Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

WakenPayne If you're an Australian then you would have heard the name Ned Kelly. He's an extremely famous historical figure that fought the corrupt law in his day and kind of became the Aussie Robin Hood, I've even visited the jail where he was hanged and looked at the cell where he was kept. With that said I am a little foggy on the details, lets just say I'm probably the least educated an Aussie can get when it comes to this guy (save for actually visiting Melbourne Jail) and this movie is not kind to the uninitiated on this topic. For one thing, the soundtrack is god awful - There's this kind of country/rock singer who starts singing about the Kelly gang and it's just not good. What perplexes me is that they got Mick Jagger to act but not to do something about the soundtrack - I mean if The Rolling Stones released a song, it would be weird but it would also be decent promotional material for the movie considering their popularity at the time. Oh and Mick Jagger never once is convincing in his role, his Irish accent is awful and in terms of emoting it's either the wrong delivery (the last line is threatening a judge, whereas he makes it sound like he's making plans for a party or something) or it's non-existent. The pacing is also pretty choppy, I had to ask for context behind where we are in the story... With that said I'll go onto the good things. The cinematography is actually decent enough and if you sit through this movie enough to get to the final gunfight it is actually... expertly done, it aims for realism and succeeds but the framing, the editing, pretty much everything about that scene is worth at least tracking down a clip of it. While I have seen worse the end result is extremely forgettable, I've heard of a high budget Heath Ledger movie made in 2005 that looks better or if you want to find something more obscure and detailed the 6 hour mini-series The Last Outlaw I've heard is also pretty good. All in all, this is a movie I'll eventually forget I even saw it in a matter of weeks.

tonyelar-94290 This was actually a pretty entertaining movie, I was impressed with the collection of weapons all pretty accurate of the period. The Constable Uniforms were pretty right on. I liked the story line and Mick acted well as Ned Kelly, dug his accent also. I was surprised with the version of " the wild Colonial Boy" song. The verses were different as well as the melody...Also the clothing was good for the late 19th cent. period,facial hair very appropriate...all in al a good flick for a 1970 adaptation of the story of Ned Kelly. Mick Jaggar was also a good choice considering the stars of westerns of that genre, the 70's was full of cowboys all from the states. The movie would be a poor competitor against "The Proposition" a very well done portrayal of a similar tale!

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.

silverballs80 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.