Jane Got A Gun Analysis

1086 Words3 Pages

Believe it or not, Jane Got a Gun had a pretty solid hype train a few years back. After all, it landed an Academy Award winning actress in Natalie Portman, not to mention Michael Fassbender and Joel Edgerton. Of course, that was back in 2012 when casting originally took place. And, as you might have noticed – the cast looks a tiny bit different now. After a revolving door of actors signing on and exiting the project, the film also suffered from the swapping of directors, not to mention the dreaded rewrite process. But, nearly four years since the start of production, Jane Got a Gun is finally seeing the light of day. Sadly, though, this is one of those films where the backstage chess games overshadow the eventual end product. In Jane Got a Gun, directed by Gavin O’Connor (Miracle, Warrior), Natalie Portman stars as Jane Hammond. When Jane’s husband, Bill (Noah Emmerich), arrives home (severely wounded) to their secluded ranch, he informs her that their past has finally caught up with them – in the form of a dangerous gang, …show more content…

If you haven’t heard a single thing about the production’s dysfunction, ranging from endless recasts and a directing change, all the way to distribution calamities, it would probably be fair to say this was an average western. In reality, Jane Got a Gun will (not) be remembered for everything it could have been – but wasn’t. Natalie Portman is good in the leading role, but could have been written stronger. Plus, the story would have been far more potent if it had avoided the back-and-forth time shifts. If it had maintained a straight-ahead agenda, the layers of the story could have dig much deeper and enriched the half-cocked emotions. In the end, though, average is still the best way to describe Jane Got a Gun, even if it’s only occasionally delightful – especially in those rare interactions between two Star Wars alums (Natalie Portman and Ewen

More about Jane Got A Gun Analysis

Open Document