Armée et dangereuse

I went into this movie with no expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. It's being called "slow," which I suppose it is, by Thor and Iron Man standards, but not in a way that bothered me - I wasn't expecting an action-packed story, because, well, I don't mind if a movie has dialog. I thought the pacing was great, and I loved the way the audience slowly finds out what happened, through flashbacks from several different points of view. I didn't mind that Jane wasn't a super hero, just a determined woman, who was strong because life demanded it of her. It felt very realistic. It's not a perfect movie, but it's worth seeing for great performances and gorgeous scenery (filmed on location in New Mexico). I think this movie will do well on video or streaming, if it finds the right audience (that is, people like me) - I'm certainly telling my friends about it.

.. a ranch and a bunch of other stuff (including something attributed to men when they are fearless/a lot of courage). While many have seen or rather predicted the death of the Western "genre" (some might argue it's not a genre itself, just putting this out there), it's still alive and kicking and this movie is testament to that fact.

Natalie Portman is a great actress and she saw something in the character here, that made her want to play the role. It had to do with both the toughness and the vulnerability of her. The script may be predictable (the flashbacks give out bits and peaces, but you can put it together far ahead of the time, so I don't think there are too many surprises, except maybe for the ending), but you can't fault the setups and everything the film does to portray what is going on. Some might feel it's too long and there is definitely not enough action for others, but those who stick with it get a nice story

Jane Got a Gun is a good example of what a movie can do for you if you're going in with certain expectations, especially when they're of an exceptional variety. In the case of this, the word 'troubled' is putting it lightly for the production, as numerous stars (Fassbender quit, Jude Law was briefly hired, as was Bradley Cooper, and Edgerton actually had the role of the *villain*, not the sort of co-hero), and the director (Lynn Ramsey) left while in the midst of shooting over problems with the producer and a lack of final cut. It's the kind of production that has 'disaster' as its mark, and that's not a fair way to immediately judge a film, at least not initially. What if this was the next superb western, in a time when there seem to be a good amount considering how few westerns come out nowadays (i.e. The Hateful Eight, Bone Tomahawk, and Slow West all in the past year or so)?

So I went into this with an open mind, to see what is in front of me (via Warrior director Gavin O'Connor) and left with the opinion that simply... it's OK. Sometimes a little more than OK, and mostly thanks to a game cast. The premise is somewhat simple initially, that a woman finds that her husband (Natalie Portman and Noah Emmerich respectively) has been shot and though she's tending to her wounds she realizes from him more men are coming after him, so she goes and hires a man (Joel Edgerton) who she used to know... actually in some intimate ways.

The movie has a flashback structure that is not really too new. Matter of fact, by 2016 this sort of thing has become kind of tired; of course the drama is meant to be this siege that develops at their home: they can't ride away since Emmerich's Bill Hammond is too injured, so they'll have to set up some things to make sure they aren't caught like fish in a barrel when Ewan McGregor and his men come. But the bigger issue is that the movie has just a lot of peaks and valleys as far as compelling scenes; when people do pull guns on one another and there's set-up with that we see (the plan to fortify the outside of Jane's home with liquid explosives and such is clever), it's exciting.

What seemed to not work quite so well are the quieter scenes, where confessions are made and that drama has to be tapped as to who did what to who in relationships and the old wounds being scorched. There is one really tumultuous sequence where Bill discovers Jane inside of what seems to be a brothel (or it just is) and after he kills a bunch of people she starts sobbing. Moments of high drama register but it's the quiet moments that fall a little flat, or they don't register as they should in a movie that depends on their quiet moments for impact. And it's not so much the actors at fault - Portman and Edgerton are formidable, and McGregor makes a fine figure with that mustache (a bit of a chip off the Val Kilmer in Tombstone block), and one of America's underrated character actors, Noah Emmerich, is terrific even as a lot of his performance is post-shooting in a bed - but with the script.

Strange since the screenplay was originally on the "Black-List" (best scripts produced that got submitted, across the world basically), and Edgerton actually did work on the script too (whether this was before the production problems or during I'm sure I don't know). It's hard to know if it was due to the producers not allowing final cut - a big reason why Ramsey left, which might have been wise - but as a Weinstein Company release it seems a little fishy, like there may have been better material that got left out or moments put together that don't quite fit.

And yet for all these odd feelings watching it, overall I would recommend it to fans of Westerns (believe me, I've seen weaker offerings), and the climax is really solid. James Got a Gun has some original moments, and yet wrestles with becoming generic at the same time: bad-asses pulling guns on one another has been done for so long and in such gritty tones. Maybe it's missing... a tiny bit of humor(?) It's a strange movie to peg what doesn't work about it, but it's not all bad. For all the hard times it took to get to being completed, I'm glad it exists in some form.

This film opens in a remote New Mexico homestead in 1871. Bill 'Ham' Hammond returns home to his wife Jane and their five year old daughter. He is seriously injured following a run in with the Bishop Gang; a group of outlaws he was once part of. He warns that they will be coming for him. She seeks help from neighbour Bill Frost but he is initially unwilling to help; it looks as if she will have to face the gang alone or abandon her husband and flee. As the story progresses as learn more of Jane's past; especially how she is linked to Frost and how she came to be with Ham. Inevitably it all end with a showdown with Bishop and his gang.

When I picked up this film on DVD I knew nothing about it but I enjoy a western so thought it was worth a go. It turned out to be a solid example of the genre even if it will never be considered a classic. The story is simple, which isn't a problem, but it also lacks action for long spell which is. Until the final showdown, which is fairly exciting, we only get a couple of action scenes set in the present and one flashback of Ham rescuing Jane several years previously. The main cast is small. Natalie Portman effectively carries the film as Jane with Joel Egderton providing solid support as Bill. Ewan McGregor is suitably menacing as John Bishop although we don't really see enough of the character. The location used is effective; it looks great and gives a real sense of isolation. Overall I'd say this isn't a must see but would still recommend it to fans of the genre.

Heck of a Western, I expected it would be good before I viewed it when I saw Joel Edgerton had a major role in the movie

Edgerton can really bring it as a lead or support role. And he didn't disappoint.

But I was extremely impressed with Portman. She has picked some stinker roles in the past however she proved IMO she is no longer just the pretty face and she has honed her craft to be a very good actor.

Blows my mind that IMDb is only giving this movie a rating of 5.9 I am a big fan of westerns and I don't hand out high ratings with a whim or fancy.

Good to see Ewan McGregor in a small role. I thought he nailed his part, as well.