Please don't spend money on this.

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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)

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.

Why this has such low ratings is beyond me. Yes, it's slow. Yes, there's a lot of flashbacks. But these are tropes of the genre and as such the film is simply being true to its roots. At 1hr 38m it's actually pretty succinct for a Western. Personally I found the way the flashbacks revealed the backstory of the characters engaging and played out at just the right pace. It's beautifully photographed (though Monument Valley has become something of a cliché by now) and you can't really flaw the acting either.So, as a massive fan of the genre I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It's perhaps a tad lightweight and the denouement wasn't as satisfying as I was expecting but overall - well worth your time.

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.