★ 7 / 10
**_Serious account of the frontierswoman mixes fact with
Wuchak
**_Serious account of the frontierswoman mixes fact with mythmaking_** I say “serious” because the previous Western about Calamity Jane was the amusing musical…
**_Serious account of the frontierswoman mixes fact with mythmaking_**
I say “serious” because the previous Western about Calamity Jane was the amusing musical with Doris Day from 1953. Yet this isn’t a serious biopic of Martha Jane Canary since it involves glaring mythmaking, as well as the fact that the story focuses on the day Wild Bill Hickok was shot playing poker in Deadwood and the subsequent capture of the killer, Jack McCall, which means we’re talking about a matter of a few days.
Jane was rumored to have fronted a mob that aimed to lynch McCall, but the idea that she joined a small posse to track down Bill’s murderer appears to be fiction. Yet it makes for a good story, right? (Which is driven home at the very end of the movie). Another deviation from reality is the semi-wintry setting when, in fact, Hickok was shot and his murderer caught in August 1876.
Another dubious element is the idea that Jane and Hickok were a couple, soon to be married. Actually, he married Agnes Thatcher Lake five months before his death, although she was back in Wyoming when he was killed. Hickok possibly met Jane for the first time after she was released from military custody in Fort Laramie (or discharged from a hospital, as she claims) and joined the wagon train that Wild Bill was on, which arrived in Deadwood in July 1876. While Jane claimed they were close, even married, historians tend to suggest that they barely knew each other. Then again, what happens on the frontier stays on the frontier, so who really knows?
It is true, however, that Jane was a rowdy, foul-mouthed frontierswoman and sharpshooter with a penchant for liquor. All of this is depicted in the movie. She was also a storyteller, which means she made things up or stretched the truth to entertain people.
Before watching this Western, I had my doubts since the director helmed the substandard "Stagecoach: The Texas Jack Story" eight years prior. But he either had more money to work with here, or he developed as a filmmaker (or both), because this is a proficient modern Western with excellent locations, sets, lighting, costumes and acting, not to mention action. Regrettably, the first half is superior because it focuses on establishing the characters in Deadwood whereas the second half concentrates on people shooting or stabbing each other in the wilderness. Those who favor muscular action will appreciate the second half more than me.
It runs 1h 35m and was shot in 2023 in Kamloops, British Columbia, and 190 miles southwest of there at Jamestown Film Set in Langley Township, which is 30 miles southeast of Vancouver.
GRADE: B
Read full review
★ 3 / 10
Really quite cliché and boring....
NullUnit
Overall, this film just "feels" sort of odd.... like it's unpolished. There are just minor nuances that work against any "suspension of disbelief". Things like…
Overall, this film just "feels" sort of odd.... like it's unpolished. There are just minor nuances that work against any "suspension of disbelief". Things like someone speaking one sentence in *too* perfect English. I.e. ".. that is how things are meant to be" as opposed to "...that's how things're meant ta be". Or one person looks sparkling clean when everyone else looks dusty and worn. Or.. the long hair wigs on the male actors just look unrealistic (if not reused between actors - seriously looks like the same long hair wig on several different actors).
There's FAR too much attempt at some sort of emotional pull for Jane.. but there's ZERO character development for her. This is NOT a story about how Jane got her nickname. Not even close. It STARTS with Jane already having her nickname and apparently some sort of reputation. It's not even a story about Jane really.... it's a story that *happens* to have Jane, Buffalo Bill, etc. In it - that's all. There's no reason all the character names couldn't have been changed to completely unrecognizable names, the film would have been the same.
Honestly, I didn't care about any of the characters - but it was CLEAR that was the intent of some scenes. It was clearly striving to be some sort of "emotional western". But came across as just formulaic and cliché.
Overall, this film has an air of a "made for TV" film.. that same melodramatic acting and soundtrack.. and storyline. LITTERED with clichés in scenes, characters, settings, and dialog.
This film is not really horrible, but it is exceptionally unremarkable and forgettable.
Some foul language, western violence. (shooting, etc). No sex or nudity or adult content (might have been a kiss at most).
Read full review
★ 4 / 10
Watched for the cast, left for the director.
petru-64155
As most viewers, I watched this because I loved the cast, both Emily and Steven played great characters in Arrow, so I'm confident that the poor acting isn't a…
As most viewers, I watched this because I loved the cast, both Emily and Steven played great characters in Arrow, so I'm confident that the poor acting isn't a result of either of them (or the other cast). Unfortunately I was not able to go past the first 15 minutes of the movie because it was just too low grade for me.
There's a scene where Calamity is fighting off the guy on top of the horse carage, and the guy takes a knife out to kill her. You can clearly see that the actor with the knife is waiting for Calamity to hold his arm so they can do the typical "struggle with the knife" scene.
Another moment was when Calamity went up to the lady next to her in the jail cell and grabbed her by the throat. There was just not enough force in that scene, it looked more like she was seducing her than threatening her.
The director should've asked for more from the actors, and now we're left with this waste of a good story.
Read full review
47%
AUDIENCE
4.4/10
871
•••
It just looks like the modern version of straight-to-dvd-multipack or satelite/cable tv knock-em-out-by-the-dozens sludge