Should you watch this for free? If you’re a feminist, or a fan of Natalie Portman or Ewan McGregor.
Should you watch this at weekday movie ticket prices? No.
Score: 1.5/5
Secret ending? No.
Running time: 98 minutes (~1.75 hours)
“Jane Got A Gun” is a British-Israeli Western about the titular Jane, who seeks help to protect her husband from her former lover, Dan Frost. It stars Natalie Portman (Jane Hammond), Joel Edgerton (Dan Frost), Noah Emmerich (Bill Hammond), and Ewan McGregor (John Bishop). It is rated NC-16.
“Jane Got A Gun” is one of the most vapid titles to be given to a movie, sounding more like a children’s book than a serious Western movie of any import. Sadly, it’s a rather fitting title given to a film that could have been halved in length, but was only extended so as to fulfill feature film requirements and be nominated for film awards (the film has to be longer than 40 minutes in most cases to qualify). It’s slow, ponderous, and really doesn’t give you much beyond Natalie Portman with various firearms.
Highlights
A capable female lead
Despite her reservations, Jane is actually pretty skilled, and more than able to hold her own in a confrontation. If not for the fact that she’s vastly outnumbered, our heroine could have solved the situation all by herself. It’s not often that you see a strong female character in a Western, and this feminism is the only bright spot in the entire movie.
Letdowns
No chemistry between Natalie Portman and anyone else
Jane has two lovers, her husband Bill and former beau Dan. And there’s absolutely no sign that either relationship would have or will work out. They simply recite long lines of dialogue with nary a thought for any indication that there might be physical attraction present. If it were just with one lover, the lack of chemistry might have been understandable, but it’s grating to see the total absence of any attraction between Natalie Portman, and Noah Emmerich or Joel Edgerton.
Flashbacks are jammed in
There’s a secondary narrative running parallel to the main story which takes place in the past (not that you would have noticed, since the characters look exactly the same), told through flashbacks. The problem is that the two tales segue in and out clumsily, and it’s presented as individual flashbacks rather than a story in its own right. The graceless editing sees the scenes being crammed in willy-nilly, creating two separate stories that go off on their own track.
Bloated running time
Many of the scenes use pointless, overextended shots for some unfathomable reason. It’s not like we really need another close-up of daily chores in yet another scene that runs for too long. The whole movie feels like it was originally a 20-minuter that got padded out into 98 horrendous minutes. A particularly torturous sequence involves a red herring that originally promises to give us an exciting action scene, but ends up being nature running amok.
Lack of purpose, energy and motivation
One word sums this everything up — boring. There’s no impetus to anything happening. Mechanically, it works, but only because characters have to speak out their motivations to explain why they’re doing what they’re doing. One question keeps ringing in your head as Jane and Dan embark on their quest. Why? Why are you doing this?
“Jane Got A Gun” gives you a strong woman in a patriarchal past, but nothing much beyond that.
“Jane Got A Gun” opens in cinemas 18 February, 2016 (Thursday).
This review was first published on Yahoo.
Leave a Reply