Ned Kelly (1970) User Reviews

Good, bad or ugly, Mick Jagger will always be Mick Jagger

[Michael_Cronin · 6/10 · 13 June 2003]

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.

the less worse version of the story

[btodorov · 6/10 · 9 February 2006]

One big problem with the movie is Mick Jagger. Jagger was half-convincing, his biggest problem being that he is not exactly masculine, while Ned Kelly probably was. Otherwise, he fitted the role much better than the stunningly banal H. Ledge in the 2003 remake - that devilish glimpse in his eyes makes him a much better choice for an outlaw who goes as far as challenging the British Empire and proclaiming a fancy republic of his own. Another problem was the poor cutting - some scenes were so drastically cropped that the storyline was getting lost. Still, a far better version of the Ned Kelly legend than the 2003 edition.

Nice to look at, not so nice to listen too

[JohnSeal · 4/10 · 6 December 2000]

This potted history of the infamous Australian outlaw benefits tremendously from Gerry Fisher's frequently ravishing photography but is ultimately doomed by its paint by numbers screenplay and the star turn by Mick Jagger (who reportedly dismissed the film as a "load of s**t"). Frankly, a bearded Jagger speaking in a weak brogue reminded me more of Warwick Davis in the Leprechaun series than it did of a legendary Robin Hood style badman. Shel Silverstein's faux-folk songs haven't aged well either.

Not a total write off. Hopefully we will be lucky enough to see an improved installment sometime soon.

[bamptonj · 2 January 2002]

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.

A Cinematic Low

[silverballs80 · 1/10 · 11 July 2005]

This is truly one of the worst films I've seen in a very long time. It is not just the historical inaccuracy, it's the fact that accuracy is eschewed in favour of a very run of the mill story line. Waylon Jennings performing the soundtrack and Jagger in the lead role suggests a cheap and weak attempt to recreate Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, with Jennings' music not holding a candle to Dylan's and Jagger's acting not just being poorer than Kris Kristofferson's, but actually being some of the poorest I've ever seen.

Who on earth thought it was a good plan to cast Mick Jagger in this film? He can't deliver lines, his accent is hopeless, during the fight scene, the supposed "hard man" stands like a wimp, something that the editor has attempted to deflect attention from but failed dismally. The supporting cast are basically insignificant, none of them being given enough screen time for us to develop much of a relationship with them, all frame space reserved for the "star."

This film marks a low point in cinema that it would be hard to recreate, thank god.

A Curious Artifact

[rextasy · 4/10 · 17 July 2009]

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.

yawn

[HelloTexas11 · 2/10 · 31 July 2008]

What most of the comments here are missing is the simple fact that 'Ned Kelly' is boring, and not just a little boring. I mean, sleep-inducing, prop-your-eyelids-open-with-toothpicks-to-stay-awake boring. It's a curiosity, nothing more. "Hey, Mick Jagger starred in a western, wonder what it's like?" And like most curiosities that weren't popular in their initial release, it hasn't improved with age. As wonderful as he is in stage performances, Jagger just doesn't have much screen presence. Certainly not enough to overcome his celebrity; you don't for one moment forget you're watching Mick Jagger. He had the same problem in 'Freejack' as I recall. I haven't seen his last film, 'The Man from Elysian Fields,' but I would imagine he's gotten at least somewhat better with age.

Ignorance is bliss - a bit of a history lesson

[queen_of_anarchy · 7/10 · 27 December 2005]

I can't believe the comments regarding the use of an Irish accent as opposed to an "Australian" one. It might help if you actually KNEW anything of our convict past. (Have a look at Australian shows produced during the mid 20th century and you'll see that our accent is decidedly British, not the broad Australian accent of today - we are all a product of our past).

As for Ned, his father, John "Red" Kelly, was born in the county of Tipperary, Ireland. He was convicted of stealing 2 pigs & was transported to Australia sentenced to 7 years. It is pertinent to remember that in the 1840's we are dealing with the most wretched period in modern Irish history. The majority of the Irish population of over eight million people (1841) were chronically poor tenant farmers and cottiers. The Kelly's were just another poor, near landless family whose plight was of little concern to the alien administration (British) in control at that time. The Great Famine of 1845 - 1847 left over one million dead and another million gone on the 'coffin ships'. Such was the background to the offences committed by the likes of John Kelly. So he was transported to Australia for stealing for his family to survive. America, following the War of Independence, refused to accept any more convicts from Britain so the British turned to newly discovered Australia.

John Kelly was kept in Jail until 31st July 1841 when he was placed on board the convict ship 'The Prince Regent' in the port of Dublin. On the 7th August (note that he was interned on this prison hulk for 1 month in appalling conditions) 'The Prince Regent' sailed from Dublin with 182 convicts on Board. There was one port of call, Cape Town, and the ship arrived in the Derwent River, Van Diemens Land, now Tasmania, on 2nd January 1842. By this time John Kelly had already served one year of his sentence and the next six years were spent at convict and labouring jobs in Tasmania. He was granted his ticket of leave on 11th July 1845 and on 11th January 1848 he was granted his Certificate of Freedom. He was a free man again but in a different country on the other side of the world. My great great grandfather suffered the same fate - transported from England in 1837 aboard the "Charles Kerr" for stealing a pittance just to survive, he served 7 years before receiving his Certificate of Freedom in Nov 1843 (he was sentenced at the Old Bailey in Oct 1836). Just as John Kelly did, my ancestor married an Irish free settler (yes, there were some, even though my great great grandmother was shipwrecked twice on her way here!!!!).

I know this has little to do with an appraisal of the film (which I saw when it first came out &, yes, like another poster commented it did not have ANY American country music on the soundtrack - from memory it was backed by very early Australian / Irish folk songs of the time). However, I do remember that I thought at the time that Jagger (the iconic rebel) was a great choice for Ned & that it was a somewhat loose & art-based portrayal and was, with this in mind, spot on. I haven't seen the film for years but all I do know is that if I see a film on an American historical character (or even Lithuanian, for that matter) I would do some research on the history to try and understand the true circumstances that surrounded him or her. I recommend you study the history of Ned's time and the history of the time the film was made (1970) - you may then see it in a different light.

Yet another telling of the exploits of The Kelly Gang gets gummed-up treatment...

[moonspinner55 · 2/10 · 13 September 2011]

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 ****

The cinematic equivalent of a folk ballad

[pinback-3 · 7/10 · 21 August 2006]

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.

Some good points, but Jagger was not the only problem

[PeterM27 · 4/10 · 17 December 2021]

There have been many attempts to make a film about the famous Ned Kelly story, but none have totally succeeded. This British attempt was undertaken when the Australian film industry was at its lowest ebb, but neither British writer-director nor British pop star-actor Mick Jagger do the story justice.

The pace and tone of the story are both uneven, veering from slow to fast and serious to comic periodically. Personally I found the first half quite dull, though the pace picked up somewhat once the bushranging started, before grinding to an uncertain halt with a confusing climax at Glenrowan.

Similarly it was hard to take Mick Jagger seriously as an outlaw, as he came across as more of a mouthpiece for political statements about freedom and equality which seemed to have more to do with 1960s values than those of 19th Century Australia.

The music was another odd feature, with many US country songs and singers providing a series of outlaw songs to accompany the action, with mixed results.

Despite all these problems, the film does present the Kelly story in a fairly comprehensible way (apart from the ending), and the second half of the film was quite enjoyable. If another lead actor had been chosen this could have been much better.

The Aussie Version of Robin Hood

[zardoz-13 · 8/10 · 10 September 2020]

Indeed, "Ned Kelly" may not be writer & director Tony Richardson's finest hour, and Mick Jagger may not be the best actor to incarnate him, but altogether this Aussie western about a real-life outlaw has polished irony running throughout it. Mick's trouble is he looks stressed out most of the time. Did the real Ned Kelly look like Abraham Lincoln's brother? Critics carp on its opening moments when the film opens with the end and Kelly is marched to the gallows and strung up. As it turns out, the prison where they staged this scene is the actual prison where Kelly swung from a noose. Apparently, Kelly was a troublemaker with a cloudy past and the future did little to improve it. Richardson makes the eponymous character a study in sympathy, while the Victoria Police are portrayed as abrasive villains living in a land where personal freedom could be infringed upon at any time. After the initial death scene, Richardson and co-scenarist Ian Jones chronicle Kelly's life up to the finale where he takes on the police in a bulletproof outfit. Walton Jennings, largely unknown during the film's release sings some unforgettable ballads. Indeed, Jennings sings most of the good songs and he brings feeling to them. Gerry Fisher's photography is atmospheric. Richardson treats the government with little sympathy.

I liked it.

[atlian42 · 7/10 · 3 June 2005]

First off I wanna comment on the First User Comments diatribe on Mick Jaggers Australian Accent. If I am wrong please correct me but I believe in actuality the Real Ned Kelly's family was in fact 'Irish'.

But like I said Correct me if I'm wrong.

The story was decent. I think the Music in the film really made it great for me. I believe Shel Silverstein was the Writer of the tunes. I'm not sure but I think that the dude who sings the Dukes of Hazzard Theme is the guy who sang them.

I don't know it may be a bit campy but I enjoy it every time as it is usually on the Satellite channel Encore every 3 or 4 months. I usually watch it, and like it.

I think if you go at it with a blank slate its decent.

Screw Heath Ledger man I wont even comment on his "Ned Kelly" movie. Nothing personal I just don't think he's a very good actor. I think Mick Jagger is in the words of Eric Cartman, 'Hella-cool'

Incromprehensible nonsense. The remake can only improve it.

[lowcompanion · 1/10 · 23 March 2004]

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?

It can't be that bad!

[andy.marshall · 1 April 2003]

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.

Funky Ned Kelly -or- Better than the remake

[kessingler · 3/10 · 11 July 2006]

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.

Ned Kelly was a bad man. Ned Kelly was a legend.

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 30 January 2003]

This one kind of clops along like an average B movie is expected to. This may be a cult classic in Australia, but I just don't dig it. Exploitation of Mick Jagger? Your guess is good as mine. Jagger plays Ned Kelley Australia's most notorious outlaw. Director Tony Richardson dramatizes the life of this bad man and his family of horse thieves. The meat of the movie is the big man hunt that results in a lot of gun fire and death and the eventual capture and execution of the legendary 19th-century outlaw. Jagger is as sluggish as the movie itself and his attempt to sound Australian comes out sounding more Irish. Good to watch if you are a follower of the Rock 'n' Roll bad boy. Also in the cast are Geoff Gilmour, Allen Bickford and Clarissa Kaye-Mason.

USA version ruined the original which was excellent.

[nicodemusweb · 1/10 · 12 March 2005]

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.

A period piece set in Australia 19th century , it dramatizes the life of a notorious outlaw played by Mick Jagger

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 20 May 2023]

Spectacular version , being basically a Western in all but locale , dealing with a known and ruthless bandit , stars Mick Jagger playing an unusual role . A film about the legendary outlaw whose story outgrew his life , it is based on the true events of famous 19th-century Outback rebel, an authentic legend which results to be the Australian's most ambiguous outlaw. A man (Mick Jagger) called Ned Kelly and his family are mistreated by Australians guards .He turns to steal horses that had been previously robbed to him . Shortly after , he finds it's impossibie for an Irishman in Queen Victoria's colony to walk the straight and narrow . Later on , there happens a manhunt proceeded by law enforcers , attempting to capture him , it results in merciless chases , violence and mayhem . He gets deeply drawn into crime life and eventually becomes a policemen killer , meanwhile , he falls in love . Kelly forms an Irish band battling the British Empire but the oppressed people called them heroes and are relentlessly pursued by astute , stubborn officials . The manhunt results in death and the eventual capture and execution of Kelly .The Saga of the Stringbark Creek massacre! . You can kill a man but not a legend !. When the law tried to silence him a legend was born !. The British Empire branded them as outlaws !. The oppressed called them heroes !.

The film is an Australian Western made completely by Aussies and Brits packing action , drama , shootouts, a love story and a lot of violence . It's an acceptably solid movie narrating the confrontation between the Irish rebels and the English forces and holds up pretty well too . A peculiar and disjointed film about a desperado roaming outlands of 19th-century Outback , resulting in violent and offbeat consequences. The essential of this picture is the outlaw hunt that results in a great load of gunplay and deaths until a breathtaking final confrontation. This is a period piece financied by Australian and British producers, but it seems to have lacked an empathy for the material, and director giving a lethargic filmmaking . The very contemporary Mick Jagger is miscast as a two-fisted and revenger outlaw , giving a passable acting , being accompanied by nice Australian actors , such as : Clarissa Kaye-Mason , Mark McManus , Bruce Barry and Frank Thring. Ned Kelly (1970) before being adapted in a Australian version 1960 by Sterling and in 2003 also titled Ned Kelly by Gregor Jordan starred by Heath Ledger, Naomi Watts, Orlando Bloom and Geoffrey Rush . And in similar style : Mad Morgan (1976) with Dennis Hooper.

The movie benefits tremendously from Gerry Fisher's frequently ravishing cinematography , although is sometimes dark , as film longtime is developed at night and some interior scenarios. It contains a sensitive and rousing musical score with a lot of catching Irish songs .The motion picture was well photographed and competently directed by Tony Richardson who dramatizes accurately the life of this famous outlaw and his henchmen , containing some shortfalls , flaws and gaps . Richardson was a Brit craftsman who made a lot of films in all kinds of genres , getting successes anf flops . Richardson was a good writer and director who married Vanessa Redgrave and Jeanne Moreau , known for The Hotel New Hampshire (1984) , A taste of honey (1961), Tom Jones (1963), The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962), among others. Rating : 6/10 . The flick will appeal to Mick Jagger fans.

Meh

[pinksapphiregirl · 5/10 · 19 July 2020]

If you are looking for a ned Kelly movie this one is ok a better one is the true history of the kelly Gang. Keep in mind not all these are %100 true but as a bit of entertainment based around Kelly it was ok

Blame it on the Kellys

[aciessi · 6/10 · 18 February 2016]

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.

Musical

[ericbertsch · 1/10 · 21 February 2022]

If there's a plot line in this musical movie, the director missed it as well as this viewer did.

Movies like this make the viewers yearn for a block feature so that we may never see the option to watch cross our screen again.

Magificent Mick...

[poe426 · 8/10 · 23 December 2010]

Solid cinematic storytelling, with a commendable performance by Mick Jagger. While the movie would've benefited a great deal from a soundtrack produced by The Rolling Stones themselves, NED KELLY isn't so much a "rock and roll" picture (except, perhaps, at heart) as it is a damning indictment of The Powers That Be (that WERE). It's gritty in that GREAT NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA RAID-kind of way (which was likewise a tip of the hat to some of those "gray area" folk heroes, though the James and Younger brothers are generally acknowledged these days to have been outright outlaws) and, in its depiction(s), somewhat ahead of its time. (It may be hard for some people to believe, but there was a time when Good was good and Bad was bad and never the twain met- at least not on The Big Screen- not often, at any rate, especially in movies made in America-, and never EVER on American television.) With the housing crisis in this country in mind, NED KELLY just might be the kind of movie more people should seek out...

Interesting mythical ballad typical of its era.

[cutter-12 · 6/10 · 28 January 2002]

This film probably is a far from accurate depiction of the Ned Kelly story, and it no doubt outraged some Aussies at the time, but it is nearly not as bad as one might think for such a little known or seen film. It definitely has a non Australian feel to it what with Waylon Jennings' excellent ballad score and Mick Jagger in the title role. Though probably the wrong choice to portray Kelly, Jagger nevertheless possesses a certain amount of youthful charisma here which somehow just demands you watch him. An interesting and decidedly obscure entry in the downbeat anti-western genre of the 60's and 70's. Shades of Peckinpah. If you're a fan of Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, you may find this one worth seeing.

What's wrong with his accent?

[pcm220566 · 9 February 2003]

There's some confusion about Mick Jagger's accent - is he trying to sound Australian or Irish? Well, as the character Ned Kelly appears to have been born in Australia of Irish parents, who's to say what his accent sounded like? Probably pretty much like Cockney Mick puttin' on a brogue, actually. After all, the Australian accent is probably descended from Cockney and Irish.

And it's unfortunate that someone else is saying that there's a Neil Jordan directed version on the way, because actually it's Gregor Jordan. So there'll be no last-minute revelation that Ned was a woman, then... Phew!