Truly Dreadful Film

Fantastic!

Absolutely brilliant

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The only other time I've come across the historical Ned Kelly was via the 1970 film of the same name with Mick Jagger in the lead role. In that picture, Jagger's celebrity status managed to distract most of the time, and the movie featured a lot of musical background themed for the story of an Australian outlaw taking it to Victorian authorities. What this effort does is convey the idea that Ned Kelly's major crime was that of being born Irish, making him and his family a minority in 1871 Australia. Therefore any suspected misdemeanor, like looking the wrong way at a town constable, was pretty much grounds for being harassed and bullied. Then of course, one thing leads to another and hostilities escalate until things go out of control. It's a familiar story, and one that gets repeated consistently in real life as well as film. In comparison with the earlier film version, I guess it's a toss up depending on one's disposition. Jagger's picture will have it's adherents, though this one is probably the better told story, and is somewhat removed from the Western film genre it emulates. The 1970 version reminded me of tales of the James/Younger Gang.

This movie tries to be a sweeping epic about the savage "Wild West" era of late 19th century Australia, but it's hampered by not understanding the strongest part of its own story and by not appreciating that we aren't all Australians.Ned Kelly tells the story of a famous outlaw named…wait for it…Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger). He's the oldest son of a poor Irish-Australian family with a history of run in's with the local authorities. While not much more than a boy, Ned gets himself thrown in prison for defending a girl. When he comes out, he tries to live on the straight and narrow but winds up framed for shooting at a police officer. That sends Ned and his friends on the run, where they turn to bank robbery and become heroes to much of the country folk who are burdened by greedy banks and rich land owners. Eventually the authorities call in a high ranking police officer, sort of a "super cop" to lead a military style campaign to bring the Kelly Gang to justice. That leads to a final battle that is not just one of the greatest stories in Australian history; it's one of the most amazing stories in the history of the world.This movie, however, doesn't seem to appreciate that its climactic conflict is the best and most important element of the story of Ned Kelly. Aside from that gunfight, and the incredible way Kelly prepares to meet his enemies, there's nothing all that remarkable to Ned Kelly's life. Especially to an American who grew up with the tales of Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp and Davey Crockett, there's little new or different in this movie. It does touch upon Kelly's Robin Hood-like persona, but it never clearly establishes the social and economic order of Kelly's time and what sort of grievances and oppression he was seen to be combating. This movie treats Ned Kelly's entire life as though it was this grand and compelling adventure, of which the tremendous ending was just a part. But without the tremendous ending, Kelly's life wouldn't be of much interest to anyone except those preoccupied with Australian historical nostalgia.There were plenty of times watching this film that I could tell I wasn't getting how important and significant certain aspects of the story are, or are supposed to be, in Australian history. A scene would unfold, the music would swell to indicate "This is a big deal"…and it just didn't mean that much to me. The story does virtually nothing to universalize Ned Kelly's life and times, to demonstrate what meaning they should have to non-Australians.None of the actors, outside of Heath Ledger, are really given much to do in the story, other than take part in the beardapalooza of facial hair on display. They're all perfectly fine, but there's nothing particularly appealing or praiseworthy in their roles. Ledger, however, is given a lot more to do on screen and he does work hard at taking the two-dimensional, almost saintly character that Ned Kelly is in this film and giving him some human depth. But this performance pretty much proves that Heath Ledger didn't have "it". "It" being that indefinable thing big movie stars have. Will Smith has "it". Tom Cruise used to have "it". John Wayne and Spencer Tracy had "it". Oh, he was certainly handsome enough to pass as a leading man and anyone who's seen his phenomenal performances in Brokeback Mountain and The Dark Knight knows how deeply talented he was as an actor. But that thing that movie stars have to have to make you like them, to make you want to watch them, Ledger did not have "it". Perhaps he was too good of an actor, to committed to reshaping himself to fit a role to ever let his own essential nature shine through.Ned Kelly's not a bad film, but it just goes along as a fairly standard Australian Western before unleashing it's unbelievable but true ending. If you already know a little about Ned Kelly, you might enjoy seeing the rest of his life played out on screen. But if you don't, you'll likely come away from this movie wishing it had spent a whole lot more time and energy on the one outstanding part of Ned's story.

From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable. Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure. In this film you will find none of that. The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards. It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. I found the film a real chore to watch. It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more.

I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time.