Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Anthony Iessi You'll never get that ditty out of your head after you watch this. It's an oddity from the 1970's, more like a midnight movie actually, in which Mick Jagger makes his acting debut as the legendary Irish folk hero. Much like many of the films of this caliber, It's so kitschy that it's memorable. Mick Jagger is fantastic, and I love how it seems in almost any minute of this film, he looks like he's about to burst out dancing. The music is hilariously out of place, trying to sell this off an an American western when it is anything but, and yet that's what makes this film really charming. It feels rebellious and carefree. Unlike the Oscar-bait 2003 remake, this version of Ned Kelly truly captures the spirit of an outlaw.

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 ****

kessingler This is a cult movie alright, although I'm pretty alone being a cultist here, this movie has all the elements of an ugly movie of the 70s (though i hear its huge in Australia).First of, trying to learn about Ned Kelly from watching this movie is just impossible, the story trail is as lose as the one in Dune and it jumps so fast from scene to scene that is unbelievable. In one scene a police officer swears not to tell the authorities that the he had an accident with the Kellys in which he was wounded, he was pretty happy and swearers not to tell, 1 second into the next scene Ma Kelly is standing for trial. What??, so he told them?, he what??. No one knows.the movie does those jump cuts a lot. and not only that, but you get to see some really weird scenes on the movie (such in the ending when both Kelly's brothers kill themselves in a rather artistic way). It all in the end gets explained if we consider that probably the entire cast and crew was on drugs, and not only them, but the caterers and the cleaning guys also.But that of course is not the main strenght of the movie, the main thing that this movie's got going-on is of course the horrible performance of Mick Jagger, who doesn't really act whatsoever if we consider it, but rather just stands around being the lead singer of the Rolling Stones than Ned Kelly.We get to see Mick: -as a drinker. -as a singer. -as a ladies man. -as a street fighting man.so we pretty much just see him being him, not one line is delivered correctly, but always as if Kelly was really angry because he ordered a latte and not a cappuccino or with a huge hangover from partying all night.The movie ends with Ned on his armor getting shot by the Brits, which is one of the memorable scenes of the movie, mainly because it actually seems to had been taken from a serious movie instead of a generic 70s movie.See this movie, its the funky version of Ned Kelly, but of course as all of them are Brits you just get to see a white cast. Kinda like the Stones music if we think about it.

Baxter de Wahl Even today the character of Ned Kelly is seen by most Australians as more sinned against than sinning. It's a pity then that director Tony Richardson and male lead Mick Jagger couldn't be afforded the same latitude.Contrary to some comments in this forum, this film was never a cult hit or even very popular at all in Australia. When I studied film criticism during the 'seventies, "Ned Kelly" was often held up as the prime example of just how bad a movie could be. This view is the orthodox one among Australians of generations old enough to have seen it. The trouble with this orthodoxy is that is simply not true. Jagger gives a surprisingly strong performance given his physical limitations. The story features no glaring inaccuracies of the Kelly legend and the screenplay is very well structured and paced. Above all, the cinematography is simply superb. Some of the scenes, such as the shoot out at Stringybark Creek are highly arresting. All right, Waylon Jennings singing Shel Silverstein songs is a little corny and intrusive but that's about my only criticism. I would be surprised if the 2002 version is any better.