Review: Jane Got a Gun

Set out west in the late 1800s, Natalie Portman is the title character, whose husband (Noah Emmerich) has been shot full of holes and barely alive. He tells his wife that they’re coming for them. ‘They’ are the deadly gang of outlaws headed by black-hatted Bishop (Ewan McGregor), who had previously forced Jane into prostitution (Emmerich being the only nice one of the bunch, eventually turning on his fellow outlaws). Rather than run, Jane drops her daughter off with a friend and calls upon Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) to help out. Frost is Jane’s former lover who went off to fight in the Civil War only to come back after and find his girl married to another man, thinking Frost was dead. He’s initially very much against helping the woman who broke his heart and the man who helped her break it. Nonetheless, he does the right thing and comes to her aid as Bishop and his men descend upon their property. That’s Joel’s brother Nash Edgerton as a man getting tortured by Bishop early on.

This troubled production (directors and cast members came and went for starters) from 2016 isn’t about to lead to a great revival of westerns, having taken so long to merely get its release. Shot in 2013, the finished product isn’t really worth the wait, though I’ll admit its history makes it surprising that the film isn’t even worse. Directed by Gavin O'Connor (“Pride and Glory”, “Warrior”), I like some of it but not nearly enough.

In the right role, Natalie Portman can be a terrific actress. Although I think Hillary Swank would’ve been even better, this is a pretty good performance from Portman (who also produced), tasked with anchoring the film. I actually think, though, that co-writer Joel Edgerton (reuniting with his “Warrior” director, as well as one of the co-writers of that film) is even more impressive. It’s easily one of the best performances he’s given in an American film, for some reason reminding me somewhat of Van Heflin. More “Shane” Van Heflin than “Airport” Van Heflin, that is. Less impressive by far is Ewan McGregor, whose dark appearance I’m assuming was meant to evoke Henry Fonda from “Once Upon a Time in the West”. He looks far more like Groucho Marx to me (minus the glasses and with a smaller cigar), and in addition to being underused, gives perhaps the most boring performance of his career. In addition to looking stupid, he looks miserable. Possibly because he knows he looks stupid. He’s certainly nowhere near menacing enough to be the villain here, and it’s a definite major problem with the film (His henchmen are forgettable too). It’s a bit of a thankless role, but Noah Emmerich is perfect casting in a smallish role as a not-so bad guy.

The film itself is overly familiar and sluggish. It really needed a director with a bit of muscle, or at least a new wrinkle to the plot. It is, however, a really pretty, sometimes dusty-looking film. That carries it some length, but this is ultimately not up to snuff. I can see why this isn’t well-known. In addition to belonging to a genre that doesn’t set the box-office alight these days, this is pretty sluggish and clichéd. A fatally miscast Ewan McGregor is no help, though Natalie Portman (and especially) Joel Edgerton impress. This isn’t very good, and I really wished it was, as I enjoy a good western. The screenplay is by co-star Joel Edgerton, Brian Duffield (the popular “Insurgent”), and Anthony Tambakis (“Warrior”).

Rating: C+