Jane Got a Gun (2015) User Reviews

Serviceable Western Film

[ThomasDrufke · 7/10 · 29 January 2016]

After years of a troubled production, Jane Got a Gun finally got to the big screen, albeit in the month for cinema to dump their weak films, January. Although for me, that may have improved my enjoyment of the picture. I went in barely seeing any of the trailers or TV spots (were there any?) and with barely any expectations, so perhaps that improved my likeness of Jane Got a Gun.

The film stars Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, and Ewan McGregor in a production that once had names like Bradley Cooper, Michael Fassbender, and Jude Law attached among others. I actually think the ending cast turned out pretty good as Portman and Edgerton shared unexpectedly great chemistry. I think the problem with the film is that I'm not sure the film had anything new to add to the world of cinema. There isn't anything special about Jane Got a Gun, but it is a well made film by Gavin O'Connor. His last film Warrior, is one of my favorite films of all time, and while it's nowhere near as good as that film, I think I can consider it one of the first surprises of 2016.

O'Connor's choice of using flashbacks to fill in the gaps between the years in which Edgerton and Portman are apart, was a mistake. We get all of the character development we need in a few sit down scenes between the two later on in the film. The ending is also an extremely well handled shootout climax even if McGregor's character is very under developed. Overall, I think this a solid entry in for the western genre and O'Connor's filmography. But I also think that it doesn't feel like a polished project even though it has taken years to get to the big screen. There's plenty to like, including the incredible lead performances, but there's also plenty to shrug your shoulders about. No matter, I definitely enjoyed my experience watching Jane Got a Gun.

+Portman and Edgerton

+Tense finale

+Much better than expectations after a troubled production

-Still doesn't feel finished

-No need for flashbacks

7.2/10

Them Bishop boys are coming for you? You don't need a gunslinger. You need a goddamn regiment.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 19 January 2017]

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

uneven, but better than the disastrous production might have led to you to believe

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 12 May 2016]

Jane Got a Gun is a good example of what a movie can do for you if you're going in with certain expectations, especially when they're of an exceptional variety. In the case of this, the word 'troubled' is putting it lightly for the production, as numerous stars (Fassbender quit, Jude Law was briefly hired, as was Bradley Cooper, and Edgerton actually had the role of the *villain*, not the sort of co-hero), and the director (Lynn Ramsey) left while in the midst of shooting over problems with the producer and a lack of final cut. It's the kind of production that has 'disaster' as its mark, and that's not a fair way to immediately judge a film, at least not initially. What if this was the next superb western, in a time when there seem to be a good amount considering how few westerns come out nowadays (i.e. The Hateful Eight, Bone Tomahawk, and Slow West all in the past year or so)?

So I went into this with an open mind, to see what is in front of me (via Warrior director Gavin O'Connor) and left with the opinion that simply... it's OK. Sometimes a little more than OK, and mostly thanks to a game cast. The premise is somewhat simple initially, that a woman finds that her husband (Natalie Portman and Noah Emmerich respectively) has been shot and though she's tending to her wounds she realizes from him more men are coming after him, so she goes and hires a man (Joel Edgerton) who she used to know... actually in some intimate ways.

The movie has a flashback structure that is not really too new. Matter of fact, by 2016 this sort of thing has become kind of tired; of course the drama is meant to be this siege that develops at their home: they can't ride away since Emmerich's Bill Hammond is too injured, so they'll have to set up some things to make sure they aren't caught like fish in a barrel when Ewan McGregor and his men come. But the bigger issue is that the movie has just a lot of peaks and valleys as far as compelling scenes; when people do pull guns on one another and there's set-up with that we see (the plan to fortify the outside of Jane's home with liquid explosives and such is clever), it's exciting.

What seemed to not work quite so well are the quieter scenes, where confessions are made and that drama has to be tapped as to who did what to who in relationships and the old wounds being scorched. There is one really tumultuous sequence where Bill discovers Jane inside of what seems to be a brothel (or it just is) and after he kills a bunch of people she starts sobbing. Moments of high drama register but it's the quiet moments that fall a little flat, or they don't register as they should in a movie that depends on their quiet moments for impact. And it's not so much the actors at fault - Portman and Edgerton are formidable, and McGregor makes a fine figure with that mustache (a bit of a chip off the Val Kilmer in Tombstone block), and one of America's underrated character actors, Noah Emmerich, is terrific even as a lot of his performance is post-shooting in a bed - but with the script.

Strange since the screenplay was originally on the "Black-List" (best scripts produced that got submitted, across the world basically), and Edgerton actually did work on the script too (whether this was before the production problems or during I'm sure I don't know). It's hard to know if it was due to the producers not allowing final cut - a big reason why Ramsey left, which might have been wise - but as a Weinstein Company release it seems a little fishy, like there may have been better material that got left out or moments put together that don't quite fit.

And yet for all these odd feelings watching it, overall I would recommend it to fans of Westerns (believe me, I've seen weaker offerings), and the climax is really solid. James Got a Gun has some original moments, and yet wrestles with becoming generic at the same time: bad-asses pulling guns on one another has been done for so long and in such gritty tones. Maybe it's missing... a tiny bit of humor(?) It's a strange movie to peg what doesn't work about it, but it's not all bad. For all the hard times it took to get to being completed, I'm glad it exists in some form.

A solid enough western with a strong female lead

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 14 April 2023]

This film opens in a remote New Mexico homestead in 1871. Bill 'Ham' Hammond returns home to his wife Jane and their five year old daughter. He is seriously injured following a run in with the Bishop Gang; a group of outlaws he was once part of. He warns that they will be coming for him. She seeks help from neighbour Bill Frost but he is initially unwilling to help; it looks as if she will have to face the gang alone or abandon her husband and flee. As the story progresses as learn more of Jane's past; especially how she is linked to Frost and how she came to be with Ham. Inevitably it all end with a showdown with Bishop and his gang.

When I picked up this film on DVD I knew nothing about it but I enjoy a western so thought it was worth a go. It turned out to be a solid example of the genre even if it will never be considered a classic. The story is simple, which isn't a problem, but it also lacks action for long spell which is. Until the final showdown, which is fairly exciting, we only get a couple of action scenes set in the present and one flashback of Ham rescuing Jane several years previously. The main cast is small. Natalie Portman effectively carries the film as Jane with Joel Egderton providing solid support as Bill. Ewan McGregor is suitably menacing as John Bishop although we don't really see enough of the character. The location used is effective; it looks great and gives a real sense of isolation. Overall I'd say this isn't a must see but would still recommend it to fans of the genre.

She also got a family ...

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 20 May 2016]

.. 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

A decent little Western. Portman and Edgerton, in any case, make it worthwhile.

[zetes · 7/10 · 2 February 2016]

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.

Jane Got a Gun and kind of missed the shot

[Garcwrites · 6/10 · 24 January 2016]

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

Rather disappointing

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 28 May 2018]

JANE GOT A GUN is a disappointingly grungy western that goes through the motions without ever engaging the senses. It's another film that's full of flashbacks but unlike in, say, BRIMSTONE, these feel padded and drag the snail's pace down to a crawl. The film has a murky and digital look to it which I didn't care for and indeed it feels quite depressing. Natalie Portman is the erstwhile heroine but she ends up making way for Joel Edgerton's tough gunslinger for most of the film. The film builds and builds to a climax, but when it occurs it takes place in the dark so that you struggle to see what's going on. Altogether this is rather disappointing and certainly not the mini-epic I was hoping for.

Jane Got A Past, Too

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 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)

Very boring

[Gordon-11 · 14 March 2016]

This complicated the story of a woman who has to seek help from her ex fiancé, when her husband is shot by a violent local gang. Her complicated events and interpersonal relationships over the past seven years is slowly revealed.

Maybe I'm not a fan of Westerns. Even though "Jane Got A Gun" sounds interesting, I find it very boring. Even the first fifteen minutes of it seem like an eternity, and unfortunately the film does not get any better. The story is slow, and it's not helped by the characters are always talking in accents that is hard to understand. Even though the lighting is really well done, I cannot get into the film at all.

With fragmented narrative and awkwardly shot moments, Jane might have the gun but not the spark.

[quincytheodore · 5/10 · 8 March 2016]

At the skin "Jane Got a Gun" might look like a gunslinger action flick, but this is more of a drama set in the Wild West with some action undertone for the backdrop. The visual often displays the scenes with overly dark contrast or extreme close up which is annoyingly jarring at times. Also, having high caliber actor and actress such as Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman doesn't elevate the movie beyond average frontier drama.

Jane (Natalie Portman) is searching for a bouncer to protect her and her wounded husband from a gang of outlaws. The one guy volunteering is her ex-lover, so you can see there's a lot of love triangle plot at play here. Its source material doesn't really offer anything more, there might be a couple of intense sequences, action and twist towards the end, but they are far from remarkable and the journey to reach there is dry.

To its credit, the storytelling attempts two different timelines. The movie will shift from the current events to the ones from the past, it's a particularly nifty effort to highlight the encounter with specific characters and their relationship with the leads. However, the screenplay feels disjointed at times since there's barely any difference between past and present, and the drama from both eras are equally stagnant.

Visual is mostly decent, although it too often shoots the characters' face far too closely, even simple conversation or motion is done needlessly in this manner. There's not adequate cinematography to showcase the gritty frontier atmosphere,, although a few scenery shots are commendable. Action is surprisingly soft, only occurring briefly and sporadically, it's passable but by no means outstanding.

"Jane Got a Gun" is not as exciting as it sounds to be, it's a casual drama that simply happens in Wild West.

Heck of a Western

[bsofakind · 8/10 · 11 March 2016]

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.

Portman is a good choice & the idea is interesting but there was just something missing to make this as good as it wanted to be

[cosmo_tiger · 7/10 · 5 April 2016]

"Life stopped being something you live after that day. It's Just something you endure." Jane Hammond (Portman) has been taking care of the homestead and her daughter while her husband is away. When he returns, injured with bad news Jane must find a way to save everyone. Her only chance is to ask her ex-lover Dan Frost (Edgerton) for help. This is a decent movie but a little slow in some parts. The movie really felt like it wanted to do more but was held back somehow. It is still better than many westerns recently, but had the possibility of being better. Portman is a good choice and the idea is interesting but there was just something missing to make this as good as it wanted to be. Some of the scenes were a little long and repetitive and really hurt the pace of the movie. On the other hand though I did like it OK but my mind started to wander in a few places. Overall, one of the better recent westerns, but was missing something to make it special. I give this a B-.

What's the point?

[ginocox-206-336968 · 4/10 · 5 April 2016]

"Jane Got a Gun" has no apparent or cohesive theme, but attempts to compensate with rousing orchestral music which seems intended to convey to the audience how they ought to feel at this point in the movie if the plot and dialogue were up to the task of engendering such emotional responses.

The acting is actually good, although the dialogue is a bit hackneyed and saturated with exposition. The cinematography would be pretty good if they had spent a small portion of their $25MM budget on some form of rigid support system (like a tripod). The jiggly-cam shots are not the worst by a long shot, but are distracting. The pyrotechnics in one scene are very well done. Lighting and mise en scène are good. Makeup effects are good.

Some elements don't make much sense. At one point they need jars and empty out a dozen Mason jars of green beans and such. The film takes place in 1871. People didn't discard their Mason jars. They cleaned and sterilized them and reused them. There should have been a lot of empty jars around waiting to be filled with whatever crop would be harvested. A building is shot up to the extent the walls resemble a colander, but there aren't splinters all over the floor and nothing much inside seems to have been hit. Wanted criminals with hefty rewards on their heads live openly and run businesses.

But the big problem is in the lack of a theme or moral. Ordinarily, one might expect an ordinary person to be confronted with an ordeal that tests their mettle and forces them to grow somehow in order to overcome otherwise insurmountable obstacles. Here, the characters don't grow or acquire new skills. They endure hardships that tear their world apart, but survive. Consequently, everything falls into place and they have a much brighter future because they survived, not because they prevailed by becoming stronger. The good guys confront insurmountable odds, but through a clever device manage to even the odds early on. Rather than confronting escalating challenges, they confront diminishing challenges. Jane prevails by becoming as brutal as her adversary, but immediately returns to her peaceful existence as if she had never sunk to such depths.

a bit muddled, cold violence

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 24 August 2016]

It's the New Mexico Territory in 1871. Jane (Natalie Portman) is hounded by the Bishop boys after her husband Bill "Ham" Hammond (Noah Emmerich) got severely injured by them. She gets help from her former love Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton). She thought that he was killed during the civil war and she married Ham afterwards where they got entangled with the Bishop boys. It's a tale of lost, tragedy, and revenge.

The first half is a muddle of unexplained situations, and confused flashbacks. The story finally gets some exposition in the second half. There is a compelling tragedy but it needs to be told better and earlier. The final act has good cold violence although it sometimes isn't as cold as it needs to be. There is definitely a good potential of a dark, stark western but it's too fuzzy.

First, this may have started with the wrong character. It should follow Dan Frost as he searches for his love Jane. The audience can learn about the situation along with Dan. Also the ending is too happy for the tone of the movie. This is a dark revenge story and I would probably kill off Dan midway through. That way would allow Jane to get her killing on for the last act.

A 1871 Western, better than I thought it would be.

[TxMike · 30 August 2016]

We watched this at home on DVD from our public library. The DVD is a rental version with no extras at all, just the movie.

I was curious about it for the actors, especially Portman. When she was a young girl she was Marty in "Beautiful Girls", Emmerich was a married man in that movie, cautioning his friend Willie about not trying to romance Marty. Here he plays her husband. My what a few years can do!

It was 1871 in New Mexico, no radio or TV, not even electricity, so they had to entertain themselves at nightfall. The movie opens with Jane Hammond (Portman) telling a story to her young daughter about the upside down tree, where bad people could go in and become good people. The next day she is baking bread when her husband Bill (Emmerich) rides up and falls off his horse. She manages to get him inside and attends to his several wounds, pulling bullets and cauterizing with gun powder when she could reach them. Bill is in bad shape.

The story is not revealed in a smooth narrative style, instead you have to pay attention and clues are revealed very gradually, some in the several flashbacks. Bill is considered an outlaw for having killed 4 men in a gang, but we eventually find out he did so in rescuing Jane from a forced life in prostitution. But now the gang leader John Bishop (McGregor) and his men are out to track down and kill Bill.

Bill and Jane live on a remote plot of land with only one entrance/exit and are sure Bishop will hunt them down. Bishop is the more notorious outlaw, he has a $5000 bounty on his head, dead or alive. With Bill unable to be moved Jane seeks out the help of an old friend, father of her daughter, once thought to be dead, Dan Frost (Edgerton). She pays him, he is still hurt from what he thought was her abandonment of him, but sets out to do what he can to fight off the Bishop gang.

There really isn't anything in particular new here that hasn't been in the Western movies over the years. Edgerton was one of the writers, Portman one of the producers, it is a movie they wanted to make and overall it is an interesting 90 minutes. With his prosthetic dentures, dark wavy hair, and mustache, McGregor is all but unrecognizable. His character reminds me of a young Tom Selleck.

SPOILERS: There's actually a lot going on for a 90-minute movie. The daughter we see at the beginning is Jane's second daughter, with Bill. She thinks her first daughter by Dan was killed by one of Bishop's men. During the big fight at night Dan and Jane, helped by explosives he rigged, managed to kill off all Bishop's men, and when Bishop himself comes in the house he is held at gunpoint until he told that her first daughter, now maybe 12 or 13, is alive at at the brothel. Jane shoots him multiple times, they gather all the bodies, bring them to town to collect the thousands in rewards. She is reunited with her daughter, working as a washerwoman at the brothel. Bill dies so Jane, Dan, and the two girls head west in their covered wagon to begin a new life, headed for the Pacific Ocean shores.

I got two bullets left

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 25 January 2018]

Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) with four bullet holes makes it back to his wife Jane (Natalie Portman,co-producer) and warns her the Bishop boys are coming. Jane tries to get help but her husband has a bounty on him. She eventually gets help from Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) a man who she was once engaged. We know it is New Mexico 1871 and everything else is a mystery. Who are the Bishop boys? What is the history of this conflict? We are feed the information slowly getting half the story at about 30 minutes and the other half at about an hour.

This is a fairly typical western. There is some shooting, killing, horses, and drama. I thought there was too much drama. Natalie Portman reminded me of Demi Moore, tough girl in her performance. Yes, Jane got a gun, but that wasn't overly significant to the tale. I think the author may have been influenced by the Aerosmith song, which didn't play during the closing credits either, but I couldn't help thinking about it. The mystery aspect and flashbacks ate up much of the movie as we awaited the final confrontation with over formula results.

Guide: F-words. Implied rape. No nudity.

"If those bullets don't kill you,and the storm you somehow bought upon us don't kill you,it goes without saying-I will kill you."

[morrison-dylan-fan · 7/10 · 12 March 2016]

Chilled by his directing debut The Gift,and very impressed with the story he came up for the post-apocalypse film The Rover,I decided to look at co-writer/(along with Brian Duffield & Anthony Tambakis) lead actor Joel Edgerton IMDb credits,where I found out he had recently made a Western with Natalie Portman,which led to me getting ready to see Jane get her gun.

The plot:

Seeing her husband Bill Hammond return home filled with bullets from the Bishop Boys gang, Jane Hammond realises that they have tracked her down.Putting her child into hiding,Hammond decides to put an end to the gang.As Hammond places the fact that she will have to get her revenge on the Bishop Gang on her own,Jane's "long lost" fiancé Dan Frost rides into town.

View on the film:

Backed by a thumping score from Marcello De Francisci and Lisa Gerrard,director Gavin O'Connor (who replaced original director Lynne Ramsay,after Ramsay got sacked over not showing up,whilst cinematographer Darius Khondji and stars Michael Fassbender,Jude Law and Bradley Cooper all quit the film!) and cinematographer Mandy Walker grill a choice cut of Western pulp.Entering the salon 3 years after filming,O'Connor and Walker fans the flames of Jane's fight with the Bishop Boys gang by soaking the film in blazing yellow which locks a brittle atmosphere over the film.

Despite having to re-write the movie during production,the screenplay by Duffield/Tambakis & Edgerton does very well at setting up an uneasy alliance between Hammond and Frost,as flowing flashbacks reveal Frost's wild west adventures and the horrors that Hammond faces.Hanging in the background,the writers gradually bring the Brishop Boys to the front of the shooting range,as Jane gets her gun.

Joined by a grisly cameo from his brother Nash, Joel Edgerton gives a terrific performance as Frost,thanks to Edgerton softening Frost's husky image,as Frost and Hammond draw guns.Looking ultra-stylish in a long leather coat, Natalie Portman gives a great performance as Hammond,thanks to Portman peeling the gravitas of the horrors inflicted upon Hammond across the screen,which is wonderfully crossed with a bad ass grin,as Jane loads up her gun.

A review from the female side

[simba-61939 · 7/10 · 31 January 2016]

Most of the reviews I have read on this film have been from men. I have seen several complain that the film progresses slowly and that McGregor's (the villain) character is underdeveloped. I would like to address those things with a review from the female side of things. A female side that loves the romance of love and the journey it takes. This is as much a love story as it is a western. I think people are so used to the explosive, wham, bam, hit em' up action movies that when those things are missing, they don't feel satisfied. We learn a lot about Jane in the first few moments of the movie. She is tough, she is strong and most importantly, she is loyal. She loves those that are in her care and she's willing to stand her ground in order to protect them. This was her movie, which would explain McGregor's underdevelopment. We know enough about him to know we don't like him and that we are rooting for Jane. I thought the flashbacks helped in building the relationship that went on. They correlated with the misunderstanding and struggle that the characters have been through. I don't want to give away anything else so I will stop now. If you like tough women where the action is more to the realistic side and not Hollywood's forced suspension of belief version, then take a chance on this. You might like it.

Poor storytelling

[tigrecito · 3/10 · 17 April 2016]

With such great actors, what can go wrong? This is a very poor western, not because the story has already been told, but because it is just very badly told. Too many clichés and too many botched up flashbacks. The directing is just very bad... a very forgettable movie, and music you'd like to forget as soon as you hear it. Makes you cringe. What a waste of good actors and beautiful scenery ! I saw O'Connor's "Warrior" a while ago, but I remember I enjoyed it... what happened here ? I believe westerns are quite a challenge for a director, it's like cooking a very simple and well-known recipe... If you don't have enough character to bring in your own touch, it's gonna taste like all the others... This one is worse than the others, though... Shallow and uncreative.

Portman produced this... she should know better !

Western that is actually a love story

[PetarNeo · 7/10 · 23 November 2016]

After Jane's husband Ham returned wounded and told her that men are coming for him she goes to seek for help but it turned out in most unexpected way. Firstly dialogues are very good and you feel some connection between characters and their emotions also movie is beautifully shot. Performances were also amazing specially by Joel and Natalie they did a wonderful job in portraying their love for each other but also a lot of grief and pain. Now plot as it self isn't something that you would expect to happen. It started very intense and and with a lot of build up to story and very early a first violent scene. Then it stopped and kept building this emotional story between Jane and Dan with some involvement of helpless Bill. Flashbacks were constant on their story and how everything led to this point and pace of movie just fell apart. It was boring, slow and it turned into a romance that our main characters have between them. End is coming and it was a very beautiful try to get us back in mood of western but there was too much emotions and didn't quite fit anymore. There was a one scene where they shoot at trap that they planted and that was probably best scene in the whole movie. Ending was very violent and filled with action but wasn't right. Finally they all got safe and went on their path that was supposed to happen many years about and it was a perfect ending for a love story. 2.5/4

A dull and unimaginative western

[eddie_baggins · 2/10 · 23 June 2016]

In 2011 director Gavin O'Connor delivered a very special film in the form of the on face value generic sporting themed family drama Warrior, a film that despite low end box office takings has since gone onto become a well-liked and respected tale featuring memorable turns by its three leads Nick Nolte, Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton.

Warrior was a film with heart, relatable characters and a cinematic energy that burst out from the screen, it is in many ways then a completely opposite film to O'Connor's troubled remake Jane Got a Gun, a film completed in 2013 but only emerging this year to little to no fanfare.

Taking over the reins at quite literally the last minute from the film's original director Lynne Ramsey (who perhaps realised there was no saving this sinking ship), O'Connor's take on the classic tale of farm girl Jane taking it to the gang out to kill her husband and ruin her life is so devoid of purpose and life that its mightily hard to even envisage what this film was aiming for and from the lacklustre start through to its long gestating yet disappointing fire fight finale, Jane Got a Gun struggles to make any form of impact on the viewer and bares all the hallmarks of a film that's behind the scenes actions impacted badly on its final product.

O'Conner has for some time now with films like the aforementioned Warrior and others like Miracle and Pride and Glory has shown himself to be a fine director of both action and actors but Jane Got a Gun fails in both these elements. O'Connor try's hard to liven the film up with sporadic yet bloodthirsty violence but it's all played out in such a generic nature that it matters little while the films competent cast all fail to make a dent with Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton delivering some downright average performances as Jane and Dan respectively while the seemingly fake tanned Ewan McGregor stumbles his way along as the films big bad John Bishop.

Devoid of any spirit, Jane Got a Gun is tiresome and impact free remake. It's hard to know who exactly is to blame for the end result here but all involved should've known better and have all done much better in the past and its likely all who were apart of this box office misfire (the film didn't even appear at Australian cinemas) are likely to erase this from their memories quicker than a you could draw a pistol.

1 hot air balloon out of 5

A rare Western jewel

[lcastilla · 9/10 · 8 March 2016]

I was unpleasantly surprised by the bad reviews that Jane Got a Gun has received in the US by "experts". I'm a fan of Western movies and was delighted by the high quality of this film. The photography alone (superb) makes it worthwhile to watch. The dusty desert environment is awesome, the costumes magnificent and the acting s excellent.The story-line is original and Natalie Portman, as usual, extraordinary.

In my opinion, this film has captured the style of the best Clint Eastwood westerns. Granted it uses the well trodden revenge plot, but it does it cleverly and keeps the spectator in constant suspense.

Those daft commercial critics of the film, probably did not like both the story. But then, as usual, they were resorting to their pseudo sophisticated, near sighted inane criteria. I enjoyed the movie enormously from the beginning to the end. I certainly recommend this film to those Western film addicts like myself.

Desperate Time, Desperate Measure

[albertval-69560 · 7/10 · 27 October 2022]

Layered story; quite engaging one. The way the story develops hooks the viewer for good the flashbacks providing timely bits of information about the protagonists' past lives. We have writer Brian Duffield to thank for.

Cinematography is quite amazing. The wide shots of the wide expanse of the great west are marvellous while the close-ups capture the raw emotions of Jane and Dan in the shadows at night as they reminisce about how things turned out for them in the end. These quiet moments capture their humanity making these scenes quite poignant.

The action sequence at the end part is well-executed. The viewer is reminded of the action scenes in Gunfight at OK Corral or The Magnificent Seven.

Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton give a solid performance. For Natalie, she pours her very soul into her portrayal. But surprise. I didn't quite recognize the actor who's playing John Bishop. My bad.

Nothing new

[jallen5639 · 3/10 · 12 April 2016]

I had high hopes for this film because the lead is a woman. But I was so very disappointed. This western story has been done to death and putting a woman as the hero did not help. I saw nothing that I have not seen before. I was not impressed by Portman, with her oh so fake and over done southern accent. The first two flash backs were well placed, but the rest were not needed. The chemistry between the two was a flop.I now understand why I did not see much about this film before I watched it. For this lover of westerns it was a big let down. This film added nothing to the western genre. The 'big names' associated with this film did not help, they are better actors than this. Don't pay to see it wait until you can watch it for free.