Jane Got A Gun: Review / by Kenneth Buff

Well, it’s February. It’s the garbage month for movies. It’s the month where studios dump their biggest critical stinkers, their movies that they have absolutely no confidence in making back any money, or in anyone even liking. But when you’re me, that still doesn’t stop you from going to the theater, so without further ado, here’s my review of Jane Got A Gun.

Some where trapped inside the mess that is Jane Got A Gun there’s a decent movie hiding. There’s all the right pieces. It’s a revenge western (who doesn’t love Unforgiven?), cross-starred lovers, good actors giving decent performances, beautiful scenery—there’s a lot of things in here to like, but the execution of the story is so poor that it often feels like a made for TV movie.

So the movie starts out with Jane, played by Natalie Portman, hauling a bleeding man into her home. He’s been shot in the back five times by some evil gang. She seems really pissed at this guy, later we’ll find out he’s her husband. We’re then greeted by an onslaught of characters who have unexplained pasts with other characters, as she heads into town to stock up on ammo to take out the evil gang that will apparently be invading her farm later. From here, we learn most of what’s going on through awkward flashbacks that feel like something out of one of the really bad Nicholas Spark movies (any of them but The Notebook).

The sad thing is that after the film does away with these corny flashbacks that don’t fit the movie, the story does actually pick up, and there’s even quite a few well-done action scenes. But it just can’t make up for the often boring and sometimes awkward first half of the movie.

Jane Got A Gun is a typical February stinker, don’t bother seeing it unless there is literally nothing else to watch.