New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: Jane Got a Gun, a western featuring Natalie Portman, earned $835,572 this weekend and had a per venue average of $664. What do you think about this?

Ryan Kyle: I'd say this was an abysmal opening for any regular film, but for how much behind-the-scenes turmoil this movie has had, just being released in 1210 theaters is a big enough accomplishment. Between the director not showing up the first day of filming and then being promptly replaced, stars dropping out, the original distributor going bankrupt, and the Parisian premiere being cancelled for being the same week as the Paris terrorist attacks, Jane never caught a break. Originally planned to be released in just a few hundred theaters until a last minute uptick from The Weinstein Company with almost zero advertising, expectations weren't high to begin with. This release feels almost more or less contractual (same with Friday's Ethan Hawke/Emma Watson horror flick from TWC as well) and was filmed so long ago that I wouldn't be surprised if most of the cast was aware it hadn't come out yet.

Felix Quinonez: I think this is pretty terrible but not surprising. With all of the trouble this movie went through before even hitting the theaters and the fact that the studio basically put it out to die, you couldn't really expect much more from it. In the end it will be forgotten about by the end of the month. But because most movie goers don't even know about it, I don't think any one's career will really suffer.

Ben Gruchow: It's a film that's going to discover a moderate second life on Netflix/Vudu/Hulu/whichever; Natalie Portman fans, Ewan MacGregor fans, and Western fans will see it, see the 100-minute runtime, and take the plunge on it. It's not a film for the ages, and I can't see myself having anything but the faintest memory of it by the end of the year, but nor is it the failure you'd expect from such a tortured production history and release date. To go outright positive on it for a moment, it looks very nice on a theater screen. It'll be gone from theaters inside of three weeks or so; I'm interested to find out what happens to it next, if anything.

Kim Hollis: It's a shame that everything surrounding the making and marketing of the film is such a disaster, because I actually think a Western featuring Portman seems potentially interesting. Obviously, the Weinstein Company let it hang out to dry, but it probably isn't really hurting them to allow that to happen.

Then again, maybe movies like Jane's Got a Gun are why Relativity is bankrupt now.

David Mumpower: Ryan's point is important if only because it demonstrates that the better story here occurred behind the scenes. The making of Jane's Got a Gun would be a better movie than the one released into theaters. While the performance of the film itself is virtually pointless, I'd still suggest that people read this excellent Vulture piece about why Relativity failed.

Continued:       1       2