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): ***/****

Focus

I'm a 90s child. I grew up watching Will Smith in movies like Men in Black, Independence Day, Enemy of the State, even Wild Wild West which isn't good but man, I like it a lot. His movies in the 21st Century have been fewer and far between, some really good and some really bad. When I saw the previews for 2015's Focus, it looked like Smith was getting back to basics, audience-pleasing turns that will rake in the money at the box office. What's the verdict then?

Nicky Spurgeon (Smith) is a con man, a world-class con man. He specializes in big but not huge cons, usually working with a team of like-minded crooks. Their targets? Big events, especially sporting events like the Super Bowl. Nicky has years of experience under his belt, and he knows just about every trick in the book. Well, he may have met his match. A beautiful, inexperienced con woman with some untapped potential, Jess (Margot Robbie), approaches him about joining his crew as they prep for a week of cons, thieving and stealing at the upcoming Super Bowl. Against his better judgment, Nicky takes her on and teaches her some of the tricks of the trade, all of which she takes to quickly. Talent is one thing though, money a whole other thing, and a mutual attraction the most prickly situation to arise. With so much on the line, what's in store for the experienced Nicky?

First things first. I wanted to like this movie. I really like Will Smith and Margot Robbie is one of the biggest rising stars in movies these days. Oh, and she's halfway decent looking. I love movies about cons and heists and impossible robberies. That's the movie I thought I was getting. It wasn't. This isn't a heist movie with a will they, won't they subplot. Unfortunately, things are flipped in that sense.

'Focus' could have been pretty good. The opening 45 minutes are pretty cool as director/screenplay-writing combo Glenn Ficarra and John Requa dive in headfirst to the high-class world of con men and their business. When Nicky introduces Jess to all the schemes they can pull with an extensive team of crooks in a public setting, it's that perfect kind of introduction. Fast, stylish and smart, it all blends together in seamless fashion. That's just the introduction though. It's only a jumping off point unfortunately. From there on in, 'Focus' becomes more about the relationship between Smith's Nicky and Robbie's Jess. That's not a bad thing because the duo has a believable, likable chemistry, but...

That wasn't the movie I thought I was getting into. The trailer, the previews on TV, the posters, it all looked like a smooth, darkly funny look into this criminal world. Maybe a little familiar, but who knows? I avoided reviews for the most part -- no spoilers for this guy -- so I could go in with a fresh slate. No matter how good Smith and Robbie are (and they are pretty good), the story still remains that 'Will they? Won't they?' angle that seems more suited to a bad 1990's TV sitcom. As the story jumps in time from New Orleans Buenos Aires, it always comes back to that angle. Charming star power is rarely a bad thing, but 'Focus' relies almost solely on it with a story that had a lot more potential. I never even thought of it as a 'dark comedy' but that's what it is listed as. Even those attempts at humor -- many of them pretty low-brow sex jokes -- fall short or feel forced or both.

So pretty people with chemistry? Yeah, it works. This is the kind of part Smith is cut out for. He can act as he's shown in Ali and Pursuit of Happyness, but I like these parts more. Smith's Nicky is smooth, confident and always seems to be a step ahead. Nothing seems to rattle him...except when Robbie's Jess arrives on the scene. Their chemistry is excellent, but the screenplay simply relies on it too much. It isn't a con movie with a love interest. It's more of a love story with a con angle. Too bad. Also look for Rodrigo Santoro, Adrian Martinez, Gerald McRaney, BD Wong and Brennan Brown in supporting parts. I don't want to explain too much about these parts and ruin any possible surprises. Go in with a clean slate like I tried.

Two things. One, I think 'Focus' is just trying too hard. It so desperately wants to be cool and smooth and uber-suave, but it never quite gets there. The screenplay had a ton of potential but gets weighed down under bad sex jokes, forced jokes and a wandering story. Two, the twists. Movies have become obsessed with delivering a mind-blowing twist(s). The finale here is one twist on top of another, burying the one potential good twist in a sea of other efforts that fall far short. The ending itself is pretty ridiculous, one long exposition after another explaining what just happened, and then, oh yeah, the movie is over. I really wanted to like this one, and I just couldn't get on-board.

Focus (2015): **/****

300: Rise of an Empire

Should there be a limit on when sequels can be released following the original? You'd think studios would want to strike while the iron is hot in most cases. Well, most cases, not all. Released in 2006, 300 was a huge success, earning almost $500 at the worldwide box office. I was a little surprised then last year to read a sequel was in the works. To be fair, it's not exactly a sequel in the most literal sense. Still, I'm a huge fan of the original 300 so I had to at least check out the follow-up, 2014's 300: Rise of an Empire.

As an immense Persian army totaling in the hundreds of thousands descends on Greece, Persian God-King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) prepares for a complete and utter takeover. While Leonidas, the King of Sparta, and his personal guard of 300 Spartans look to bottle up the Persian forces at Thermopylae, an Athenian general, Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), is desperately trying to unite the Greek city states in hopes of mounting a defensive effort. His plan is to take on the gigantic Persian navy with a limited navy supplied by the city states, but even the thought of victory will require a creative defensive plan, relying on guts and some luck too. Themistocles' hopeful victory seems desperate at best, especially when the Persian navy is commanded by a powerful female warrior, Artemisia (Eva Green), with Greek blood who wants nothing more than to lead her forces to a decisive victory.

So yeah, I loved 2006's 300. I loved the graphic novel-like look, loved the characters, the over-the-top, bloody action, and I've always been a sucker for sword and sandal epics. It is and was an all-around winner. Naturally, I had to give this follow-up from director Noam Murro a shot, with 300 director Zack Snyder co-writing the script with Kurt Johnstad based on a still to be released graphic novel from Frank Miller. So why isn't it a sequel? The story in 'Empire' is actually going on as the events with Leonidas and the 300 Spartans are transpiring. 'Empire' is based off the real-life historical battle of Salamis (<----obvious p="" spoilers="">
When '300' was first released, it's visual look resembling a graphic novel adaptation was completely new. It tweaked a familiar formula with some incredibly graphic -- if cartoonish -- violence shown in stylish, slow motion battle scenes. Now eight years later, it doesn't play like it is so original. The story is never dull, but it also never managed to pull me in like its predecessor. Buff, bearded hero to lead the way? Check. Some hard-edged, angry motivational speeches about loyalty and fighting and patriotism? Double and triple check. There's a pretty graphic sex scene -- Stapleton and Green absolutely going at it -- in the vein of the first movie, and a character subplot of a Greek warrior worrying about his hopeful warrior son is plucked right from the original. It's not bad. It's just not that good either. Too familiar, doesn't create enough of its own identity.

It's weird to think of it now, but back in 2006, Gerard Butler and Michael Fassbender (making his film debut) were far from big stars. 'Empire' tries that route again, going down the route of casting relatively unknown actors to fill the major roles. Stepping into the main heroic warrior role is Stapleton (Gangster Squad, Animal Kingdom) as real-life Athenian general Themistocles. It's a part not quite as good as what Butler did in bringing Spartan leader Leonidas to life, but it's still pretty good. He delivers an impassioned, fiery pre-battle speech pretty well too, a requirement for the part because there's at least three or four of them. The problem becomes the rest of the Greeks. They just aren't especially memorable beyond Themistocles. There's also Callan Mulvey as Scyllias, Themistocles' right-hand man, a capable warrior and even a spy, who's also worrying about his son, Callisto (Jack O'Connell), who so desperately wants to be a famed Greek warrior. Also watch for Hans Matheson as Aeskylos, a warrior who looks worried a lot.

By far the best thing about 'Empire' is Eva Green as the badass, ass-kicking Greek woman turned Persian naval commander Artemisia. As she's shown in Casino Royale and looks like she'll show again later this summer in the Sin City sequel, Green is one tough actress who can hold her own with the guys. That's on display anytime she's on-screen here. This is one nasty character, cold-blooded and full of hate and vengeance. Too often female characters are thrown into action movies....well, just because, but Green is a scene-stealer each and every time she is on-screen. An excellent part.

Beyond Green's performance, the best thing about 'Empire' unfortunately is mostly the nods to its predecessor. We get snippets here, a brief scene here of Leonidas and his last stand at Thermopylae. We learn how Santoro's Xerxes become a god-king in a cool flashback narrated by Leonidas' wife and queen of Sparta, Gorgo (played by Lena Headey). Along with Santoro and Headey, also look for returning stars David Wenham as wounded Spartan warrior Dilios, Andrew Tiernan as treacherous hunchback Ephialtes and Peter Mensah -- last seen being kicked into the Hole of Death -- as a key person from Atermisia's past. Fans of the original 300 will get a kick out of these touches, but when a movie is struggling to forge its own identity, these touches prove distracting. You're thinking about the other film, not the one you're watching.

Yes, the naval battles are pretty cool as Themistocles unleashes his outnumbered strategy on the attacking Persian forces. The action scenes were never in question, full of slashing swords, thrown spears and lots and lots of flying blood filling the screen. These scenes lack that emotion, that effectiveness that '300' had in abundance. Cool to watch, but there's not that special quality. Professionally done, but unfortunately 'Empire' is lacking that one special thing, that feeling that permeates throughout the entire movie. A disappointing end result.

300: Rise of an Empire (2014): **/****

The Last Stand

It's good to have Arnold Schwarzenegger back. That is all. Elected Governor of California in 2003, the action star served two terms, putting his film career on hold for the time being. He returned to movies with The Expendables, a slightly bigger part in its sequel and officially took a key supporting role in last year's Escape Plan. But now, it's time for a leading role in a good, old-fashioned shoot 'em up, 2013's The Last Stand.

In the quiet border town of Sommerset Junction in Arizona, Sheriff Ray Towns (Schwarzenegger) enjoys a peaceful, restful life after years of serving in the L.A.P.D. Narcotics and Tactical Division. Well, that idyllic, peaceful life is about to get thrown a curve. With much of the town following the high school football team on a road game, Towns gets a call that someone has been murdered. His deputies stumble upon something in the desert, heavily armed ex-military firing on the deputies. At the same time, Towns gets another call, this time from FBI agent Bannister (Forest Whitaker), with a warning. A highly dangerous leader of a powerful drug cartel, Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega), has led a bloody escape and is making a beeline for Mexico in a modified, souped-up sports car. Bannister believes Cortez is heading right to Sommerset Junction. Towns figures Cortez's plan out, ex-military and all, but can he and his motley crew of deputies stop Cortez?

Ah, action movies, how I love you. This flick didn't do much business last year in theaters -- netting a little over $48 million -- but I remember catching the first trailer for this and being intrigued. This wasn't a movie I was dying to see, that I needed to see, but could it be good? Oh, you bet, and that's what it is in the end. From director Kim Jee-woon, 'Stand' is an entertaining, well-done action movie that's cheesy and goofy, blending some fun characters with one-liners, lots of bloody action and a straightforward good guys vs. bad guys premise. It isn't interested in rewriting the genre, and that's fine. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of last year's 2 Guns, a type of crime action movie that was really popular in the 1970s, especially with the U.S./Mexico border setting. Just enjoy it. Don't overthink it.

Schwarzenegger!!! It's fun to see one of Hollywood's all-time great action stars getting back to business. I got a taste of his return in Escape Plan (his parts in the Expendables are cameos as part of an ensemble, nothing more), but this is where it's at, the Governator in a lead role. Working off a script from Andrew Knauer, Schwarzenegger makes it look easy, even effortless, but he's always got that energy for the action. In other words, there's never a sense that he is phoning it in. Sure, the script has some fun with the 67-year old action star, but it's all in good fun. My favorite? "Sheriff, how are you?" to which Towns answers "Old" having crashed through a window. His backstory is handled in a quick explanatory scene, giving some depth to the small town country sheriff that's pretty familiar in action movies. How does Andy Taylor, um, uh....Arnold Schwarzenegger respond? With a whole lot of shootouts, gunfights and knock-down fist fights, as we've come to expect.

Who else to watch out for? Whitaker does his best as the city boy, the FBI agent who doesn't think a country sheriff could possibly know what he's talking about....even though the polished FBI agent just let a death row prisoner escape. Whitaker disappears in the second half as the action escalates, reappearing late. Johnny Knoxville has the comedic relief as Lewis Dinkum, the town kook with a warehouse full of guns, a part that's just right, not overused or overdone. Jaimie Alexander and Luiz Guzman are Towns' deputies, Rodrigo Santoro playing a town resident who teams up with the crew for the fight. Noriega is a more than worthy villain, his Cortez dripping with intensity and absolutely no fear, Genesis Rodriguez his "unwilling hostage." And because every cartel villain needs an over the top henchman, we get Peter Stormare as Burrell, the leader of the ex-military setting the ground work for Cortez's escape over the border. Also, look for Hollywood veteran and great character actor Harry Dean Stanton in a small uncredited part early.

With a movie that clocks in at 107 minutes, we're never long in between action scenes (and take away 6, 7 minutes for a long credit sequence). Cortez's escape is a good start -- reminding me somewhat of 2003's S.W.A.T. -- as the FBI scrambles to get him back. The highlight comes at the hour-mark, Cortez's advance crew descending on Sommerton where Towns and his deputies are waiting. It's entertaining and bloody and all over the place, bad guys dispatched with a head shot and a cool one-liner. Towns' entrance into the shootout is pretty epic too, Santoro driving a school bus, Schwarzenegger and Knoxville in the back with a seemingly ancient Vickers machine gun. The action is almost non-stop, but it's basically one sequence on top of another over the last hour. The finale between Towns and Cortez at the border is a whopper too, preceded by an epic car chase through a cornfield because....well, because car chases are cool.

Just a fun movie with some familiar touches, even the 1959 classic Rio Bravo. Sit back and enjoy it, welcoming back Aaaahnold.

The Last Stand (2013): ***/****

300

Back to a topic I've written about before for this review...the anti-climactic last stand. Of course, it's only anti-climactic if you know even a little about history. So if you fit in, the endings to movies about the Alamo, the Battle of the Little Big Horn, and the Battle of Thermopylae shouldn't come as a surprise to you. But how do you make a movie where at least a good portion of the audience knows how the story is going to end? Getting there can be half the fun, but that doesn't fly with a lot of audiences.

Turning Frank Miller's graphic novel 300, based on the real life battle of Thermopylae, into a big budget action picture, director Zack Snyder stayed true to the story's roots -- in this case the graphic novel. Instead of making a historically accurate, fact-based version of this ancient battle, Snyder goes for the jugular with an over the top, very stylized telling of one of history's famous last stands. And even though the movie was a huge hit -- making over $200 million -- the criticisms rained down, but more on that later. Maybe more so than with so many other movies, it is essential to know the type of movie you will be watching when it comes to 300. If not, there's any number of places where interest may wane.

It is the year 480 BC and the Spartan king Leonidas (Gerard Butler) receives a messenger from Persia. The Persian god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is sweeping across the world with his massive army, swallowing up countries and armies wherever he goes building his empire. But with the war-heavy culture and upbringing of the Spartans, Leonidas isn't going to just roll over and let Xerxes take Sparta. The council won't allow the army to march out and face the army coming to destroy them so Leonidas finds a loophole of sorts. With his personal bodyguard of 300 men, he marches north to face Xerxes' army.

Leonidas plans for the battle at the pass of Thermopylae where Xerxes' numbers will be negated by the thin entryway. Occupying the pass, Leonidas and the brave 300 can hold back the charges thrown at them over and over again. But as the casualties mount on both sides, can they hold out in time for the council to agree to send the army to help them? Or like true Spartans, will they die in battle as they live up to their belief 'Never give up, never surrender.'? All other things aside, this movie is about the action. It gets to the point it's not just graphic violence anymore. At a certain point, it becomes a ballet, an odd dance of death with blood and guts flying around.

As somehow who doesn't love graphic violence in movies, even I was able to appreciate 300's action. It's heavy on the slow motion which works perfectly because it allows the viewer to see what's going on, how proficient the Spartans were with their weaponry, like this scene. And most of the last 75 minutes of the movie is action, pure and simple, as the Spartans repel charge after charge. You'd think it would get repetitive, but Snyder throws a curveball here and there to keep us interested, including this great fight scene with the Immortals. For one, the script is great, full of one-liners that out of context might sound overdone, but in the context of the movie could not have worked perfectly. Like this now-famous line which has been reused and reused since the movie's release.

Not having read Miller's graphic novel, I can't say how close the movie stays to its source in terms of dialogue. But the dialogue surprisingly enough is what boosts this action movie from average to above average. I for one would not have thought of an ancient massacre being the basis for good one-liners, but what do I know? Credit goes to the cast for committing to these lines, starting with Butler who delivers a movie-stealing performance with his growling voice as he spews out these great lines one after another. The rest of the cast includes Lena Headey as Gorgo, Leonidas' wife and queen of Sparta, Dominic West as the treacherous councilman Theron, and David Wenham, Vincent Regan and Michael Fassbender as three key Spartans.

Done completely in front of a green screen, the movie looks and feels like a graphic novel with its washed out colors (check out the ending for a good representation) which are nonetheless appealing to the eye. The whole movie is a visual treat, not just the expertly-choreographed action sequences. Everything down to the Spartans uniforms all works toward the visual aspect. It also made some people think this was possibly the gayest movie ever with 300 ripped, semi-naked warriors fighting together. Some people have a better imagination than I do I guess. As for the historical naysayers, this movie was never supposed to an accurate depiction of the battle. It's one crazy, over the top look at the battle that never pretends to be anything other than it is, an incredibly entertaining movie.

There are elements of Gladiator and Braveheart visible at times, but it would be hard not to reference those two classics in one way or another. But 300 stands on it's own with a style unto itself. And massacre be damned, Snyder finds a way to make the ending powerful, inspiring and emotional...and that's after the battle. Check it out here as David Wenham's Delios tells the story of the 300 to the Spartan council. A damn good ending to a great movie.

300 <----trailer (2006): *** 1/2 /****