moonspinner55 Irish-Australian 'bush ranger' Edward "Ned" Kelly, a resistance fighter of the British ruling class in the 1870s, was considered by many to be a heartless killer after clashes with police at Glenrowan left three men dead, but director Tony Richardson instead presents Kelly's story as a languid folk tale. Kelly and his brothers, born into a criminal family, were arrested on various charges throughout their young lives, and eventually turned to bank robbery in New South Wales, but Richardson is more tuned-in to the familial relationships of the clan rather than to their exploits. The picture has a tableau feel, spattered with mud and spit, that is often striking visually, with a folk-music underscoring performed by country balladeers. Unfortunately, Mick Jagger is not well-cast in the lead; his failure to adequately project is topped only by his continually awkward reading of the lines--however, the dialogue in Richardson's and Ian Jones' screenplay is so stunted, it's unlikely that any trained actor could get by with it. Other movie versions go back as far as 1906 with Australia's "The Story of the Kelly Gang"; Heath Ledger played the lead in 2003's "Ned Kelly". *1/2 from ****

David Munn This film has been criticised too harshly, because of Mick Jagger's lack of experience as an actor and it's failure to stick to verifiable facts. But treat it as the cinematic equivalent of a folk ballad and you'll have a good time with it. Just as you wouldn't hire an opera singer to sing a folk song, you don't need a professional actor to play the lead in a rough-and-ready entertainment about a rough-and-ready character. By the time one gets to the speeded up segment that accompanies Waylon Jenning's singing of Shel Silverstein's "Blame it on the Kelly's" it becomes clear this is not a film that is intended as a serious examination of history. Like the song "The Wild Colonial Boy" which Jagger sings in one of the more memorable scenes in the movie, this is popular entertainment to be enjoyed with a few beers. Taken as such it is very enjoyable, with catchy songs, evocative cinematography and Jagger being very much the lovable, charismatic rabble-rouser he was in real-life at the time. And what matters in a folk ballad is not the truth, but the legend.

nicodemusweb When I saw this film in Sydney when it first came out I thought it was a mini-masterpiece. Always a big fan of Tony Richardson and surprised by Jagger's brilliant interpretation of an Aussie legend. It came across as very 'real', almost a Gothic riff on an enigmatic criminal who created his own metal armor to ward off bullets.The soundtrack was quiet, haunting. but when I rented it in NYC to turn some friends on to it, I found that the film was spoiled by a dopey country and western soundtrack, (ned was from Ireland not the Midwest United States) awful garbage by Waylon Jennings.Dear Mr Jennings, I'll pay you twice what the U.S. distributors paid you to take your hideous noise off this (originally superb) film.

bamptonj The criticism this film seems to receive every few years is quite intense. After viewing it, however, I feel that the comments made by the most vocal of critics are unwarranted.Had the movie been an entire work of fiction and the Ned Kelly saga made up as an original screenplay, then many may have applauded this movie. The movie can definitely be enjoyed as a work of cinematic art, but obviously as an ode or anthology to the life of such an important Australian historical identity it can do nothing but fail in the telling of Ned Kelly's story. Hopefully, however, Neil Jordan's upcoming offering may get closer in creating such a testament.On cinematic terms, NED KELLY it is somewhat enthralling, though it does fail to hit the high-note. For this, I can pinpoint no one particular error so it must instead be a combination of many. People will want to know whether Jagger acts well. Surprisingly, I think this is hard question to answer, but it is the least of our worries here.The direction is rather adequate, though some scenes are quite nicely photographed -especially the end shoot-out. The editing at the start is quite impressive. The first major miscalculation, of course, are the problems encountered when casting a slim, Englishman as the sturdy protagonist who is supposed to be an overwhelming 6'4 Irish-Australian. This miscasting is confounded with Jagger's pathetic attempt at a full-grown beard which makes our hero - or anti-hero - look Amish. The trailer's claim that `if Ned Kelly were alive today.he'd probably be Mick Jagger', therefore, is quite arguable.There is also an over-abundance of soundtrack music. I have no reservations about that. Most of lyrics to the folky, country soundtrack act as direct commentary to the proceedings of the story we see or are asides that relate directly to it. Almost instantaneously it becomes repetitious and highly corny.The biggest problem is, however, the lack of any serious character development. The film concentrates mainly on Ned and gives a little consideration to Dan, Steve and Joe, who in reality were as much a part of the gang as Ned was. The development is so negligent that barely even lip service is paid to identity of several key characters. You can be forgiven for not knowing that the man shot in the groin was actually a member of the Kelly gang!In conclusion, the film gives itself no chance of a being remembered as a classic. It would be nice, perhaps, if the film had of been directed by an Australian. No, forget that. A Victorian.