Poor drama . .
Added 8/31/2009
I'd take the time to elaborate . . . but it's not worth it. This is just a poor western. See 'Quigley Down Under' with Tom Selleck or 'Broken Trail' with Robert Duval . . . or save your money for 'Shrek 2' - but avoid this like the plauge.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A FINE FILM
Added 3/5/2009
This is a film well worth watching. Heath Ledger is impressive and entirely believable as Ned Kelly. Other performances are commendable, particularly Orlando Bloom. That said, Ledger's depiction of the title character and the impression he makes in his interpretation serves to add to an all-too brief but considerable legacy in film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
History vs: entertainment: The Aussie Jesse James
Added 2/25/2009
I like movies about true stories, which always tends to raise the question: just how much creative license from a director is OK in a movie based on fact? When does a movie cease to be entertaining because of historical innacuracies (or even pure fabrications)? Is it possible to tell a historical story in film accurately, and yet have it still be engrossing and entertaining, and not feel like a documentary (real life can be pretty mundane, after all)?
I stumbled across "Ned Kelly" about a year ago(this 2003 version- there have been others) while surfing through movie titles that I thought I might want to own. Though I am an avid reader of history from all time periods, I had no previous knowledge of the historical Kelly figure, but thought the cast and story-line looked interesting, so I bought a copy, and enjoyed it so much that I have since watched it 3-4 times: one of my marks of a good movie is just that....you want to watch it more than once. And after watching it again just last night, and enjoying it perhaps even more than the last time, I felt I'd offer this review, particularly concentrating on the history vs: entertainment issues mentioned above. Like all good historical movies, "Ned Kelly" has caused me since to go back and read several of the published histories on the real man (the best of which is Ian Jones' "Ned Kelly: A Short Life"), and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this film version did an admirable job of sticking to the known facts (such as can be done with a partly mythical folk hero such as Kelly, as all good folk heroes are typically part fact and part legend, and more often than not, the legend predominates), and yet was still completely absorbing and entertaining. More on this below.
First, the essentials: this 2003 release, directed by Gregor Jordan and based on the book "Our Sunshine" by Robert Drewe (an admittedly sympathetic take on Kelly) is a short 110 minutes long. One of my complaints in fact is that this is one film that would have benefited from an additional 15-20 minutes of run-time, especially to offer a bit more character development, as the principal actors are very appealing, but perhaps not fleshed-out enough to really suck you in to the tale, and feel more for their historical fate. The musical score by Klaus Badelt ("Pirates of the Carribean") is very moving, at times sweeping, at times subdued and sad, and by itself is a piece of musical composition worth owning as a stand-alone music CD(I've ordered one anyway). The cinematography is outstanding, capturing the rugged beauty of the 1870's Australian landscape with numerous beautiful still shots, without ever detracting from the action story that is unfolding. A+ camera work here.
The cinematography and musical score create a very believable period look to the film- I was transported back in time to 1870's Australia.
The story in brief is that of the bushranger Kelly, who was eventually made into outlaw #1 of the British police, for various offenses ranging from the alleged stealing of a horse, to the confirmed killing by Kelly and his gang of 3 British police officers, for which they were hunted down for a period of almost 2 years, before a climactic firefight at Glenrowan Inn. The historical accuracy of all this was spot on, with the main exception being the climactic fight, where the movie shows numerous police officers killed by Kelly's gang, and a half dozen bystander civilians at the inn also killed in the chaotic crossfire from the police. In actual fact, only one police officer was wounded (none killed), and only 2 civilians were killed. The real Superintendent Hare was the only policeman wounded, as shown in the film, but in reality he also actually fled the scene, and was even reprimanded officially for this by the Crown afterwards.But again, this is creative license that didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie, though I suppose Kelly purists might object a little. The movie ends with Kelly's capture after the final gun fight- it does not cover his subsequent imprisonment, trial, and hanging execution, though the history on that is fascinating enough to be another full movie. There is a lot portrayed in the movie to suggest that Kelly's cause was a righteous one, and that police corruption and harrassment drove him to his crimes. If you think that sounds too one-sided, then read some of the histories about his subsequent trial, which is rife with unsubstantiated "evidence" and legalisms and good-old hypocrisy on the part of the British court that eventually convicted him to hanging.
The cast is outstanding. The late Heath Ledger has the title role, and resembles the real Kelly well enough (from available photographs of the man), including the awesome full beard. Orlando Bloom is Kelly's main sidekick, Joe Byrne, and he lends a good deal of color and character to his role. Geoffrey Rush has an all-too brief role as Superintendent Francis Hare, the Victorian cop given the task of bringing Kelly to justice. Naomi Watts is the main creative license addition, as a love interest for Kelly, but primarily as a cinematic technique, to make the story more than a mere documentary about Kelly's life. The real Kelly's father was employed at the ranch of the Quinn family (Watts plays the wife Julia Cook of the farm owner), and there is no clear historical documentation of any major love interest in the real Kelly's life, though it is certainly no stretch to believe there may have been. Watts' role in the movie, beyond the brief romance, is also to help illustrate the class struggles/tensions between the blue-collar Irishman Kelly, and the upperclass Victorian British elite, to which Watts belongs. In one illustrative moment in the movie, Kelly asks Julia Cook (Watts) to testify that he couldn't have been present at the time of a crime he is alleged to have committed, for the primary reason that he was rolling in the hay at the time with Watts. While she is clearly conflicted by her attraction to Kelly, she cannot help him, for the shame it would bring to her as a married, Victorian lady. A tense moment in the film, very well-acted.
The supporting cast is excellent throughout, complete with believable accents and dialogue appropriate to the times (thankfully no modern concessions to profanity, etc, in this flick).
I thought the acting was first rate throughout, with my main complaint again being that more time devoted to knowing the principal characters would have made this a much better film. While the movie clearly takes a sympathetic tone to Kelly and his gang, the dramatic impact of their eventual fate was lessened by my feeling that I didn't really know these people as well as I wanted to.
There are numerous details in the film, from the main plot to even tiny details like Kelly's green sash (awarded to him as a boy for saving another boy from drowning, which he also wore in the climactic Glenrowan fight with the police)that are historically accurate, and well documented in the written histories. Aside from Watts and the final gun battle, in fact, most of the rest seems to be just as it is supposed to have happened- with the singular aspect being that it is also told with captivating moviemaking, acting, music, and cinematography: a very nice blend of history and creative moviemaking.
I suspect that viewers familiar with the Kelly history will be reasonably pleased with this movie, whether they are sympathetic to Kelly or not....and for those(like me) who see this with no prior knowledge of the story, it will be a movie worth seeing more than once. It's just good story-telling, about a legendary outlaw from the past....a lot like the American version, Jesse James, who has been similarly villified and/or revered, depending on your point of view. Highly recommended- and one of Ledger's lesser-known, but very compelling performances.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Another great Heath Ledger flick...
Added 10/1/2008
was glad to have been able to rent this one. The story of Ned Kelley is a really good one and (IMO) Heath did an excellent job (as always) in the role. It was sad to see how Ned was treated...and just like Heath...was gone way too soon. I can't say this is my fave flick, but I'd recommend it - it's a good watch.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Surprisingly better than I thought. . .
Added 9/13/2008
Yes, everyone likes Heath Ledger and it's sad that he's gone - but he has left some excellent work out there. This is one of his better films. I'm glad I bought it, it's good enough to watch twice.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Poor drama . .
Added 8/31/2009
I'd take the time to elaborate . . . but it's not worth it. This is just a poor western. See 'Quigley Down Under' with Tom Selleck or 'Broken Trail' with Robert Duval . . . or save your money for 'Shrek 2' - but avoid this like the plauge.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A FINE FILM
Added 3/5/2009
This is a film well worth watching. Heath Ledger is impressive and entirely believable as Ned Kelly. Other performances are commendable, particularly Orlando Bloom. That said, Ledger's depiction of the title character and the impression he makes in his interpretation serves to add to an all-too brief but considerable legacy in film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
History vs: entertainment: The Aussie Jesse James
Added 2/25/2009
I like movies about true stories, which always tends to raise the question: just how much creative license from a director is OK in a movie based on fact? When does a movie cease to be entertaining because of historical innacuracies (or even pure fabrications)? Is it possible to tell a historical story in film accurately, and yet have it still be engrossing and entertaining, and not feel like a documentary (real life can be pretty mundane, after all)?
I stumbled across "Ned Kelly" about a year ago(this 2003 version- there have been others) while surfing through movie titles that I thought I might want to own. Though I am an avid reader of history from all time periods, I had no previous knowledge of the historical Kelly figure, but thought the cast and story-line looked interesting, so I bought a copy, and enjoyed it so much that I have since watched it 3-4 times: one of my marks of a good movie is just that....you want to watch it more than once. And after watching it again just last night, and enjoying it perhaps even more than the last time, I felt I'd offer this review, particularly concentrating on the history vs: entertainment issues mentioned above. Like all good historical movies, "Ned Kelly" has caused me since to go back and read several of the published histories on the real man (the best of which is Ian Jones' "Ned Kelly: A Short Life"), and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this film version did an admirable job of sticking to the known facts (such as can be done with a partly mythical folk hero such as Kelly, as all good folk heroes are typically part fact and part legend, and more often than not, the legend predominates), and yet was still completely absorbing and entertaining. More on this below.
First, the essentials: this 2003 release, directed by Gregor Jordan and based on the book "Our Sunshine" by Robert Drewe (an admittedly sympathetic take on Kelly) is a short 110 minutes long. One of my complaints in fact is that this is one film that would have benefited from an additional 15-20 minutes of run-time, especially to offer a bit more character development, as the principal actors are very appealing, but perhaps not fleshed-out enough to really suck you in to the tale, and feel more for their historical fate. The musical score by Klaus Badelt ("Pirates of the Carribean") is very moving, at times sweeping, at times subdued and sad, and by itself is a piece of musical composition worth owning as a stand-alone music CD(I've ordered one anyway). The cinematography is outstanding, capturing the rugged beauty of the 1870's Australian landscape with numerous beautiful still shots, without ever detracting from the action story that is unfolding. A+ camera work here.
The cinematography and musical score create a very believable period look to the film- I was transported back in time to 1870's Australia.
The story in brief is that of the bushranger Kelly, who was eventually made into outlaw #1 of the British police, for various offenses ranging from the alleged stealing of a horse, to the confirmed killing by Kelly and his gang of 3 British police officers, for which they were hunted down for a period of almost 2 years, before a climactic firefight at Glenrowan Inn. The historical accuracy of all this was spot on, with the main exception being the climactic fight, where the movie shows numerous police officers killed by Kelly's gang, and a half dozen bystander civilians at the inn also killed in the chaotic crossfire from the police. In actual fact, only one police officer was wounded (none killed), and only 2 civilians were killed. The real Superintendent Hare was the only policeman wounded, as shown in the film, but in reality he also actually fled the scene, and was even reprimanded officially for this by the Crown afterwards.But again, this is creative license that didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie, though I suppose Kelly purists might object a little. The movie ends with Kelly's capture after the final gun fight- it does not cover his subsequent imprisonment, trial, and hanging execution, though the history on that is fascinating enough to be another full movie. There is a lot portrayed in the movie to suggest that Kelly's cause was a righteous one, and that police corruption and harrassment drove him to his crimes. If you think that sounds too one-sided, then read some of the histories about his subsequent trial, which is rife with unsubstantiated "evidence" and legalisms and good-old hypocrisy on the part of the British court that eventually convicted him to hanging.
The cast is outstanding. The late Heath Ledger has the title role, and resembles the real Kelly well enough (from available photographs of the man), including the awesome full beard. Orlando Bloom is Kelly's main sidekick, Joe Byrne, and he lends a good deal of color and character to his role. Geoffrey Rush has an all-too brief role as Superintendent Francis Hare, the Victorian cop given the task of bringing Kelly to justice. Naomi Watts is the main creative license addition, as a love interest for Kelly, but primarily as a cinematic technique, to make the story more than a mere documentary about Kelly's life. The real Kelly's father was employed at the ranch of the Quinn family (Watts plays the wife Julia Cook of the farm owner), and there is no clear historical documentation of any major love interest in the real Kelly's life, though it is certainly no stretch to believe there may have been. Watts' role in the movie, beyond the brief romance, is also to help illustrate the class struggles/tensions between the blue-collar Irishman Kelly, and the upperclass Victorian British elite, to which Watts belongs. In one illustrative moment in the movie, Kelly asks Julia Cook (Watts) to testify that he couldn't have been present at the time of a crime he is alleged to have committed, for the primary reason that he was rolling in the hay at the time with Watts. While she is clearly conflicted by her attraction to Kelly, she cannot help him, for the shame it would bring to her as a married, Victorian lady. A tense moment in the film, very well-acted.
The supporting cast is excellent throughout, complete with believable accents and dialogue appropriate to the times (thankfully no modern concessions to profanity, etc, in this flick).
I thought the acting was first rate throughout, with my main complaint again being that more time devoted to knowing the principal characters would have made this a much better film. While the movie clearly takes a sympathetic tone to Kelly and his gang, the dramatic impact of their eventual fate was lessened by my feeling that I didn't really know these people as well as I wanted to.
There are numerous details in the film, from the main plot to even tiny details like Kelly's green sash (awarded to him as a boy for saving another boy from drowning, which he also wore in the climactic Glenrowan fight with the police)that are historically accurate, and well documented in the written histories. Aside from Watts and the final gun battle, in fact, most of the rest seems to be just as it is supposed to have happened- with the singular aspect being that it is also told with captivating moviemaking, acting, music, and cinematography: a very nice blend of history and creative moviemaking.
I suspect that viewers familiar with the Kelly history will be reasonably pleased with this movie, whether they are sympathetic to Kelly or not....and for those(like me) who see this with no prior knowledge of the story, it will be a movie worth seeing more than once. It's just good story-telling, about a legendary outlaw from the past....a lot like the American version, Jesse James, who has been similarly villified and/or revered, depending on your point of view. Highly recommended- and one of Ledger's lesser-known, but very compelling performances.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
