Video Sources 15 Views

  • Watch traileryoutube.com
  • Player 1streamvideo.link
  • Player 2gomo.to
  • Player 3123files.club
Jane Got a Gun (2015)

Jane Got a Gun (2015)

Your rating: 0
5.6 562 votes

Genres

what going on?

Synopsis

After her outlaw husband returns home shot with eight bullets and barely alive, Jane reluctantly reaches out to an ex-lover who she hasn’t seen in over ten years to help her defend her farm when the time comes that her husband’s gang eventually tracks him down to finish the job.

IMDb Rating 5.6 562 votes

FAQ

How can I watch free movies online?

You can watch movies absolutely free online on FilmoZilla.com. No hidden taxes, just enjoy your favorite movies 🙂

Is FilmoZilla.com alternative to 123movies?

FilmoZilla.com is a good alternative to 123movies

How can I watch movies together?

You can create an online meeting where you share your screen with friends and enjoy the variety of movies on FilmoZilla.com with your close ones

What is the best free movie channel?

FilmoZilla.com offers best-in-class free service for watching movies online

Similar titles

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 (2012)
Bridge of Spies (2015)
A Christmas Gift from Bob (2020)
100 Degrees Below Zero (2013)
What Just Happened (2008)
The Shack (2017)
LEGO DC Comics Super Heroes: Justice League vs. Bizarro League (2015)
Demolition (2016)
Safe House (2012)
Child of God (2014)
Eye for an Eye (2019)
Interstellar (2014)

(150) comments

  • Jim GFebruary 6, 2016Reply

    Arghhh the bad guys are coming —quick sit 30 feet from the front door without your gun in front of a house with ALL the candles and lanterns burning arghhhhh

  • Griffin MFebruary 7, 2016Reply

    Weirdly lacking and deficient for a movie that’s been in production for four years. There are some decent moments of filmmaking here and there and the script, though clearly revised and patched-up, isn’t bad at all, it’s just so un-substantive and simple and forgettable that the fact that the title of this movie has been floating around since freakin’ 2012 makes it so that the experience is extremely underwhelming.

  • Gretchen BFebruary 7, 2016Reply

    Enjoyable to see a Western with a strong female protagonist. A typical western storyline well acted and solid entertainment.

  • Lin PFebruary 7, 2016Reply

    Super slow. Not exciting. No significant dialogues/action/drama. Don’t waste your money & time. Good enough to watch on TV.

  • s gFebruary 8, 2016Reply

    Classic western. Rooted in the decade or two after the Civil War where large criminal gangs dominated areas of the American west and got rich running the brothels, terrorized ordinary inhabitants, and achieved status not unlike The Mob when Sicilians gangsters arrived on the East Coast a couple generations later. Extraordinary combination of dialogue, camera work, production design, and a tight story that follows the four main characters over a dozen years. Easily comparable with “Unforgiven” and “Shane.” You also get to see, again, the special talent Natalie Portman showed us first on stage as a teenager when she brought us “Anne Frank” with every practical nuance of the magic of the diary and that life.

    This “Jane” is fundamentally a war movie — its conflict has no connection to mercy. If you go to westerns looking for a moral point, like “Star Wars,” fergeddaboudit.

  • Kevin WFebruary 8, 2016Reply

    A film that could have gone in so many great directions. Very disappointing which one they chose.

  • J FFebruary 8, 2016Reply

    My husband and I really enjoyed the movie. I don’t understand why people are so critical of it. Go see it

  • Martin SFebruary 21, 2016Reply

    cinegeek.de Viel hat man gelesen ĂŒber die desaströse Produktion dieses Westerns, der eigentlich 2012 ins Kino kommen sollte. Ein Karussel der grossen Namen, die verpflichtet wurden, aber wieder absprangen. Der Star des Films aber, Natalie Portman, war immer fix. Nun sollte man einen schlimmen Fehlschlag erwarten, angesichts der Produktions Historie, aber der bleibt aus. Jane Got A Gun bietet gutes Schauspiel und eine ganze Reihe beeindruckend inszenierter Szenen. Jane Got A Gun will das Genre nicht neu erfinden, sondern einfach eine Geschichte erzĂ€hlen. Was fehlt ist dieser berĂŒhmte letzte Funken an Inspiration, der einen bewegt, unbedingt ins Kino zu mĂŒssen. New Mexico 1871. Der ehemalige Gangster “Ham” Hammond (Noah Emmerich) kehrt zurĂŒck nach Hause zu seiner Frau Jane (Portman). In seinem RĂŒcken stecken so einige Kugeln und er ĂŒberbringt eine Warnung: “The Bishop Boys are coming.” Jane gibt die Tochter zu den Nachbarn und macht sich bereit, die Farm zu schĂŒtzen. Ihr Mann wird ihr nicht helfen können. Ihre letzte Hoffnung besteht in Dan Frost (Edgerton), ihrem ehemaligen Verlobten aus Missouri. Dan ist nicht wild darauf, Jane zu helfen. Beide verloren sich, weil man ihn fĂŒr tot erklĂ€rte nach dem Krieg. Dan aber wirft Jane vor, ihn aufgegeben zu haben. WĂ€hrend beide nun die Farm fĂŒr den Kampf vorbereiten, erfahren wir in RĂŒckblenden von der Vorgeschichte dieser Liebe. Der Grund, weshalb der monströse John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) ihren Tod will, erschliesst sich auch aus der Vergangenheit. Jane Got A Gun ist ein klassischer Western. Dia Dialoge sind derb und entsprechen wohl dem, wie die Menschen damals tatsĂ€chlich miteinander sprachen (anders als gewisse “postmoderne” Western). Portman als Jane spielt eine Frau, die allein zurecht kommt, sich verteidigen kann, aber auch klug genug ist, um zu wissen, wann sie Hilfe braucht. McGregor schlĂŒpft in die Rolle des Bösewichts so gewandt, dass es einige Szenen brauchte, bis ich ihn ĂŒberhaupt erkannte. Störend empfand ich die Struktur der Flashbacks, die mich vom Geschehen ablenkten. Diejenigen, die den klassischen Western schĂ€tzen, sollten dennoch einen Blick riskieren (und ich finde, wir haben es in diesem Bereich sowieso mit einem Mangel zu tun!). Keine Attraktion, aber ein solider Genre Film.

  • Ike SFebruary 25, 2016Reply

    After making us wait for this release, Jane Got a Gun’s awkward pacing and flashback jumping take a toll on this classic style western.

  • Hugo VFebruary 27, 2016Reply

    -Jane Got a Gun is een 2016 Amerikaanse actiedrama western film geregisseerd door Gavin O’Connor en geschreven door Brian Duffield, Joel Edgerton en Anthony Tambakis. De film sterren Natalie Portman als Jane Hammond, een vrouw die vraagt aan haar ex-minnaar, Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) voor hulp om haar outlaw man, Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) te redden van een bende geleid door John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) erop uit hem te doden. De film stelt ook voor Rodrigo Santoro, Boyd Holbrooke, Alex Manette, James Burnett en Sam Quinn. Het was gefilmd in IsraĂ«l en uitgegeven op 29 januari 2016 door The Weinstein Company.

    –Kritische reactie:

    -Jane Got a Gun heeft gemengde kritieken van critici. Op Rotten Tomatoes heeft de film een score van 36%, gebaseerd op 33 beoordelingen met een gemiddelde score van 5.1/10. Op Metacritic, heeft de film een score van 50 uit 100, gebaseerd op 15 critici, met vermelding “Gemengde of gemiddelde beoordelingen”.

  • Brendan BMarch 9, 2016Reply

    Not every movie has to be filled with twists and turns and overly creative shenanigans! I was in the mood for a feel good movie and I got one. I liked it! Sue me! 😛

  • Niels SMarch 9, 2016Reply

    4 ud af 5 sekslĂžbere. Bedste western siden Open Range!

  • Richard YMarch 10, 2016Reply

    It’s as exciting as the title, didn’t really watch it!

  • Bob KMarch 12, 2016Reply

    A little weak. 3 out of 5.

  • Chip PMarch 12, 2016Reply

    People seem to be too hard on movies these days; This was a well acted, good guys versus bad guys western, with great shootout action; kept our attention all the way through; it did confuse a bit when jumping back and forth from the present to the past but it turned out to be of little consequence; great popcorn movie; stop expecting these movies to “reinvent the wheel” so to speak; traditional western, good actors, good action: what more do folks want?

  • Matthew BMarch 14, 2016Reply

    Never have I seen a movie that got completely forgotten after a few days of it’s release, but for the right reasons.

  • Danny MMarch 23, 2016Reply

    A very average but watchable western, nothing special but not terrible either.

  • Carol RApril 2, 2016Reply

    Rubbish as i knew it would be

  • Ian WApril 2, 2016Reply

    Unfortunately Westerns are not the rage anymore and you can see why. This plays out like a Quintin Tarentino movie, with all the main action at the end, and whilst Natalie Portman is great to watch, the rest of it is nothing special.

  • Jeremiah CApril 2, 2016Reply

    A good western film, however, it conflicts with a lot of stumbles in its time.

  • Laurent PApril 9, 2016Reply

    La ligne sentimentale mal geree dans ses flashbacks ne parvient pas Ă  dynamiser ce western assez classique qui donne le beau role a Natalie Portman…

  • Aaron DApril 14, 2016Reply

    With all the great westerns these past months (The Revenant & The Hateful Eight) its hard not to notice how average Jane Got a Gun is. Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, and Joel Egerton give decent performances but the story is just average. They build to what you think is going to be a great action packed ending but it kind of just fizzles out. Worst of all Natalie Portman’s character Jane is what you would expect. She is kind of weak and needs rescuing several times. This is worth a rent if westerns are your thing. Otherwise skip it.

  • Claud FApril 16, 2016Reply

    I was absolutely surprised after reading the reviews. This movie far exceeded expectations, and is well worth the time and money. Decent story, decent acting, and decent ending. All in all – I’m very glad to have watched the show.

  • Guy JApril 18, 2016Reply

    There’s two songs that sprung to mind when hearing about this film. The first one being the obvious Aerosmith’s “Janie’s Got A Gun” which made me think of what Bon Jovi did for Blaze of Glory. The other song, the lesser known seventies hit “Torn Between Two Lovers” by Mary McGregor.

    It’s an interesting premise and I did originally think this was director’s Gavin O’Connor’s idea, appearing to enjoy making films involving difficult if not awkward family disputes like his previous masterpiece Warrior. But no, it was in fact Warrior star Joel Edgerton who co-wrote the tangled love triangle and wasn’t actually set to star himself. O’Connor only came on board after real life drama on the set resulting in people, including previous directors to blow out the movie.

    Let’s not get dismounted. She loved him, him went to war never to return, she got rescued by another him ensuring a bounty on his head. The first him DOES eventually return only to discover the unintentional betrayal. Now the second him runs into some bad luck and her only hope is him, the first him. You keeping up cowboy? Resulting in an awkward, moral questioning situation.

    It really isn’t that confusing and the story unravels quite well with the help of flashbacks. But the trailer and poster really gives off the wrong impression; it’s not the action-packed westerner you might expect, nor is Co-Producer Natalie Portman’s character ‘Jane’ the heroine the trailer, poster and title might suggest.

    Instead what you get is a drama that includes the occasional gun going off. Though it does turn out to be a good drama at that. It’s got a good story and when the blanks are filled you can’t help but appreciate it. I think it was trying for a similar impact 3:10 to Yuma (2007) had, though it just falls a little flat emotionally and you start to care a little less like how the Wild West was.

    There’s a strong cast with both Portman and Edgerton having verbal gun fights. Steely eyed Ewan McGregor does an awesome gangboss that feels influenced by Leo’s Calvin Candie from Django. His look reminded me of Lee Van Cleef from The Good, The Bad and the ugly. 300’s Xerxes and Focus’ Rodrigo Santoro does little, Run All Night nasty, bad Boyd Holbrook does nasty so well again and Noah Emmerich does little else by lay in bed bleeding.

    I have to mention the opening credits as I don’t remember ever seeing that many company logos fade in and out on the screen before. And what happened to Lisa Gerrard? Such an amazing vocal musician and I can’t remember anything of the score. Normally her voice presence takes over everything.

    For what it actually is, it’s good. It got a good story behind it and it’s very well shot; however it should have been titled ‘The Ex’ we all know one who was on the verge of being dangerous. (Polite word for psycho, yes.)

    Running Time: 7
    The Cast: 8
    Performance: 7
    Direction: 9
    Story: 8
    Script: 7
    Creativity: 8
    Soundtrack: 4
    Job Description: 3
    The Extra Bonus Points: 8 for John Bishop and Dan Frost.

    69% 7/10

    Twitter: @spoileralertrv

  • Tristan FApril 21, 2016Reply

    You know, for a movie that had as much production problems as this, it really wasn’t that bad. I actually enjoyed a vast majority of the film. The editing was weird and it maybe shouldn’t have been cut in the manor that it was and I could see why people may be turned off by it. It takes a awhile before the story reveals why anything is actually happening. The motivations behind the characters are there, but the narrative is so jumbled up that it feels like one big puzzle struggling to find its pieces. The acting from Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, and Ewan McGregor was good, especially given the circumstances of the production hell that this movie went through. I really enjoyed the visuals and found it to be a good omage to classic westerns. The score fit in well and really helped with the narrative in certain areas. Overall it’s not a bad movie, and for what it was given to work with, the filmmakers did a good job to salvage the story.

  • Richie TApril 23, 2016Reply

    should of been a great movie

  • Troy KApril 26, 2016Reply

    Not a lot of action and the ending cheats, but still one of the better westerns I have seen in a while.

  • Morgan KApril 27, 2016Reply

    I’m glad I don’t own a gun, because I would have ended the movie a lot sooner than I did…

  • mike fApril 27, 2016Reply

    It was an entertaining movie. Good story told well. Worth seeing

  • Jim LApril 28, 2016Reply

    Thoroughly enjoyable, and different for this genre.

  • Collin PApril 29, 2016Reply

    A pile of garbage movie that has uninteresting characters, is extremely boring and has an unlikable lead.

  • Trina MApril 30, 2016Reply

    Really good Western. Natalie Portman really outdone herself on this one.

  • Magnus SMay 1, 2016Reply

    Solid performances in an otherwise forgettable western.

  • Brandon PMay 1, 2016Reply

    While a quickened pace would have helped this movie along, it was quite good. While obviously limited by script and director, Portman pushed through and delivered a performance that, at times, stirred the soul. This movie could have been great with a little move development, but it is still worth watching.

  • Joe DMay 1, 2016Reply

    Wow, wasn’t really expecting to like this film as much as I did because of all the negative press and poor box office surrounding it… but I found it to be a pretty entertaining good time. Well acted and beautiful cinematography… overall a pretty solid western IMO. Glad I gave it a shot.

  • Colin WMay 1, 2016Reply

    Who thought it was a good idea to give a woman a gun?? A lot of men died….

  • Brian PMay 1, 2016Reply

    you can tell portman was committed to the role but that’s about the only thing going for it otherwise the movie is all over the place

  • Jonathan GMay 2, 2016Reply

    Natalie Portman as a frontier woman? Sure. Why not. This film was apparently Natalie’s little passion project. There were a couple of good casting selects, but in general it felt like they had to go with a lot of alternative choices from the B-list, or C-listers. I don’t feel like anyone but Natalie was a first choice. The flashbacks felt a little canned, and the music at the end was a little embarrassing, but overall it was a legitimate looking Western movie. The ending (no spoiler) felt like Westerns made 60 years ago. So that’s gotta be worth something. Not horrible, just not worth watching again. Rating: 6.5 / 10

  • Kevin MMay 2, 2016Reply

    For anyone who doesn’t know, this movie had a ton of serious production problems days before the start of filming. Even with that knowledge, the film’s problems with pacing and its drama are too strong to overlook the flaws. Not a disaster it could’ve been but very mundane.

  • Erik DMay 9, 2016Reply

    Jane acquired a gun. Oh yippy.

    I can tell you’re all on pins and needles wondering where Jane happened to find a gun and I’ll bet you want to know what she did with it! Don’t bother. While it’s true that Jane does in fact come across a weapon at some point in the film, the boredom that you will experience will not be worth it. Seriously, this may have been one of the most boring films that I’ve watched in the past five years. I just randomly threw the number five in there but you get the idea. This is some high quality nap material.

    What made JANE GOT A GUN WOW WHAT A THRILLING TITLE so boring? Nothing happened. Wait! Erik! There were scenes with action and romance and drama and probably other stuff! Nah, nothing happened. You might have imagined it but those scenes never happened. Well, if I’m honest there was one good scene near the end but it was not nearly enough to justify having you sit through this disaster.

    There are too many problems with this film to fully cover in a brief review so I’m not going to bother. I will get a very striking point across though.. You know a movie is bad when Ewan McGregor can’t even pull off his ridiculous character. He’s not bad at anything (even though I didn’t like Trainspotting – maybe I’ll do a review one day) but even he couldn’t salvage this film. Joel Edgerton was in it too! I love all of his work yet he couldn’t save it.

    Natalie Portman was also in the film..

    What else is there to say? Don’t watch this movie. If you have a positive impression of Natalie Portman in your mind, definitely do not watch this for any reason. Her performance was so poor, they might as well have hired me to play Jane. This will be the most surprisingly low rating that I’ve given a film in some time. I really wanted Jane Got A Gun to be great. It didn’t even come close.

  • Eric RMay 11, 2016Reply

    I don’t tend to like Westerns, but this was interesting and well done. The story line was good. The characters were good. It has the grittiness that you would expect from a Western. But with an overarching story of love.

  • Kathryn SMay 12, 2016Reply

    I absolutely loved it. It had a great story line and kept you interested the whole time. I love Natalie Portman and now, even more.

  • Blake BMay 13, 2016Reply

    High drama and heavy gunfights.

  • Dann MMay 14, 2016Reply

    Natalie Portman leads the cast in the mediocre western Jane Got a Gun. When a gang of outlaws catches up with Jane and her husband, she seeks out an old friend to help her fight them off. Unfortunately the writing is a little weak, as most of the characters are underdeveloped. And the film’s momentum is uncut by having the story broken up with flashbacks. Still, the action scenes are well-done, as are the sets and costumes. Also, the score does a good job at setting the tone and heightens the dramatic tension. Jan Got a Gun is an entertaining film, but overall it ends up being rather lackluster.

  • Bea MMay 14, 2016Reply

    Cool female cowboy film!
    Portman is gorgeous and tough, and the plot provides a painful glimpse into frontier life in the wake of the Civil War. I enjoyed the film and recommended broadly. Go watch!

  • Daniel MMay 15, 2016Reply

    beautiful photography and period clothing – flashbacks are a little confusing and there is too much dialogue explaining the situation.

  • Matt ZMay 17, 2016Reply

    If you’re going to watch a movie like this, make it Slow West or Hombre.

  • Brian CMay 21, 2016Reply

    Every time they mix a love story with action thriller, they have to settle for some irrational bullshit. I think that’s why these movies get lower audience scores. I love you, but I love volunteering to be a soldier more. Your fiance has almost no chance of survival while you are away and the soldier is surprised. Well, a love story, or any story isn’t worth telling unless it has some monumentally stupid moments to make it exciting.

    One more thing, why do women have to act so fragile when using guns? When are we going to WOMEN UP and acknowledge guns are the equalizer between men and women. I suspect the BS romance plot kept her in check.

  • Courtney HMay 21, 2016Reply

    Compared to the other westerns that have come out recently.. This is one of the better. Surprised that few gave it more than 3 stars. Loved Portman’s character!

  • Arthur RMay 22, 2016Reply

    Barring a few brief highlights, this film was not particularly engaging. OKish story with largely uninspired performances simply passed by like tumbleweeds… and were about as exciting. Jane got a gun, but she didn’t know how to use it…
    Resonant Line “Jane Hammond: Bishop boys are coming I need a gunslinger
    Dan Frost: You don’t need a gunslinger… you need a goddamn regiment”

  • Jeffrey MMay 22, 2016Reply

    A modern western with a strong female lead, yet old-fashioned sensibilities and story, Jane Got A Gun is hardly an atypical Western. That is not to say that it is not effective, it certainly is, and there’s a slow-build and methodical unraveling of the story that produces a very atmospheric and brooding tone. The ending was a bit too neatly done, yet the film has messy relationship dynamics and a sort of pragmatism that many Westerns are missing. Portman’s character proves to be particularly compelling, and her characterization is certainly the strongest of the film. In the end, it really doesn’t break new ground, yet tells a familiar story in an unfamiliar way.

    3.5/5 Stars

  • Wesley VMay 28, 2016Reply

    This film has gotten a number of negative reviews, and I think that is largely about expectation. If you go into this expecting an action movie, you will be disappointed. If, however, you understand this to be a realistic western at focuses on character and relationships over impossible stunts, this movie is for you. Similar to Open Range, the characters in Jane are the most important part, with action and plot being the backdrop rather than the focus. Portman and Edgerton are engaging, both mastering the subtleties of people harmed and bent but not broken. McGregor pulls off the cultured outlaw well. Overall, I was impressed.

  • J DMay 28, 2016Reply

    Hollywood has forgotten how to do a decent western. Sub par acting with a lame, contrived story.

  • Adrian BMay 29, 2016Reply

    Western thriller starring Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman about a notorious gang leader (Ewan McGregor) who puts a hit on Portmans husband. Plenty of action and the acting/story is acceptable

  • Heather MMay 31, 2016Reply

    Yep, she got a gun. She shot lots of people with it. The end.

  • Kelly PMay 31, 2016Reply

    Good actors but the storytelling was confusing.

  • Bud LMay 31, 2016Reply

    Good movie great acting

  • Lola MJune 5, 2016Reply

    Not the greatest. Here’s why. Plot was there but was not played to its fullest. Director was too cheap on the special effects and Natalie Portman didn’t do the part justice. If it was Scarlett Johansen or Charlize Theron, it would’ve been Oscar worthy. It’s just sad cause I’m a sucker for westerns and I miss those old movies. Come on now. Gimme somethin good!!!

  • Alden SJune 10, 2016Reply

    1 out of 10:

    Despite good acting and decent action, Jane Got a Gun is an INCREDIBLY slow and predictable movie leading to a disappointing action scene.

  • Tim KJune 11, 2016Reply

    Hoping for a much better film. The action seemed lazy. The suspense was supposed to be felt by the audience because of the main characters being pinned down. I just felt impatient. Also when your main villain is rarely seen its hard to get that hatred for him brewing.

  • Brian BJune 16, 2016Reply

    This actually wasn’t bad at all.

  • Eddie IJune 23, 2016Reply

    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

    http://www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com

  • Brad SJune 24, 2016Reply

    Not great, but not awful. this Western stars and was produced by Natalie Portman who wasn’t right for the role at all, she’s much too modern looking. I did like Joel Edgerton and didn’t recognize Ewan McGregor. Worth a watch if a fan of any of the actors, otherwise skip it.

  • Susan JJune 24, 2016Reply

    I’m not much into western movies so I’m rating it 3 stars, it was just alright, a bit slow for top rating

  • Shawn SJune 28, 2016Reply

    Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton are great and the story is good but the pace is much too slow.

  • Jessica TJuly 1, 2016Reply

    Underdeveloped and underwhelming.

  • Steve SJuly 9, 2016Reply

    The premise is very good, as is the performances from the solid cast. The pacing of the film is far too slow, however. The impact of the revelations feel drowned in atmosphere. The title is unfortunate as well. It clumsily harkens to an Aerosmith tune. Really? Have w come to that?

  • Ryan HJuly 11, 2016Reply

    The movie had a lot of trouble being made from changing multiple directors, delays, and shifting around roles. Which becomes apparent throughout the movie. All the actors do a very good job to keep the movie relevant though. Even with good performances the movie never able to overcome its troubled past.
    41/100

  • Kip DAugust 11, 2016Reply

    I saw it and just like the fact that it had horses in it.

  • Paula MAugust 17, 2016Reply

    not big on these kinds of movies but it’s better than some and the reward is the back story and the payoff. even one will feel for this ex husband what a great man

  • Dane SAugust 25, 2016Reply

    Another bad ass western.

  • Bill VAugust 26, 2016Reply

    I enjoyed this movie. Sorry hypercritical critics.

  • Josh PAugust 27, 2016Reply

    The movie starts out beautifully. It really feels like something different, though reminiscent of the classic western, in the vein of The Outlaw Josey Wales. Portman gives a more than efficient performance as Jane, with many profound, quieter moments than you’d expect from an embittered, angry cowboy type, the latter fitting the profile with Edgerton’s character. Edgerton also transforms to fit the boozy gunslinger type. The atmosphere of the film is brutal, presenting the dusty red New Mexico territory as a verifiable wasteland than it does a beautiful wide open landscape. Ewan McGregor’s merciless outlaw, Colin McCann is one of the many highlights of the film, nearly unrecognizable among his equally murderous band of miscreants. The movie does very well in creating the dirtiest, most rotten men in the west with the antagonists. Where the movie falters however, is becoming a typical home invasion story other films such as The Keeping Room did better at succeeding. Basically, by the end of the movie, many shots are fired and there are even explosions. Despite the turn towards re-hashed action movie tropes, Jane Got A Gun is a solid B western movie, which understands its characters and remains thoughtful a good deal throughout.

  • Michelle SAugust 29, 2016Reply

    With the talented cast and writers, this movie should’ve been 10 times better than it was. But in the end, it’s a movie with good acting and a boring storyline that has little to no payoff.
    The villain was not fully developed. Why was he so scary? Why were people so terrified by him and his gang? Other than sell women into prostitution, they did absolutely nothing. That basically means that Ewan McGregor was wasted in this movie.
    Honestly, the only character that was developed and actually likable was Dan, so props to Joel Edgerton for writing his character as the best thing in the movie.

  • Mike AAugust 29, 2016Reply

    The title is misleading. I mean, Jane does got a gun, but it’s not some revenge flick or anything. Other people have guns too. The film is a bit of a slow burn in the beginning but it picks up after the first act when we get details of the main cast’s past. The deeper the film went the more I got into it. Unfortunately, the ending kinda ruined it for me. They worked so hard to do something interesting for the first two acts and then they went Hollywood right at the end. It’s a worth a watch if you like Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, or Ewan McGregor (the cast of Attack of the Clones reunited!). I just wish the ending followed through on the themes of the story.

  • Leslie CAugust 29, 2016Reply

    “Jane Got a Gun” is not a bomb but it’s not the western I was hoping to see. The draw of seeing a woman in the lead role in this type of film isn’t enough to overcome a somewhat weak storyline. There are also some annoying, needless lines in the movie. Take for instance when Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) and her hired gun Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) take her outlaw husband Bill “Ham” Hammond (Noah Emmerich) down into the cellar when John Bishop’s (Ewan McGregor) gang show up hell bent on killing the three of them. Dan puts a gun in Ham’s hand and says, “Anybody ain’t us opens that door, you gotta start shooting.” This happens literally sixty seconds after Ham has already killed one of John Bishop’s men while bedridden.

    Still “Jane Got a Gun” is worth seeing for the scenery. The story takes place in New Mexico and the movie is loaded with impressive views of mountainous terrain, buttes, billowy clouds and awe inspiring sunsets. There is a scene that occurs just after the title card of the film is displayed which pays homage to the last shot of “The Searchers,” and it really is a nice touch. Portman is most convincing in the visceral scene when she learns the fate of her daughter Mary, and is pretty kick ass with her Walker firearm.

  • Derek BAugust 29, 2016Reply

    This is a solid movie. For a western, it has a very definitive statement or two in it. A lot of folks haven’t liked it, but I think they’re looking for the modern blow-your-hair-back films. They’re wrong. Give this a shot; I was pleasantly surprised.

  • Christian SAugust 30, 2016Reply

    un western moderne mais moyen.

  • Valerie SSeptember 1, 2016Reply

    Given what I’ve read about the casting issues, this movie was a delightful surprise on Netflix. I’d never heard of it, but I like Natalie Portman so I figured I’d give it a shot. Yes, the title is all wrong for the movie and is a little misleading, but it’s not a deal breaker on a decent movie. I really liked Portman as a strong female lead in a western. It worked. I became a big fan of Joel Edgerton as well. I didn’t love the casting of the husband, they had no on screen connection, but maybe that was the point, she wasn’t in love with the guy, she cared about him, but that was really the end of it. I did think the villainy of Ewan McGregor could’ve been better fleshed out, but considering the script was rewritten, I’m not going to nitpick. I found him to have good screen presence and he’s always fun to watch. The backstory was well fit into the main story, it drew me in to the characters. There were no boring moments, it is a little predictable, but it’s a movie, it’s supposed to be entertaining, and I was entertained.

  • Troy GSeptember 2, 2016Reply

    Poorly edited. Poorly plotted with some shoddy acting from high profile stars. The flashback scenes rob the film of any momentum. The characters have backstory, but not sufficient character traits to make me care about any of them.

    The lack of humor and overwritten / overacted dialog leaves me with the impression of a movie that considers itself superior to other members of the genre while failing utterly to capture the setting, plotlines or character tropes that make westerns compelling. The pretension, lack of ambition, and general creative malaise yields a thoroughly unsatisfying watching experience.

  • Cody BSeptember 3, 2016Reply

    Missed connection Western that ties up pretty neatly. I liked it alright, definitely has that Western vibe. Almost realistic.

  • Vic VSeptember 4, 2016Reply

    Good solid western that actually show what life was like back then – “…kinda slow pardner…” Its well written, acted, and directed evolving into a tight polygon of emotional baggage resulting in a tight family drama among them all with a nice twist. Excellent emotional scene with dad and mom and daughter. True-to-life ending. Good flashbacks tell the story well. Panoramic cinematography – almost makes you want to hold a bottle of water its so dry and hot. Most of all it makes one appreciate that they did not have to live back then.

  • Jeffrey LSeptember 4, 2016Reply

    I enjoyed this film. Good performances by Portman, McGregor, Edgerton and Emmerich. Apparently this production was a mess behind the scenes, with several actor switches, a director quitting, and major delayed release dates. It’s too bad. With the cast it had and the solid plot, it could have done better at the box office.

  • Scott SSeptember 4, 2016Reply

    Saw this on Netflix…Pretty good watch….Natalie is great!

  • Gimly MSeptember 4, 2016Reply

    The Western genre is one that has struggled to find its own two feet to stand on in recent years. Jane Got a Gun certainly does not buck that trend. Also I’m pretty sure not a single one of these Wild West folks was American.

  • Diggity HSeptember 8, 2016Reply

    I enjoyed it more then most of the reviewers it appears. When we find out what happened to Jane I feel the movie then begins to pack more of a punch. It takes a while before that’s revealed. The movie is a little flat, but there is enough there for an entertaining watch.

  • Andrew CSeptember 8, 2016Reply

    Enjoyed it. Classic Western with a nice plot line.

  • Susan MSeptember 10, 2016Reply

    Great story, excellent acting, good cinematography, satisfying ending, add up to a terrific western with a nod to the current interest in strong women. Really enjoyed it. Just wish some of the scenes played out in the dark were not quite so dark. It made it difficult to see some of the action.

  • Spencer KSeptember 11, 2016Reply

    Natalie Portman is great, of course, but I just couldn’t get into this film. as a gritty, revenge western tale, it delivers just a considerable amount, but as a whole film, there seems to be so much missing. I liked some aspects of the film, but too much of it I didn’t like. it’s to bland to recommended.

  • Jim USeptember 17, 2016Reply

    Took a long time to develop, but turned out to be an okay movie.

  • Leon BSeptember 17, 2016Reply

    Review:
    This is just another one of those movies which has a good cast but the film wasn’t that great. It takes a long time to get going and the big build up for a massive showdown, turned out to be pretty disappointing. Although the movie is called Jane Got A Gun, it’s really Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) who saves the day, because he is hired by Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) to save her and her husband, Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich) from a bunch of bounty hunters who are hunting down Bill, so they can get the reward. John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) plays the leader of the bounty hunters, who has a personal score to settle with Bill but to his surprise, Dan Frost is on hand to help his ex-girlfriend, Jane and her husband. The director stupidly shot the whole showdown at the end, in the dark, so you can’t actually see what is going on. The storyline was also predictable and I found most of the characters to be quite dull, so it has to get the thumbs down from me. Disappointing!

    Round-Up:
    This movie was directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also brought you Miracle, Pride & Glory, Warrior and the upcoming, the Accountant, starring Ben Affleck, Anna Kendrick, J.K. Simmons and John Lithgow, so he’s had some experience making movies in this genre. He certainly wasted a great cast, who all starred together in Attack of the Clones, and none of the performances really stood out from the other. On the plus side, there was some depth to the film, which gave the whole storyline some meaning but apart from that, it just seemed like a mediocre western with an average storyline.

    Budget: $25million
    Worldwide Gross: $3million

    I recommend this movie to people who are into their action/drama/westerns, starring Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, Ewan McGregor, Noah Emmerich, Rodrigo Santoro, Alex Manette and Boyd Holbrook. 3/10

  • Kimberly ASeptember 22, 2016Reply

    Excellent performances. Incredible scenery. Storyline was decent but the ending seemed rushed – resolution and ‘happy’ ending a little too precious for a seemingly dark tale. Stilled enjoyed it very much and would recommend.

  • Niclas HSeptember 28, 2016Reply

    Brukar ju gilla western, men det hÀr var i segaste laget!

  • Rangan ROctober 4, 2016Reply

    A woman’s preparation to fight the outlaws.

    Probably on underrated film, but for me, I’m sure it is an underrated film. From the director of ‘Warrior’, another excellent film to include in his filmography. A well written screenplay, but that’s where the problem is according to those did not like it. Because it was kind of ‘all’s well, ends well’ story. That does not mean it is full of clichĂ©, maybe they expected the film to be more harsh and violent like most of the high profile western films do.

    Sorry to those who did not enjoy it, but I did. It was nothing like only for men, but still R rated. Yep, I understand the last 10-15 minutes was so intentional, so what, the story wrapped perfectly in a right way. I must appreciate the cast, particularly the lead two actors, Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton. This film is not an opportunity to give the best character display, but everyone did their parts quite finely.

    Ewan McGregor was a disappointment with his useless role. I mean it was a good one, but not made for him. I think the villain character lacks the toughness. That leaves it a one sided theme, so you might not know how the developments happen, but you will know which way is it heading in the earliest. Particularly as it was focused more on the romance, despite it is not a romance theme. Though there is a twist and many turns in the narration. Overall film was very entertaining, partly predictable, yet totally worth a watch if you keep your expectation locked in a safe afar while watching it.

    8/10

  • Adam BOctober 13, 2016Reply

    The story is interesting but not very much happens through the course of the movie

  • AW COctober 16, 2016Reply

    Gritty and enthralling one moment, groan-inducing cliches the next.

  • Gordon HOctober 21, 2016Reply

    Not just a movie about a gun-slinging, butt-kicking Portman in the Wild West!

    Panic strikes Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) when her outlaw husband returns to their 1870s New Mexico farm with bullet wounds. Expecting the worst, she delivers her young daughter to safety and travels to the home of Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton), a boozing ex-lover who may be her only hope. With Dan now on her side, Jane prepares for a showdown with the vengeful John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) and his gang of thugs. Looking to settle an old score, Bishop must now contend with the gun-toting Jane and her new partner.

    ‘Jane Got A Gun’ isn’t just a movie about a gun-slinging, butt-kicking Portman in the Wild West, despite what the trailer might have you believe. As a new feminist take on the classic Western, ‘Jane Got A Gun’ doesn’t just take on traditional Hollywood gender roles, it also takes on the daunting task of portraying a sexual assault survivor, without ever really identifying the character as such. When the audience meets Jane, she has survived being raped after being forced into prostitution, but that fact isn’t revealed until well into the movie. ‘Jane Got A Gun’ portrays Jane as shaped by her sexual assault, but not defined by it—a fact that makes it worth watching and in the minds of everyone who sees it, well after the end credits roll.

  • JosĂš MNovember 2, 2016Reply

    Simple y efectivo western.

  • Jocey DNovember 9, 2016Reply

    Gritty. Natalie Portman plays a good, strong, feisty frontier woman. Story has a few good turns.

  • Simon PNovember 18, 2016Reply

    Really enjoyed Natalie Portman’s performance in this decent revisionist western, Emmerich and Edgerton add solid support but unfortunately Ewan McGregor’s villainous turn isn’t quite as unsettling as his slightly odd appearance.

  • John DNovember 19, 2016Reply

    From it’s title, Jane Got a Gun announces itself as a feminist revisionist Western where Natalie Portman gets to deliver some frontier justice. Indeed, it starts out promisingly enough, with Jane’s husband Ham (Noah Emmerich) arriving back at the homestead full of bullets and barely alive, rambling about the Bishop gang, led by a mustachioed and otherwise weirdly indistinct Ewan McGregor, being angry and on their way. Jane enlists the help of her ex-lover Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton), and…immediately stops having much agency in her own story. Dan takes charge, flashbacks tell us how Ham saved Jane from Bishop in the past, and Jane herself gets lost in the shuffle. It’s not a terribly exciting shuffle either, with the action heavily backloaded as both the flashback and present-day storylines reach near-simultaneous conclusions. Noah Emmerich’s Ham is really the only character who makes much of an impression (aside from a quick nasty appearance by Rodrigo Santoro), and the climax of his flashback’s arc gives us perhaps the only memorable scene of the film. There’s potential here, but it never goes to the level of camp it’s title so richly deserves (despite the aforementioned Ewan McGregor stache), and falls flat because of it.

  • Adam KNovember 26, 2016Reply

    The final act is so strong it kind of makes up for what is an otherwise slow and emotionless, though well intended, western with a female protagonist. On Netflix.

  • Sunny WDecember 1, 2016Reply

    Entertaining, but not brilliant.

  • A MDecember 17, 2016Reply

    This had every element of a true western. Perhaps my favorite western of all time. I wasn’t expecting much but I was pleasantly surprised. Well done!

  • Matt TDecember 20, 2016Reply

    As much as I like to see Natalie Portman in anything, and even moreso when carrying a pistol, this isn’t worth watching just to get that. The sets are lovely. The costumes are great. The direction and the poorly thought out story switchbacks … not so much. Don’t bother with it.

  • Cort JDecember 21, 2016Reply

    Despite a really wooden performance by Portman and an underdeveloped villain….the film is slightly better than average..the climax is filmed far too dark (you can’t really see what is going on half the time) ..

  • Chris EDecember 26, 2016Reply

    Interesting story with credible action.

  • James RDecember 31, 2016Reply

    A movie where I don’t really quite know who thought this would be a good idea to make. Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) seeks the help of her ex-lover Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) to help her fight a gang of outlaws lead by John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) who seek Jane and her husband Bill (Noah Emmerich). Bill saved Jane from John years back and in the process killed a ton of his men, so John has been searching for the two ever since. The film is pretty predictable and has to have one of the most Hollywood endings I’ve seen in awhile. I’d say the most interesting person in the film is Edgerton’s character and even then his character is never fully developed. Why was he living so close to Jane? Is he a drunk? Why does he decide to help out out of nowhere? This movie had a ton of issues just getting into production and at a certain point it seemed like everyone was just like, “Just shoot it and get it out I don’t want anything to do with this anymore.” It’s a skip overall, it has some good action sequences, but the story and plot is severely lacking.

  • Shelly NDecember 31, 2016Reply

    Great cast, well done story and production

  • Gary WJanuary 2, 2017Reply

    Surprisingly enjoyable, even for such a simple story. It’s more of a character study than your typical action flick western, so it’s good to keep that in mind when making comparisons.

  • Gavin EJanuary 5, 2017Reply

    Beautifully shot. Amazingly acted and a unique story, you have never seen this kind of western. Gripping from the first second to the last. A must watch.

  • Cigs JJanuary 7, 2017Reply

    When I saw the title I assumed it was going to be a parody like Blazin Saddles or a tarantino style murder fest. But no. It was a carefully crafted, well acted drama about tragedy, loss and redemption in the western format. It teases out the tragic back story of Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) as she tried to go west to find a better life after her fiance had not returned after three years in the civil war. And in the classic Holywood story arc it ends up with an emotionally satisfying end.
    The RT rating says to me that people don’t like a happy (kind of) ending these days but I do.

  • Bradley JJanuary 11, 2017Reply

    Jane Got a Gun is so wholly dull that it squanders solid performances from Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton. The film has a whisper thin plot that somehow manages to get convoluted, using frequent flashbacks and quiet explanations to fill the audience in on large amounts of backstory and while the film at least attempts to be a feminist take on the western genre, it ends up undoing this entire approach by the film’s not too exciting final showdown. Jane Got a Gun is the western equivalent of fast food. Quick, dirty and not quite satisfying. Rating: 50

  • Michael LJanuary 17, 2017Reply

    A colossal misfire, relegating the titular Jane second-fiddle to her former lover, who achieves his goals while she fails in hers.

  • Dillon LJanuary 20, 2017Reply

    a good solid western a bit slow in parts

  • Tristan MFebruary 1, 2017Reply

    Didn’t get the action I expected out of this movie to be honest, but it had more story and was deeper than I expected. The story was good, somewhat original. The script was ok, and the acting was also quite good. Natalie Portman did a great job, and so did the others, loved seeing Ewan Mcgregor as well, would have been nice for him to have some more screen time however. I expected more of a just shot em up revenge story with this, and am glad I didn’t, it was nice to have an actual good story and all. However the main issue is there doesn’t seem to be any beginning, middle and end. Yes once Dan Frost shows up to help Jane you could argue that’s the beginning of the middle of the story, but it feels like it’s just one long bunch of kind of nothing until the final shoot out. They share their stories, have some flash backs and prepare for Colin McCann and his crew to arrive, but nothing big really happens and it just feels bland, at least the story is interesting. The final battle is ok, of course they win against all odds and being completely out numbered, and then kill Colin and live happily ever after. It was pretty predictable that one of 2 things would happen, Dan would sacrifice himself for Jane and Bills love, or Bill would succumb to him wounds and Jane and Dan would ride off into the sunset like that had always planned, the second one is true. The final fight is ok, the only real complain I have besides the fact they would Never kill that whole crew just the 3 of them is that sometimes it’s really dark and it’s really hard to tell what’s actually going on. Anyways ok movie for the story and cast and acting, although lacking in many other important areas.

  • Robert MFebruary 12, 2017Reply

    Watch the trailer then move on! Anything further is a waste of time…just take a look at the poster of the movie and note Jane carries an 1873 Colt single action revolver…a gun that was not even yet being made during the year the movie is set in……yep just another dog however better than a host of westerns higher rated ….better than anything with Kurt Russel in it…but bad nonetheless….dont waste your time….go watch any number of far better western movies, True Grit, Crossfire Trail, Conagher, many others….Hollywood has all but lost the ability to make a decent Western…True Grit (2010) was the last great Western movie to date.

  • David AFebruary 19, 2017Reply

    Not your typical western. I enjoyed it.

  • susan cFebruary 23, 2017Reply

    didn’t mind it better than some i’ve seen lately but then i have cold so my discernment might be off

  • Steve DMarch 17, 2017Reply

    Portman gives her all and yet you wonder why. Why would she take a role in a film so lacking in originality or powerful characters?

  • Griffin RMarch 22, 2017Reply

    Interesting premise with the promising inclusion of the talented star Natalie Portman. Falls flat due to bad writing.

    Despite the title, Jane rarely handles a gun, and never with the badassery I expected. This is not a one-woman war for revenge. This is a woman of medicore shooting skills teaming up with an also medicore male gunslinger to shoot maybe five people, and we don’t even see half of the shooting happen. A film that seems to be set up as an action flick is mostly talking.

    The movie seems like it was written in a week and filmed without editing. It’s never boring, but there are so many weaknesses and underused ideas, to the point of leaving the viewer confused.

    It’s not all bad, though. The acting is decent, except for Portman, who is good for what she was given. There’s a touching plot of motherhood, and Jane is a strong and compelling character despite her relative lack of violence. The visual element is also decent, with some good examples of set and costuming.

    Overall, I was disappointed to not enjoy it more, but I liked it alright for what it was.

  • Mike MApril 3, 2017Reply

    A lot of fun. Solid production. Critic reviews are unfairly rough. You can’t even tell it’s McGregor until you really look!

  • Juanita JApril 11, 2017Reply

    I really enjoyed it. The performances are better than the story. The themes are familiar, but the plot is different from what I’ve seen. Nat. Port. is a beauty queen. JE, EM, and NE, all made a lot out of their characters. I might watch it again. It was a good ride.

  • Christopher CApril 29, 2017Reply

    You can see that the actors are trying to put on solid performances but the story is just not there. The history happens in flashbacks and by the time you start caring people start dying. Overall not a good movie.

  • Paul DMay 26, 2017Reply

    This movie wasn’t that bad, but it certainly wasn’t great either. I tend to love Natalie Portman in almost anything, and while she was good in this, the overall story seemed to have some pacing issues. All in all, i would say that it is on the low average side of things.

  • Graham GJune 1, 2017Reply

    Fine Western! Portman handles her role well. McGregor is effortlessly and believably villainous. Worth anyone’s time who enjoys the genre

  • Derek BJune 22, 2017Reply

    The never ending pile of behind the scene issues destroyed what could have been.

  • Aaron SJuly 10, 2017Reply

    Well done. Portman gives an amazing performance. There was a lot of politics and mis-starts that went into the production, but it was a solid story. Strong female character with a believable story. Complex interactions between the characters and a few refreshing and surprising plot twists.

  • Luca MJuly 19, 2017Reply

    Gritty and violent, Jane Got a Gun is a rare movie showcasing a frontier woman’s unconditional love for her family and the danger of living in a world without laws.

  • Serge LAugust 19, 2017Reply

    The film makes sense up to a point. Very good acting for sure. The story has heart. It is not epic, though. It is a small personal story of murderous people in a lawless country. Many flaws making it unlikely. I like the girl being of french descent. I liked the plot twists and the story changing with the viewpoints. And the ending being too good. I liked it too. It could be a murderous Disney western.

  • Chris HNovember 2, 2017Reply

    There are certainly some good moments in this film and as a whole its not a bad experience. That being said it never truly exciting levels. It prefers to meander in the middle giving some decent drama and some decent action but never rising above to become a great Western.

  • A.J. MNovember 6, 2017Reply

    So emotionless, it’s a shame, would’ve been great otherwise.

  • Drew RDecember 4, 2017Reply

    It’s a fine tale if not too easily resolved in a bow

  • AnonymousDecember 31, 2017Reply

    Gripping, fast moving, great cast, great actors, might be my favorite Western.. rating this movie 5. Out of 5

  • Ted WJanuary 26, 2018Reply

    Dumb western with the girl from Thor.

  • Richard SMay 30, 2018Reply

    As far as westerns go, this was ok but it adds nothing new to the genre. Considering the title I expected this to be a female led western revenge tale but Jane still finds herself turning to a man for help and although as the title suggests, she does indeed have a gun, it isn’t fired often enough, that task is left to Joel Edgerton playing the gunsligner she hires to protect her family. The other let down is Ewan McGregor’s villain, he does an average job on villain duties, I just wish they hadn’t made him up to look like a pantomime villain, complete with twirling moustache.
    The greatest strength to this western is the back story between Jane, her husband and the gunslinger. We see through various flashbacks how each of the characters are connected and I felt this added some much needed depth to the story. It was entertaining enough but won’t rank high up in my favourite westerns.

  • AnonymousJune 16, 2018Reply

    Mediocre but feels good movie. Typical oldies when goodies were rewarded and bads were punished. Happy ending and everybody was happy.

  • Late RJune 24, 2018Reply

    It’s quite nice to look at and the cast is amazing, but the story is just too badly written to ignore. They not only seemed to pick the least compelling and interesting of its possible directions every time there was a directional choice to be made, but also punctuated it with ill-fitting flashbacks that felt completely different in tone, leaving it a bit of a mess. Most of all, though, the characters are just in dire need of fleshing out. What saves it from being a complete disaster is the final act which is somewhat exciting, although nothing special. All in all, the story of this film’s hellish production is probably more interesting than the film itself – that’s not really a good sign.

  • Tim WAugust 3, 2018Reply

    There’s been a few good Westerns put out there in recent years, both as series and stand alone films. This ain’t one of them. Ewan McGregor hasn’t looked so uncomfortable since Star Wars.

  • Narrative MAugust 3, 2018Reply

    – Jane Got A Gun – And True Grit –

    My dad introduced me to Westerns when I was a young’un… Silverado was always my personal favorite. And then there was good ol’ John Wayne, whom I watched more of when I became a wrangler, working with horses on a local ranch. But as much as I loved these stories, they always lacked a female protagonist. Women were present (i.e. rescued or featured prominently in saloons), but where were the ones with grit and gumption?

    Enter Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman, Thor, Black Swan). Jane is the heroine we’ve been waiting for. She didn’t set out to become one, but she responds to life’s circumstances with courage and brains.

    When her fiancĂ© doesn’t return from fighting the Confederates after the Civil War ends, Jane heads for New Mexico. After she is trafficked into a brothel by the man leading her wagon train, the villainous John Bishop (Ewan McGregor, Last Days in the Desert, Our Kind of Traitor), she builds a new life for herself with the one man who comes to her aid, Bill Hammond (Noah Emmerich, Blood Ties, Warrior). When he’s shot by Bishop’s men and barely makes it back to their home, she does her best to patch him up before taking their daughter to safety and going to the one man she knows who can help her against the oncoming storm: her ex-fiancĂ©, Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton, Black Mass, Warrior). Together they prepare to defend her property from Bishop’s men, who are determined to finish what they started.

    Jane’s character was different from what I’d expected. I’ve been programmed to expect either a mostly helpless female, or one that is unrealistically tough (with the occasional moment of weakness to make her appear human). I don’t relate to either of those types, so I was a bit apprehensive of what I would find in this film.

    I’m happy to say that I was surprised to find a woman who was not only relatable, but thought-provoking. Glimpses into her past prove that she’s more than capable of handling herself, so when she actually needs help, the situation is plausible. She’s not the only one being saved or doing the saving in this film; everyone has their moments, which settled the hairs on the back of my neck that rose the first time Jane was between a rock and a hard place. Also, she’s basically a super-mom; she cooks, cleans, manages the occasional shootout, handles emergency first aid, etc., all with a no-nonsense attitude of efficiency. Not to say she isn’t fazed by the tough stuff. She is, but she deals with it. In that way, she’s basically the sugar and steel that women are made of.

    It’s worth mentioning that the film doesn’t cut corners in the genre category, either. I’m not a fan of tropes, but there are just certain things you expect from Westerns: exciting chases on horseback, rickety towns built in the middle of the vast and stunning wilderness, shootouts, a villain that’s more dastardly than decent folk can handle, saloons, leather and dust… I was a bit concerned that the filmmakers would soften these to make the protagonist look stronger, but that wasn’t at all the case. Score!

    Jane is a woman who manages to face and overcome every obstacle with grit, guts, and determination. That alone would have made a decent Western. But toss in victory, justice, and a happy ending…that’s a good one, partner.

    ———-

    This review was first published on Narrative Muse, http://www.narrativemuse.co/movies/jane-got-a-gun, and was written Micah Orsetti. Narrative Muse curates the best books and movies by and about women and non-binary folk on our website http://narrativemuse.co and our social media channels.

  • Tom FOctober 28, 2018Reply

    Really bad sound track. Like the worst….it took away from every scene. It’s slow, the storyline was jumbled and confusing. Wow just do yourself a favour and don’t watch it.

  • Mauro LOctober 28, 2018Reply

    A first family is believed dead and instead not, a second family seems alive and instead dies, a third comes out, with a bullet apiece for each parent, who will live elsewhere to die anyway. A botched and inconclusive western.
    (Mauro Lanari)

  • D JDecember 30, 2018Reply

    A simple story with just enough twists to kept it interesting. Portman puts on a good performance and is a pleasing to watch. Good for a lazy day Sunday watch.

  • Ms CNovember 24, 2019Reply

    Awesome old west movie with female lead.

  • Mick RApril 4, 2020Reply

    terrible. shows that when hollywood idiots (like portmna) pretend to be producers this is the king of garbage that happens

  • Maggie WMay 1, 2020Reply

    Not the greatest western-gunslinger drama, however it has the appeal and a sufficiently intriguing storyline to keep you in your seat.

  • AnonymousJune 16, 2020Reply

    It’s got an interesting plot and a strong lead performance from Portman, but otherwise it’s kind of a flat Western. Though a did appreciate the characters struggle with morality.

  • jose rJune 18, 2020Reply

    This film was much better than I expected.
    It is worth watching this film, it has a talented cast with good performances.

  • Eric WDecember 17, 2020Reply

    JANE’S GOT A GUN is a surprise western with a great performance and a classic outlaw tale.

Leave a comment

Name *
Add a display name
Email *
Your email address will not be published
Website