Is it really that bad?


No spoilers please but is it really that bad???

reply

i thought it was ok, doesn't bring anything new to the genre however




so many movies, so little time

reply

THx for the answer!

reply

It's painfully boring and slow-moving.

Also a horrible screenplay.

reply

Im a third way into the movie, I got it only because I set trailers for films I liked into a folder and this one's trailer I had saved previously. So the trailer must have been good. But so far the film is boring as hell as people on here have been noting. I came onto the boards to find exactly this. Well, not sure if Im going to even finish this film now. The only positive is Natalie Portman is damn gorgeous in this for having a wild west look in it. But she looks pretty much amazing in every film to me. Her looks alone cant justify me finishing this slow ass movie however :X
Just to be clear I dont mind slow movies, The Hateful Eight was a kind of slow intense film that you just cant look away from, it was fantastic. But slow films need to have that special something to make them work. Here they just dont have it.

reply

It's painfully boring and slow-moving.


It slow paced like a western should be. You'll not find any annoyingly fast modern direction/editing here. Beautifully shot (and you are given time to reflect on that beauty). Well acted. Story is OK.

It's a perfectly fine western. The rating is a joke.

reply

No,it's actually a pretty good film.Don't listen to all of the negative comments.

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/247745514?d=247745514#247745514

reply

It's a slooooow-moving chick flick, set in the old West.


Don't listen to female reviewers, unless you're a female yourself.

Women will watch 2 hrs of paint drying on growing grass, as long at the end, the rich hunky guy marries the true-hearted girl.




- And that's the truth.

reply

[deleted]

Not all females :-)

reply

Don't know what you are addiicted to
You should try clean and sober

reply

It was ok, but nothing special. I'm not a fan of western movies.

There's something wrong with Esther.

reply

As far as westerns go, yes it is bad. It is no 'High Moon', 'The Searchers' or 'How the West was won'.

It ticks all the boxes as far as setting and costume go but beyond this it is lacking in direction and gritty drama. Just plods along until the end, which we could all see coming from the start, so to speak.

Give it a miss, you won't miss anything.

reply

No it isn't
It's a matter of oreference
I liked it

reply

Not bad at all.

reply

The beginning is a little slow but I thought it was good.


-I am chief! Want big fire!
Jack Sparrow

reply

[deleted]

Yes, I agree that the film's title is highly misleading in suggesting that the lead female character played a major role in a fierce fight to defend herself and possibly those she loved. Instead, Jane was not involved in one single standoff gunfight with any man, and largely depended on two men at various times for her own protection. At the end it was just the familiar Western in which a woman sought help from a former lover to protect her family and got reunited with him at the end.

It was not a bad film, though the flashbacks (in my view far too numerous and coming without warning) led to confusion rather than illumination and only slowed down the story. There was little that was new in the film either in the approach, characterization and (if any) message. It looked like a generic Western coming from the 1950s, and had the story been told linearly, it could have easily fitted into a 50 minutes TV episode.

reply