Thu 13 Oct 2016
A Western Movie Review: JANE GOT A GUN (2016).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Western movies[7] Comments
JANE GOT A GUN. 1821 Pictures / The Weinstein Company, 2016. Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor, Noah Emmerich. Director: Gavin O’Connor.
Some people blame the lack of success of this recent western movie epic — its first weekend’s gross was a paltry $865,572 with a per theater average of $691 — on the problems in production: too many last minute changes in the cast and crew, including the director. Others have suggested that modern day audiences aren’t able to handle sophisticated story-telling devices, such as the extended use of flashbacks in revealing the history of the characters gradually and only in bits and pieces.
Or maybe westerns have fallen out of favor with movie-going audiences in general, with only a few exceptions making any noise at the box office. Lots of reasons, in other words, but personally, I enjoyed this one.
Which tells the life story of Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman), whose husband Bill (Noah Emmerich) comes home to their New Mexico ranch one afternoon badly wounded and telling Jane that the Bishop gang is coming. Leaving their young daughter with a neighboring family, Jane goes to Dan Frost, another neighbor (Joel Edgerton), for help. He refuses, but it is clear that there is a history between the two.
And what that history is is where the flashbacks come in, and the whole purpose of the movie — to tell us one of hundreds of similar stories of the real Old West, a time and place that was often brutal and uncaring. This is not as much a story of a woman’s quest for revenge (as the title might suggest) as it is one of a woman making some tough choices in life and then having to live with them as life goes on.
The photography is often strikingly beautiful, and that of course includes Natalie Portman, who stands out and steals every scene she is in. Of course we the viewer also realize that she is more beautiful than any other women in the real Old West ever was, but instinctively we also place such thoughts into a category called the magic of movie-making.
The movie is rated R for the occasional horrific scenes of violence, making the (Spoiler Alert) the happy ending a bit too saccharine and therefore out of place in comparison, but once again, speaking personally, I didn’t mind at all.
October 13th, 2016 at 10:52 pm
I really liked this movie, and I wasn’t expecting to. It’s a movie where the viewer has to pay attention, which as you say, may be part of the reason it didn’t do well at the box office.
October 14th, 2016 at 2:48 am
This review is the first time I’ve even heard of Jane Got A Gun.
If it got any bookings here in Chicago, it maybe got into one screen in the plex, while the other dozen screens were divvied up between the heavily publicized big-money extravaganzas.
Whatever business Jane got was most likely walk-ins who couldn’t get into one of the big-ticket shows. That’s happened to me a few times – when I bought a ticket for a picture I knew nothing about, just out of curiosity.
The current movieplex economy makes little allowance for serendipity; most of our citizenry won’t even hear about Jane Got A Gun until its DVD release or DVR streaming, whichever comes first.
October 14th, 2016 at 3:56 am
Same here, Mike: it was a no-show in the Midwest. But I’ll seek it out.
October 14th, 2016 at 11:59 am
I know the movie played in both New York City and L.A., but I wouldn’t have imagined that they would have skipped releasing it in Chicago, Mike. I always kind of thought of where you live as a big city. All part of the vagaries of movie distribution and promotion, I guess, and nothing I know about.
But no matter. I watched it on DVD, available now from coast to coast!
October 14th, 2016 at 7:08 pm
Steve:
Well, there’s the question:
How many screens did Jane get in NY & LA, as opposed to whatever heavily-promoed CGI-palooza opened that week?
That would be what happened in Chicago – maybe a screen in a plex here and there, versus two or three Big Pix hogging the other dozen screens in the building.
That, more than anything else, is what’s crippling moviegoing nowadays.
October 14th, 2016 at 10:12 pm
I heard nothing of it until it showed up on a streaming service. Good film, but not special enough to be a successful Western today.
And yes, Portman is beautiful, but have you ever seen the nudes of Wyatt Earp’s actress wife? I think the old West could hold its own.
October 15th, 2016 at 1:41 pm
I read three trades a day (Deadline, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter) so I am aware of its unlucky backstory. Portman fought hard to make this movie that not many others had an interest in. If I remember right Portman had hired a young director just off a successful independent film. The woman had a meltdown and disappeared off the set a few days before filming was to begin. The film would have died there if not for Portman. The studios had no interest so it had no chance at a wide release.
Back when I was involved with AMC Century City (at the time the third largest movie theatre in the country) and a speciality video rental store, I got to see everything from screenings, independent films and blockbusters. It was 1989-94. Even then there was some of the most brilliant films I ever saw that never got the same chance of a Batman movie. I found directors such as Alan Rudolph (TROUBLE IN MIND, LOVE AT LARGE), Bruce McDonald (HIGHWAY 61), and many others. I saw gems such as ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN, ARIZONA DREAM, and endless foreign films such as LA LETRICE and CLOSE TO EDEN.
Today as movie theaters shrink and focus on mindless blockbusters there are few independents out there. But they still exist and many have turned to television where series such as BERLIN STATION (EPIX) or WESTWORLD (HBO) have taken popcorn stores place.
Have not seen this but I suspect it would have entertained more people on pay TV such as HBO or streaming services such as Netflix (have you notice how Netflix is dropping blockbusters films for more original programming?)