married to a man (Noah Emmericah) who was once an outlaw and is being hunted down by the outlaws he used to run with, and she has a five year old daughter. With her husband shot and wounded and the outlaws coming, she needs help, and she runs to Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) - the man to whom she was once engaged, who by happy (perhaps too happy and therefore too contrived) just happens to live in town. Together, they take on the Bishop Boys.

Jane's past is what makes this movie work. If you can wait for it to be revealed, it makes Jane a much more interesting and sympathetic character. Without giving anything essential away, let's just say that in the past she and Dan had a life and a future that was thrown into turmoil by the outbreak of the Civil War. The rest of the flashbacks stitch together what happened to both Jane and Dan and eventually do lead you up to an explanation of what's happening in the present. Her past is slowly revealed, so you have to be patient as you watch, but I thought (the second time I watched this) that it was worth the wait.

If you go into this expecting a typical western full of gunfights, you will be disappointed. It really is more about how Jane's past led to the present, and there's really very little gunplay in this until the last 20 minutes or so of the movie. There were apparently a lot of production problems involved with this (cast changes, etc.) and there are some who might be evaluating the movie because of its production history rather than its actual quality. The sets are also fairly minimalistic. There's nothing really fancy about this movie. With a budget of about $25 million, it's fairly low budget compared to some of the well known movie released around the same time, and that does show in the sets, which are limited and bare. But the performances - especially by Portman and Edgerton) are very good. (7/10)
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed