Jane Got a Gun

I'm a western nut. I feel right at home with them. And unfortunately for me and other western fans, the genre hasn't had a prominent theatrical presence since...well, since before I was born. As for today's review, I imagine a lot of people haven't even heard of it. Released in theaters this past Friday, it's had a dramatic production and is basically being released in theaters because....I don't know, it takes millions of dollars to make a movie. So what's the verdict on the little-advertised Jane Got a Gun?

It's 1871 in the New Mexico territory, and Jane Ballard (Natalie Portman) lives on a small spread with her husband, Bill (Noah Emmerich), and their young daughter. Bill staggers home one day, falling off his horse with his back riddled with bullets. As Jane digs the bullets out of his back, Bill mumbles that "The Bishop boys are coming." Their past has caught up to them and with her husband recovering and unable to help, Jane is on her own. With time running out and desperately in need of help, Jane seeks help with a man from her past, Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton), an accomplished gunhand, who at first wants nothing to do with her. After a change of heart though, Dan follows her on the trail, agreeing to help. Riding back to the spread, they have to decide what their plan of both attack and defense will be against John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) and his gang. The odds are already stacked against them though, and that's without considering if they can work through through their checkered past.

Haven't heard of it? Few have. This western has received little to no advertising in recent weeks. After a checkered production, it seems the studio backing the film simply wants to get it off the books. If it's a financial bomb? Eh, it's not sitting on the shelf. 'Jane' was actually filmed back in 2013 and has been sitting on that shelf ever since because of its original studio going bankrupt with the Weinstein Company buying it. The production itself seemed like a revolving door of directors and actors as well. Easy-peasy, right? Well, let's make the best of a lousy situation.

Moral of the story? It's a pretty decent little western. I liked it a lot. Director Gavin O'Connor stepped in after some drama with previously-attached directors and does a solid job with an old school western that would have been comfortable if it had been released in the 1960's/1970's. While it isn't cut and dry black and white, it is a pretty straightforward good guys vs. bad guys. More importantly, it's clear that those involved are fans of the genre, know how to do a western right. Filmed on location in New Mexico, 'Jane' looks authentic, the wide expanses of the desert serving as a backdrop. It's a big, lonely place. O'Connor and cinematographer Mandy Walker have fun with some genre conventions, riders sprinting at the camera in a sun-soaked, vision that looks like a mirage, riders silhouetted against a setting sun. Throw in a good if not flashy score from Lisa Gerrard and Marcello De Francisci, and you've got some positives across the board.

What isn't exactly abundant in the western genre? For one, female leads. For two, strong female leads. In steps Natalie Portman, one of the best actresses currently working in Hollywood (wish she'd work more!). Her Jane Ballard is a welcome character, a real character. She's a good shot with a rifle but far from a killer. She makes tough choices for the sake of her family and will do just about anything to protect them. Her backstory is especially interesting which we see in some well-handled flashbacks featuring some genuinely surprising revelations. So while she seeks help from a man, her Jane is far from a damsel in distress. This is a lead female character that is a welcome addition to the genre, not a side character who's brushed aside at the slightest sign of trouble. There's been far too many of those so welcome to the club, Natalie Portman/Jane Ballard!

Having worked together on 2011's Warrior (an excellent movie, one of my favorites), Edgerton teams up with director O'Connor and again, doesn't disappoint. His Dan Frost is the archetypal western hero, capable, stubborn and even when the odds indicate he shouldn't, he does the right thing, in this case agreeing to help Portman's Jane. Edgerton is fast becoming one of my favorite actors, and he shows why here. It's a fascinating character, one dealing with his own past demons and with his own reasons for helping Jane out. He also has one of the best lines in the movie as he dispatches one of Bishop's henchmen. Playing Bishop, the again always reliable Ewan McGregor is a scene-stealer as the steely-eyed John Bishop, a notorious bandit but a well-dressed, well-coiffed gentleman bandit at that. Just wish there was some more of him!

With a small cast, Emmerich isn't given much to do as the wounded, laid-up husband, but some revelations about his past help flesh out the character. Also, look for Rodrigo Santoro as Fitchum, a slimy member of Bishop's gang, and Boyd Holbrook as Vic, John Bishop's younger, sadistic brother. A smaller cast definitely leaves the focus on Portman and Edgerton once things get moving.

This isn't an action-packed western so don't expect shootouts every minute. The action -- like the story -- is about setting the scene, building the tension to nearly unbearable levels. When the firing starts, it's lightning-quick. Most of the action is saved for the finale when Bishop's gang descends on the Ballard house, a violent mix of Home Alone meets Straw Dogs. The story itself has some surprises up its sleeve, much of it revealed in the well-handled flashbacks going back to the later years of the Civil War. If the ending is a tad too tidy, so be it. It's a good ending to an above average western that deserves better. I can't imagine it will stay in theaters too long so get your butts out to theaters quickly or wait for it on DVD/Blu-Ray. It's well worth it!

Jane Got a Gun (2016): ***/****

Miracle

When things are handled correctly, it's hard to beat a good, old-fashioned sports flick. Oh, and the story is based on a true story? Yeah, things just get a little bit easier. Sometimes it ends up being the craziest, no way in hell this could possibly happen angles of the story that end up being the most effective. Case in point, the story of the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team that captivated viewers, eventually earning a film adaptation with 2004's Miracle.

It's early in 1979 and the upcoming 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York are fast approaching. For years, the Russian hockey team has rolled through opponents like a buzz saw, destroying opponents left and right. The United States Olympic Committee is trying to do something about that epic winning streak, hiring a former player turned college coach at Minnesota, Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), to put together a winning team that can make some noise at the upcoming Olympic games. Brooks takes the job but intends to go about putting the team together in his way, regardless of what the U.S.O.C. really thinks or wants. With little expected of the American team, Brooks decides on his team at tryouts and goes to work. His methods are tough, his players bristling at times at his authority, but Brooks isn't interested in making friends. He's interested in making this American hockey team something special, a team that could be on a collision course with the Russian powerhouse. 

Whether you're a hockey fan, a sports fan, or maybe even hate sports, this is a story that resonates. Audiences typically eat up underdog stories, and this is one of the all-time greats in U.S. sports history. Read about the true story HERE with more details. I've never been a huge hockey fan, and that's a big reason it took me most of 10 years to actually watch this. It was worth the wait, director Gavin O'Connor's film more than delivering the goods. 'Miracle' covers a lot of ground from Brooks' hiring to his choosing the team, their training to the actual Olympic games. Unless you've been under a rock for years, you no doubt know how the movie will end, but O'Connor's film does a good job keeping us interested (knowledge of the finale or not), building that momentum right up until the famous semifinal matchup with the powerhouse that was the Russian National team. It's nothing flashy, nothing we haven't seen in sports flicks before, but it is very good from beginning to end.

Kurt Russell is the Man. That is all. He hasn't worked a ton in film over the last 10-plus years, but this is one solid performance. He sinks his teeth into the part of Herb Brooks, the U.S. hockey team's head coach who goes about motivating his team under some unique circumstances. He isn't interested in being a friend to his players, even a casual acquaintance. Brooks is interested in one thing and one thing only; Winning. Russell's Brooks wants a team of hockey players, not a team of hockey stars and on-ice divas who make the game all about themselves. He pushes and pushes his players, knowing what it will take to pull off the impossible. The trick becomes, has he pushed them too far? I loved the performance from Russell (especially his late 70s/early 80s apparel. Those COATS!), the biggest and most important part that brings the real-life Brooks to life. Also look for Patricia Clarkson as Brooks' wife, struggling with the time commitment, and Noah Emmerich and Kenneth Welsh as his assistant coach and team doctor.

If I had an issue with the story, it is that with the focus on Brooks and the team, we don't get to know enough of the players, their history and their backgrounds. Yes, there's 20 players and there's no human way to introduce all of them, delve into all those back stories. Still, an effort for a little more depth would have been excellent. The biggest focus is on Eddie Cahill as Jim Craig, the U.S. team's goalie struggling with some personal and family issues.  Also look for Patrick O'Brien Dempsey, Michael Mantenuto, Nathan West, Kenneth Mitchell, and Eric Peter-Kaiser as the more visible of the U.S. team members.  

My counter to that previous statement is to shoot holes in said statement. Brook's intention as a coach was to bring a team together. Truly bring a team together, the players putting their egos aside for the sake of the team and for their country, the United States. In that sense, the focus of the film is on the team effort, not the individual effort. We don't necessarily need to know a whole lot about the players. As sappy or cheesy as it sounds, this is a movie patriotism and national pride, a story that if you didn't know it was true....you'd think this was some schmaltzy Hollywood script. So in the end, it is both good and bad. The effort is solid, a team's effort to win the Olympics, not the individual players, but I definitely would have liked a little more character development among the U.S. team members. Now that said.....U-S-A, U-S-A!!!

With sports movies sometimes, the biggest weakness is usually....well, the sports. The portrayal of said sport can be a tad rough and/or forced at times. I thought the hockey sequences were great here, whether it is the brutal training the U.S. team goes through (the painful 'Again...' scene following an Olympic warm-up, watch HERE) to the actual games, especially an early game against Sweden that comes down to the wire. The best sequence is of course, the epic showdown with Russia that gave the film its title, broadcaster Al Michaels infamously yelling 'Do you believe in miracles?!?' as the clock winds down. The game is one big drain on your adrenaline, so many up and down moments as the momentum switches back and forth. The actual gold medal game is an afterthought, the focus instead on the semifinals with the Russians. A very enjoyable sports movie, full of a handful of great, memorable moments and featuring an underrated performance from star Kurt Russell.

Miracle (2004): ***/****