Takes a classic bit of Aussie history/fable and writes a new version with some similarities. Entertaining enough and rather poetic. Shot well, but quite up and down in terms of performances, altogether okay.
If you're looking for a Hollywood blockbuster version of Ned Kelly's story, this isn't it!
Likely to frustrate the hell out of anyone that reveres Ned Kelly and the story as told, which greatly amuses me and adds to this movie's charm. Overall quite good.
Add a Review
-
sylvia_no27 January 2020
-
luke-eberhardt14 January 2020"Nothing you see in this film is true..." okay! I have a lot more to say about this film than when the above quote meets the viewer's eyes in the opening.
Let's just get this fact of the matter out of the way that this film is pure and simple 'Fiction', despite the historical setting, context and characters, it by no means represents or even intentionally tries to tell a historically respectable, let alone accurate portrayal of Ned Kelly. That also goes to show I didn't have any expectations whatsoever, but I do like Justin Kurzel as a filmmaker and 'True History' fits alongside the likes of his efforts; 'Snowtown' and 'Macbeth.' Yet, despite my admiration for his film-making, especially for what's on display with this film's Gothic imagery, brooding tone and incredibly sharp gritty attitudes, I cannot and will not admire it for being a piece of historical fiction whose 'real facts' are not only iconic, they're well known by many Australians far and wide as a part of our culture and folk law. Yet what this film does is fictionalize the story and history... severely.
I understand I'm very split on this film, but let me at least give credit where credit is due. The acting all around is great, the cast is all fine in what they're given, stand outs include; Orlando Schwerdt as Young Ned, Russell Crowe as Harry Power (Ned's Mentor), Essie Davis as Ellen Kelly (Ned's Mother), Thomasin McKenzie as Mary Hearn (Ned's lover) and Nicolas Hoult as Constable Fitzpatrick. I've haven't got many complaints about the other performers, only that they weren't given much for me to be invested in despite the film's insistence I empathize with Ned (George Mackay). I believe anyone of a similar age to when the real Ned Kelly died (25) could play Ned, yet despite the material not being compelling enough to decide if Ned's actions be justified or vilified, it's not going to sway how anyone views the character (or historical figure) be it hero or righteous criminal but intensify it. Mackay is as fine as ever with what he does, yet his lack of a beard that's always characterized Ned Kelly fails me to even buy him as Ned (also due to said material). There was even a nice thoughtful edge given to the depth and dimensions to most characters too, as there were some great scenes where upon engaging with one another, their interests and intentions were just as clear and compelling as Kurzel's 'Snowtown.' However, it's no enough when you've A) seen and know this story before and are questioning it's further liberties, or B) understand that historical facts are what constitutes history and should not be subjected to fiction in such a way as this film does. Let me also add, it's explicit content of being largely violent and overt use of foul language might detract from viewers as never used to such a level I've seen or heard in a film about Ned Kelly. To say it isn't recommended to the 'faint of heart' would be an understatement.
Sad to say this film doesn't add anything new to what I already don't know about Ned Kelly. I understand the cast and crew's passion for bringing Peter Carey's 'novel of the same name' to the big screen in such a way that'll feel fresh for the public to witness. Yet, that doesn't do enough to constitute the story's historical basis and purely undermines that history in favor of glamorized/fictionalized entertainment. Thus the 'True' in the title implies subjectivity, something for this film's Ned to honestly explain in a way that will polarize anyone reading his story. Ultimately, it's greatest weakness is it's developmental nature for Ned as an outlaw, once Ned is outside the law he adopts an extremist resistance view to the law and state government. Ned wishes he could've lived an honest life for his supposed daughter (who never existed) yet his fall from honest life is fast and doesn't pick up much weight when his 'movement' builds compared to the way the scenes leading up to it do. There's a lot to admire about this film, yet I don't think it'll have a wide appeal, neither does it best represent Ned Kelly. I can see it being praised by some, yet ridiculed by others. I can best describe it as an Insane Historical Fantasy, suspend your disbelief as much as possible when watching this, don't take it as fact, yet try to realize there's more to the myths that're said about Ned and in my adult life I've come to value that a lot more than the fiction. -
The title of the movie takes itself entirely tongue in cheek. This movie is to Ned Kelly like what "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is to the Manson story. Its someone's entirely dreamed up take on the subject (the book it is based on, was classified as fiction). And that is perfectly fine. Entertaining, good acting, good scenery, does slide a little in the second half. The "C word" is an Aussie staple, so expect it!
I do agree with other comments about Ned needing a beard - it was his second best known trait! -
random-7077813 January 2020The promoters of this film have decided to go with "limited release" due to poor audience reaction. Frankly after seeing this in Turin I have to agree. Of the ten or so film so films based on Ned Kelly this has to be the most ambitious -- and the least well actualized. In the end it is a disjointed jumble, with a couple of well played roles -- but overall, incoherent and pointless. Dressing Ned up as a woman may seem brave, but really it just comes off as a put on. I am not put off by it, but one has to ask: what is the point?
-
niamhmeghanprice3 August 2020I'm not gonna lie. This film is weird. Especially towards the end. Ned goes crazy and there was no slow release into it. One second he was sticking up for his family the next he was gunning down coppers instead of walking around them (not to mention cutting off an ear!).
However, as someone who grew up in England, has an Irish family, and now lives in Northern Ireland, it did shake me up. To this day there is still 'trouble' between the Irish who want to be with the UK and the Irish that don't. I've had conversations at length with my family about it. But, this tension does cause problems with people from different areas around Ireland getting jobs much, like I think this film was trying to show (thought it wasn't clear).
So, personally it did have a message to me. I did feel a connection with the story. I'm struggling to explain that connection so, I'll move on to my other thoughts.
The acting was good. There were 3 actors in this film with whom I knew previous works well. Those were Charlie Hunnam, Nicholas Hoult and George MacKay. And I personally thought there performances were good.
I seen a lot from Charlie Hunnam and although I don't believe this was his strongest performance, he did genuinely make me scared, particularly when he arrested Red Kelly. Although, (I know this isn't the fault of the actor) he did seem to just vanish after Ned left Harry Power, which bugged me slightly.
Nicholas Hoult was much the same as Hunnam. Not his strongest character but, he did scare me. However, he was another character that seemed to just suddenly become crazy. And I do feel that his character wasn't really needed. The only addition to the story he created was to hook Ned up with Mary and he was the person to snap Ned's twig, so to say. But, we could've had Sgt O'Neil (Hunnam's Character) do that. I mean this version of the story wasn't true so, it's a change they could've made.
And final actor I know, George MacKay. He is a good actor. But, I didn't like him in this. There were moments where he stood out, and I thought his accent was decent (though it did waver at times). But, it was him going crazy, and wearing the dress, it just didn't feel like the Ned Kelly we met as a child. Now, people change but, this was just too quick of a change for me. This film hasn't changed my view of Mackay's abilities as I think my problems are more likely to do with the script or directing or even the editing (or all 3).
I saw one person suggest that this may have done better as a series. And I agree. Even if it was just a short series, sticking to the original idea (rather than pumping up the seasons to get more money out of a show people have forgotten about). The pacing to this film just didn't work as a film. And maybe that was my problem with Ned and Fitzpatrick going crazy so quickly. But, this fast pacing also left out information like:- Where's O'Neil?
- What happened to Kate when the boys ran away?
- Why did jail change Ned so much?
- Did George King leave (or was he killed?)
This one might just be me but, I swear when Ned was a child there were more than 3 children but, when he comes home after 10 years, there is only Kate and Dan (who we didn't actually get fully introduced to when they were kids, or adults, which meant I personally didn't feel much for them).
Regardless, I do think this is a good watch. It might be one than you can only watch once and your happy but, it is worth it. You just need to keep an open mind. -
SnoopyStyle6 November 2020It's 1867 Australia. Ned Kelly is a young boy in a troubled petty criminal Irish family harassed by the authorities. After his father's death, many men come seeking out his mother (Essie Davis). She sold him to bandit Harry Power (Russell Crowe) and hoped that he would teach him to be the same ruthless man. Over the years, Ned is pulled into the crime world by his mother. He falls for Mary Hearn (Thomasin McKenzie) and crosses Constable Fitzpatrick (Nicholas Hoult). It becomes a local war as Ned gains inspiration from the American warship Monitor.
In this version, Ned is a reluctant criminal. He is pushed into revolt. The most intriguing is his relationship with his mother. I like the section with kid Ned. It's something different and a compelling tale. There are a few awkward turns as he transitions into an all-out revolutionary. There is a lot of quickie character development. As for the final shootout, it's interesting to have that artistic flare but it's not as thrilling. This is almost like two separate movies. The most compelling story arc is his childhood which has an interesting take on the character. -
saeedygujjar15 February 2020Very slow end, although movie is good,,hate their life
-
jdring200723 January 2022Burdened by the narration of the main character from beginning to end, with very little relief throughout, this movie feels like it never really gains the momentum it consistently builds up with. Despite the raucous trailer, this is NOT an action or thriller. It's a dark drama, very well written but more in the manner of a book than a movie. That said, there are still some disturbingly captivating scenes, and some great performances, namely by Essie Davis, Orlando Schwerdt, Nicholas Hoult, and especially George MacKay. While much smaller roles, Charlie Hunnam and Russell Crowe nonetheless delivered. Even with these in mind, the nauseating and babbling "climax" kept my 6 from leaping to a 7; it almost threatened to cut it down to a 5, the last half hour was that bad.
-
travisbroy7 May 2020If they had drawn out the first half, with Ned Kelly as a kid hanging out with Russell Crowe, then you've got a pretty good movie on your hands. I really like what I've seen of George MacKay so far, so I was excited for the second half that covers Kelly as an adult, but rarely have I seen a movie go so far off the rails. Forget that it's historical fantasy. What starts off as a pretty good movie just suddenly becomes unnecessarily hard to follow, pretentiously artsy, surreal, silly, and absurd. Scenes that contain what should be tragic are instead farcical and unintentionally funny, which is all the more bizarre being that the first thirty minutes are so are strong. Mostly I'm irritated that it was such a bait and switch, because had the beginning been as weak as the rest of the movie I wouldn't have gotten invested enough to needlessly see it through to the end.
-
ryko2527 September 2022As many other reviewers have said, the first half of this film is engaging, well-acted and seems to be a fairly realistic depiction of the hardships of 1850s settlers in Australia. The second half, however, is a mess - it seems as if the scriptwriters had difficulty deciding if they should keep true to the know facts of Ned Kelly, keep true to Peter Carey's brilliant novel, or try to do something surreal, wild and original. This quandary results in none of those three approaches being done well and, by the end, it feels as if even the director has given up on it. A real pity - the split between good film to bad film can be drawn pretty much when the actor playing young Ned - Orlando Schwerdt - is replaced by the actor playing older Ned - George Mackay. This is not Mackay's fault, it is just that only then does the film come off the rails in terms of being a believable depiction of mid-Victorian Australia (e.g. Respectable folk watching what looks like UFC in a drawing room). A pity and a waste.
-
gemfesty26 January 2020Entertaining for the first half with some good performances. Then it turns into absolute incoherent drivel, you won't miss anything if you skip the second half of the movie entirely.
-
reigntall20 February 2020Forget everything you know about Ned Kelly. Or don't. It doesn't really matter as this film, is not even attempting to be an accurate historical film. "The True History of the Kelly Gang" by Australian director Jeff Kurzel, is based on the 2000 novel of the same name which gives a fictionalized account of the famed 19th century Australian bandit.
Many historical films have the tried and true phrase 'based on a true story' and then go on to distort, misrepresent, and fabricate. This film is honest in its dishonesty: the opening text says that nothing you're about to see is true. As the other words fade, the 'true' lingers and becomes part of the title. This itself is a lie, because this this depiction of Ned Kelly is a blend of lie, legend, as well actual true facts about the Kelly gang. There are layers upon layers of subtext and metatext in this film on the topic of posthumous storytelling. Ned Kelly is the perfect subject: he is a man haunted by his past and the lies leveled against him, a man who wrote lengthy letters giving his side of the story, and to this day is still hailed a hero and a villain.
Another misdirect by the film, is that this is not about the crime-spree of the Australian outlaws but focuses much more heavily on the life of pre-infamy Ned Kelly. Edward "Ned" Kelly is the eldest son of a poor Irish family. His father is sent to prison when Ned is young and a variety of potential father figures - some law enforcement, some criminals - flow quickly in and out of his life. The constant is his mother with whom he has strange, deep yet toxic relationship. Ned is shown to mostly be a good person but has pushed him into a life a crime through unjustified (but also justified) persecution. His decision to become an outlaw seems to be done as an act of protest. It seems everyone in his life is tied into the eternal struggle of authoritarian police and anarchist outlaw, which is extrapolated further to be a conflict between the English and the Irish, centuries old rivals.
Despite being the focal point of the film, Ned remains an enigmatic figure throughout. He wordlessly stares for an uncomfortable amount of time, the gears turning in his head, before suddenly acting and the reason for his decision is often left for the viewer to decipher. This also gives the sense that some of the plot lines weren't fully developed. Perhaps cutting back on certain scenes to focus more on others could have also helped the uneven pacing. The film is a slow burn that doesn't so much gradually grow into madness, but suddenly lurches headfirst into the depths. George MacKay is captivating as he goes from the wide-eyed nervous staring, to the chaos that is the final act. Kurzel has a great eye and even during the slower segments, there are enough beautiful and intriguing shots to keep viewers engaged; some may find the journey to the brilliant climax to be arduous. And it would be a shame if people gave up before the end. Kurzel's 'Macbeth' is bookmarked by inventive and memorable action scenes and in the same vein, 'The True History of Ned Kelly' culminates with one of the most adrenaline pumping action scenes in film. It is bloody; it is brutal; it is grotesque; and most importantly, it feels real. Many blockbuster action films give a sense of being an observe to highly-choreographed, consequence-free twirling. The combination of visuals and sound design in this film make the viewer feel like they are part of the chaotic firefight.
Beyond just the sound design, the score deserves great praise as well. The composer Jed Kurzel (director's brother) uses string, percussion, and folk instruments to create a rich sonic atmosphere. There are fun, adventures songs where the bass is cheerfully plucking away, but where Kurzel excels is in the intense. Though this core may not be overall as haunting as his masterful work on 'Macbeth', there are still pieces where low notes pound away like an oppressive heartbeat as the abrasive, off-key high strings become almost overwhelming.
This movie is not without controversy. Despite telling the audience from the first sentence that this is not a factual depiction, you can find numerous angry user reviews and articles from Australians upset at two aspects of the film: the cross-dressing and homoerotic undertones. The Kelly gang is not trying to be women; they adopt dresses as part of their battle dress (pun intended) in a way that can be interpreted to be an act of protest to masculine ideals. The world of cops and robbers is hyper masculine. Men size each other up, posturing to be the tougher man, sticking guns in each other's faces. The constable's desire to subdue Ned is like a passionate obsession. Robin Hood is oft joked to be gay, living in the woods with his merry men, and Ned Kelly being the Australian Robin Hood... It seems to me as a logical progression, and a delightful deconstruction of the ultra-masculine.
So, did we learn anything about the Kelly gang at the end of this two-hour journey? With fact so entwined with fiction it's hard to say. So instead, one can mull over the multitude of ideas and themes and meta-commentary that this film provides long after it's over. Not that there are any clear answers there either. Or one can just appreciate the moments of great acting, interesting visuals, top-notch score or memorable finale. -
TuesdayThe17th31 May 2021For whatever reason this movie was smashed by viewers everywhere which is completely unfair because this is exactly the type of dirty and gritty movie we need more of. This movie was a little mis advertised as a western when really it's not. Its more a drama/thriller/biography with elements of horror through out. The overall look and feel is lile that of a horror movie, much like Kurzels previous film "The Snowtown Murders" which technically IS a horror movie but is still also a drama/biography. "Snowtown" is one of the greatest true life indie horrors ever made in my opinion. Its supremely grimy in all the right ways and is equally disturbing to watch. Its a hard watch and I assume Kurzel was going for something a bit wider viewer appropriate for his sophomore film, "True History of the Kelly Gang" This movie is a biography but much of its filler is made up of assumptions and accusations. The drama entered is of imagination and stuff that has no concrete evidence. Still, though, it makes for a great movie and in my opinion, this is just how it happened and I will refer back to this movie for my knowledge into the life of Ned Kelly. I'm not much of a reader but i understand the book this movie is based off is rather good but still I prefer movies to books every time. I appreciate the art of picture and everything that goes with it.
This movie is dark as all hell as we follow the upbringing of Ned Kelly from his childhood home with his family to going out on his own and becoming a monitor. There is lots of violence and menace and the costume design is really cool. Almost too cool for its time frame. In the end we meet an English teacher that looks like he stepped right out of 2020! Lol whats with this!?! Justin Kurzel was maybe so wrappes up in looking hip that he forgot his story takes place in the mate 1800s! Overall the clothing is a little too modern as it looks like everyone is wearing designer jeans and pants lol. I liked it though, cuz that's my style and it really spoke to me. These are my types of movies. I'm a Scorpio so of course this would resonate well with me. I admire the determination to the griminess and violence while still leaving it clean enough for a wider audience than "Snowtowm Murders" And many said the second half was worse than the first half. This is not true at all. They are equally good but the second half has a bit more slow parts and more uninteresting dialogue but at the same time the second half has most of the "wow" moments.
Strong, dirty, and good looking like me, this movie has all the traits that make this certain genre circuit a well greased machine. -
manders_steve17 January 2020This really was awfully disappointing. I've read and enjoyed Peter Carey's book of the same name that supposedly the film was based on, but there's a lot in the film I don't recall from that book, nor did some of it align with my general understanding of the saga of Edward Kelly.
It seemed to have been laid on with a trowel, eschewing subtlety for heavy handed sensationalism. Many of the settings didn't look right for the hills of Beveridge through to the north eastern Victorian high country.. Maybe it's a story that would better suit say 6 x 1 hour episodes rather than trying to jam it into 2½ hours and failing. The young and adult Ned Kelly were not believably the same person.
I liked Essie Davis as Ellen Kelly, and Josephine Blazier as Kate Kelly was convincing. Thereafter the roles failed to convince, let down by the screenplay, the settings and the lack of alignment with the generally accepted understanding of what happened. -
neilephillis26 January 2020I went in with excited expectation, as a fan of this genre and having enjoyed Peter Carey's book despite it's departure into fiction ... wow, disappointed... barely a resemblance to the book and I'm wondering why they bothered using the Kelly names and basic timeline ... would have been better as complete fiction ..
-
kevin_robbins20 August 2021The True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) is a movie my wife and I recently watched on a flight home from Italy on Finnair. The storyline focuses on a young Ned Kelly in the poor countryside of Australia who is raised under harsh conditions with a loose mother and a weak father. Ned and his family scrounge to survive in an environment where the British and authorities have their boots on the people's throats. As Ned grows up he develops resentment for both and builds a gang to face them head-on. This movie is directed by Australian director Justin Kurzel (Assassin's Creed) and stars George MacKay (1917), Nicholas Hoult (Mad Max), Charlie Hunnam (Son's of Anarchy) and Russell Crowe (Gladiator). The storyline for this picture is very compelling due to the over the top character Ned Kelly and the fascinating environment it takes place in - Australia in 1870. The settings, use of light and cinematography is absolute beautiful in this film. The circumstances are so compelling and the cast delivers their performances well. The best part of the movie is the first 2/3s that really focuses on the circumstances and lifestyle. It takes forever to get to the actual gang aspects of Ned's life and that aspect feels very rushed. The entire gang sequences are under developed as are his relationships with the gang members. The historical aspects of the movie are really bad, especially the last 20-30 minutes of the movie (this should not be called The True History). Overall this is slow burn movie with solid character development and not as much focus on the action and gang lifestyle of Kelly. I would recommend watching this once while keeping your brain shutoff on the historical accuracy. I would score this a 6/10.
-
andypaps1016 September 2021It's a great film if you like to be slightly challenged. I am not one for westerns and in fact had put off watching this for a couple of years. I should have seen it earlier.
The stylising of the film was impressive as the genre has very few examples of what the director has achieved in the shoot-out scenes.
The lead actor(s) were exceptional and the film picks up a pace in the second half. I was surprised by the critical reviews at IMDB and its average low mark. A solid 7 for me which is a very good score.
The films leaves an impression long after it has finished - so much so I was curious to find out more about Ned Kelly. I had only heard his name whilst growing up banded about as an Australian Robin Hood which is in fact pretty inaccurate. -
I realize and I expect this movie is limiting the release because they know they ruin it. As far as I know, adult Ned Kelly has beard, and you shouldn't remove it. Oh come on!. You're ruining good actors by making this movie. Also, you're adding too much Ned mom advice in here. People could call this film : History of Kelly and His Mom Advice.
I actually pleased that you "three-quarter successfully" pictured who Ned Kelly is from pass until his death sentence.
I will recommend this to my history-nerd friend only, I guess. -
ferguson-624 April 2020Greetings again from the darkness. The opening title card states "Nothing you are about to see is true" ... and then it dissolves, leaving the word 'true' as the first word in the film's title. Of course, some of the things we are about to see are true, though it is a dramatized version with a screenplay adapted by Shaun Grant (BERLIN SYNDROME, 2017) from Peter Carey's 2000 novel. Director Justin Kurzel (MACBETH, 2015) takes a very artsy and stylistic approach in telling the story of the notorious Australian outlaw, Ned Kelly, while still including the expected violence and brutality.
Opening in 1867 Australia, we first see young Ned Kelly (Orlando Schwert) spying on his mother (Essie Davis, THE BABADOOK, 2014) as she provides service to Sgt. O'Neill (Charlie Hunnam). It's the kind of service a young boy should never see his mother perform, especially as the father/husband (Ben Corbett) hovers outside the cabin with Ned's siblings. Life is difficult for the Kelly family. Dad has some issues, so mom does what she has to in order to keep food on the table. Ned's life and family dynamics change quickly when his dad takes the fall for a crime Ned committed.
Harry Power (played by hefty Russell Crowe) arrives on the scene, and becomes Ned's mentor in song (a sing-a-long title that can't be repeated here) and as a bushranger. It's not long after this when the movie shifts from Ned as a boy, to Ned as a man (played by George Mackay, 1917), who spends a few years away from home. Ned crosses paths with Constable Fitzpatrick (Nicholas Hoult) numerous times, one which results in Ned meeting, and falling for, a young prostitute named Mary Hearn (Thomasin McKenzie, JOJO RABBIT). Ned and Mary return home to visit his mother, and they find she's now engaged to a younger man, George King (Marlon Williams). George has been teaching his "trade" of horse-thieving to Ned's brothers, including Dan (played by musician Nick Cave's son, Earl Cave). It's at this point we learn about how the Kelly Gang was formed, and why they took to wearing dresses ... "Nothing scares a man like crazy."
There is a lot going on in this story for the tale of a man who was executed at age 25. We see Ned evolve from a curious youngster to a bare-knuckle boxer to an outlaw who became an anti-hero cult icon. Witnessing the father figures he endured leaves little wonder why he turned out the way he did - an angry, cross-dressing outlaw leading the Irish rebellion in hopes of taking down the Crown. Ned is told that "a man can never outrun his fate", and we know Ned's fate upfront. We are there as Ned gives a motivational speech to the Kelly gang, and we watch in awe as they self-test their own body armor.
"My Dear Son ..." are the first words we hear as Ned writes a letter promising to tell no lies about his history. The letter acts as somewhat of a framing device for the film, and covers the entirety of the Kelly Outbreak, as it's now referred. There have been numerous projects (movies, mini-series, docu-dramas) over the years, including Mick Jagger (1970) and Heath Ledger (2003) as those who have portrayed Ned Kelly on screen. Director Kurzel and cinematographer Ari Wegner offer up quite a stylish look for this vast wasteland, and even utilizes some Terrence Malick-type editing for effect. Even the closing credit sequence is a work of art. It's a family affair for director Justin Kurzel, as his brother Jed Kurzel delivers the music, and Justin's wife Essie Davis plays Ned's mother. It's certainly not a typical western, and Ned is difficult to relate to as a character, but the look and style of the film keep us engaged. Perhaps the oddest decision was to have MacKay clean-shaven, as most of us have seen the photos of Ned Kelly and his beard ... a beard that seemed to inspire modern day hipsters. Filming took place at Old Melbourne Gaol, which was the actual spot where Ned Kelly was hanged. His last words were: "Such is life." -
johnmelbrown25 April 2020I realize there is a disclaimer in the opening scene but I have to ask "What was the point of making this movie?"
Obviously, it's not a historical biographical study which seeks to make some moralistic point. So why use the "Kelly" substructure in the first place.
My only thought was taken from the final scene where the school teacher criticizes the idea of making a "Hero" of sorts out of the likes of Kelly. Was the whole two hours just a swipe at romanticized history?
Grotesque and bluntly sexually deviant, the characters are presented in terms of the most base moral behavior and mindsets.
Others have reviewed this film as deep and insightful while blasting those poor simpletons who cannot understand nor contemplate real artistic vision.
Maybe this is true.. but I hope I never get the state of mind where a movie like this will appeal to me in a positive, thought provoking manner. -
jacknimmo27 June 2020Worth a watch I'd say. It's grittier and I guess more true to life based on the period it is set in. Looks and sounds good. Decent acting throughout. A bit long I would say otherwise reasonably entertaining.
-
benholgate7726 January 2020How does a film like this get a green light? As a Kelly historian and an appreciator of Carey's novel upon which this film claims to be based, the final outcome of Kurzel's failed attempt does a disservice to both Carey and Australian history. I reckon he'd be lucky to get a job directing Neighbours episodes after this embarrassment.
-
jasonkatsambiris3 February 2020Surprised by the scathing reviews here. I really enjoyed this film. Great action, great script and dialogue and incredible cinematography... this film felt like a dystopian take on Aussie history turned folklore. This is not a biopic and not traditional in any sense. If you can leave your bias at the door you'll enjoy yourself
-
The opening written narrative states that "nothing you're about to see is true", with my immediate reaction being, 'so what's the point'? Especially when the title says "True History of the Kelly Gang". That kind of turned me off, but what the heck, I continued watching because I was already invested in the first two minutes and figured it ought to be worth something. Turns out it's a grim and gritty portrayal in the growth and development of Australia's most famous and notorious outlaw. With parents like Ned's (George MacKay), it's not hard to imagine that he could have turned out the way he did, especially after being 'sold' by his mother (Essie Davis) to a grizzled outlaw like Harry Power. Harry is portrayed by Russell Crowe, about as big and fat as he was in 2012's "The Man With the Iron Fists", and not particularly a nice guy here either.
I've already seen a couple films eponymously titled "Ned Kelly", the 1970 version with Mick Jagger!! as the famous outlaw, and the 2013 picture with Heath Ledger in the title role. I can't say whether either one of those films were any better than what you find here, but one thing for sure, the Kelly Brothers weren't running around in ladies dresses pretending to be crazy in order to intimidate and confuse their enemies. Which best friend Joe Byrne (Sean Keenan) might have taken to heart when he took up sleeping with Ned; that was a grim sight.
The story also has Ned fantasizing his role as the leader of the Kelly army by fancying himself an ironclad Monitor, based on the American warship built by Union forces during the Civil War, the design of which made his men look like robots wearing pails on their heads. Obviously believing that he himself was invincible, Ned and his plan to ambush a train load of Victorian lawmen went badly awry, and the berserk outlaw was captured, arrested, imprisoned, and eventually hung for his criminal behavior. The story sort of ends ignominiously right there, leaving one to wonder if anything you just saw was actually true. -
bobwarn-938-5586714 January 2020Not much to recommend it. I gave it 6! Why? Loyalty to an Australian movie? Sadly it is part of what's wrong with Aust movies. Govt supported (federal AND states, which have bureaucratic hide-bound regulations on content). Was this the director's first film? Looked like it. Far too long at 124 mins. I frequently looked at my watch, which is NOT a good thing. Funereal sound track made me want to leave. In fact I almost did half way through because the plot was getting nowhere. The first half with young Ned was to me unnecessary and the all too brief role of 'our Rusty' Crowe the only good part. Ned is known for his bad guy stuff, of which in the second half there is little. The female clothing stuff?! Where did THAT come from? A very seld-indulgent movie. Directors who do that show contempt for their audiences. I will lower my score to 2.