'Jane Got A Gun'

In cinemas April 22nd!

I must confess that I am a bit of a sucker for a western, not sure why and I’m aware that the bullets flying, death in the streets version of the “wild west” isn’t exactly historically accurate but there is something that appeals about a simpler time that was actually a lot more complicated.
​
'Jane Got A Gun' concerns the titular Jane (Natalie Portman), who lives a seemingly peaceful life on a secluded ranch watching over her daughter until her husband appears on the horizon, barely alive and with an ominous message of trouble coming their way. It seems their past is catching up to them and Jane ventures out in search of help, first begging the help of Dan (Joel Edgerton), a boozed up rancher with a thousand yard stare who somewhat aggressively tells her to get on her horse and go back to her no good husband.

Jane and Dan obviously have a troubled past, in addition to the troubled history she has with her husband, and Jane doesn’t get very far before another face from her past gives her some trouble in an alley. It’s very clear there’s a deeply complex and increasingly unhappy story being unveiled here, and I really don’t want to give you too much information because the slow reveal of this story is the centre of this film, and it’s well worth enjoying in the way the filmmakers intended. However, I do have to discuss the film to some degree so if you want to be completely spoiler free avoid the final paragraph of this review, though I’ll be sure I sum up before them.

The crux of the film is the puzzling together of the characters history, which is engaging all the way to the end and moves at a steady enough pace to never get boring whilst still flowing organically without the sudden feeling of mountains of information being dropped on our heads. All our heroes are deeply flawed, world weary people and we sympathise with them quite easily, or at the very least we want all the same people dead as they do.

I’d say the film is good, not great, as a whole though you should be aware that the story is pretty bleak. There’s not a lot of humour to be found here, our heroes barely seem to like each other and don’t seem too confident they’re going to survive the villainy that’s coming for them. This isn’t a problem though, the characters are more than interesting enough to hold your attention and the story is strong and well crafted, but beware that this isn’t a film for happy go lucky types.

In criticism the final gunfight that the film has so clearly been building up to from the start is a tad underwhelming if I’m being honest, but by then you’re so enthralled with the characters it doesn’t really matter. And perhaps refreshingly it has a very realistic feel, the action isn’t ludicrously over the top and our characters aren’t overblown caricatures, though Ewan McGregor comes close as the villainous John Bishop but that’s probably only because he doesn’t receive enough screen time to become all that well rounded. So although the film unfortunately falls apart towards the end I was drawn into the story easily and I can recommend 'Jane Got A Gun' if you’re looking for a deep character piece with a western setting because you’ll certainly find that here.

The biggest problem as it stands, and here’s some minor spoilers, is that the end is just too happy. For a film as one note as this in it’s bleakness it really is a little jarring to not only have a happy ending but what is basically the happiest ending possible for all concerned. It really doesn’t seem like the conclusion could have been any more fortuitous, even retconning some of the misery that had already happened. I’m not saying a happy ending couldn’t have worked but this seems a little extreme and something that felt more realistic to the harsh “life is cruel” world of the story might have elevated the film in my eyes.

Review by Kristian Mitchell-Dolby.

Tell us what you think!
Rate the film and why not write your own review in the comments?