Fresh on the heels of the Jane Got A Gun release date is a review from an early screening of the film. Because it was probably an early cut and because the source is unknown, I would take it all with a pinch of salt. Thanks to lightscamerareaction.

Well Natalie Portman is the film’s MVP.

It was such an emotionally stirring performance and and did a magnificent job carrying a whole movie on her shoulders and showing her development as a weak, abused woman to a strong, assertive mother.

That’s the film’s biggest, and of its few, pros though.

Overall, I thought the film was mediocre.

I blame the choice of director. I LOVE Gavin O’Connor, who was a last minute replacement, but I had the same problem I had with Mira Nair’s work in “The Namesake” (2007) and Steven Spielberg’s for “Lincoln” (2012): It was dull!

The first rule of cinema is to never be boring. O’Connor never gave us the suspenseful atmosphere and action this western needed.

And Joel Edgerton had trouble playing an American. He never looked very comfortable and assuring in the role and he’s supposed to be this bad ass gunslinger.

I have a feeling that if the movie was set in the outback in his native Australia, he would have been much better.

I also thought the film’s beginning wasn’t badly paced but could have been written better. The audience had to extrapolate too many things about what was the movie’s problem and who Jane was and how she got where she was.

I felt the complete opposite about the bittersweet ending though. It ended with a great montage where it was perfectly clear, without spelling out, the characters’ fates.

3/4

Note: The movie will be rated R for strong violence. The film isn’t as gory as “Drive” (2011), a film I was reminded of for some reason, though.

Dull, boring and mediocre but 3 stars out of 4? Must have really loved that ending I guess…