Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Only being passingly familiar with the story of Ned Kelly, I can say that, on a cinematic basis, this is a pretty good movie. The locations, cinematography and supporting actors are all grittily realistic, in the way that only '60s-'70s- era movies could be. Of course, that still leaves the woefully miscast Jagger. As the larger-than-life rough- hewn bushman Kelly, Mick doesn't come close to cutting it. As an actor, he doesn't cut it. The scene in which he fights off five gaol guards (with a hangover) is silly. And yeah, his beard's silly. The Waylon Jennings soundtrack (and, in response to a previous poster, this was before Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid) is interesting, but inappropriate.

Deadly dull junk, poorly made, with Jagger seemingly on heavy quaaludes during the entire production. Ugly to look at to make matters worse, and the actors all seem to affect Irish accents, rather than Australian as the real Ned Kelly was.If a Heath Ledger/Orlando Bloom remake can only improve things, then you know the original is awful.Postscript: if you loved "21 grams," then you're just the sort of pompous yuppie who goes for this sort of thing. In that case, by all means rent "Ned Kelly". "Six Feet Under" & "The West Wing" are bound to be a re-run once in a while, right?

This film has always received a thorough trashing, in Australia at least, & having seen it, I believe unfairly. As a genre film it's pretty solid - boy gets out of jail, still gets hassled by The Man, gets pushed back into crime trying to help his dear old momma, & goes out in a blaze of glory (sort of - he was captured & hanged after the glorious showdown).Unfortunately, the boy happens to be Ned Kelly, Australia's most ambiguous hero. Debating what sort of a man Kelly really was is irrelevant now - the legend is far more important. An Irish renegade standing up to the imperialist forces, or a glorified criminal, blah, blah, blah. He may have been a horse-thief, he may have been a thug, he may have loved fluffy kittens - we'll never know for sure.This film hardly attempts to get at any sort of historical truth - it's about rebellious youth breaking free from the stuffy establishment, hence the casting of Jagger. He's actually quite good, but his celebrity overshadows his performance. He might have worked, just not playing such a famous Australian icon. That elevates it to a type of ironic blasphemy.Pity, really - it's not a bad film at all. Well shot, directed & acted, it does convey a sense of being back in the 19th century, & still manages to have that rebellious 60's/70's charm.A much better (& far more brutal) Australian bushranger film is 'Mad Dog Morgan', starring Dennis Hopper, & his Irish accent is just a bit more convincing than Jagger's.

Sit back and let me tell you about a man named Ned. A poor old boy barely kept his family fed....because he couldn't keep his ass out of the pen. To make ends meet he goes about stealing horses and killing. Other than that he was just a good old boy. This wasn't a bad film, especially the last half, but it was somewhat disjointed, the fight scenes were obviously staged, much of the acting was second rate, and the blood looked more like used motor oil than the genuine article. The writer bought into the Jesse James syndrome which always depicts a real life murderous dirtbag as a loving, caring family man who only wants the best for his fellow man. Right! For all it's flaws, I still enjoyed the picture, and hey, we get to see The Mick.