Ned Kelly never hit theatres where I live and kept its publicity to a minimum when it was released. It was so low-key that is completely slipped under my radar, in spite of having big blockbuster names gracing its cast list. Overall, I found it to be a good film. It didn't look too promising in the beginning--it is very slow in all respects--but picks up in both action and emotion about halfway through. The last fifteen minutes or so are fantastically handled and very touching. I also liked the writing that took the form of a great and realistic dialogue.
The problems I had with the film were mostly in the plot, and particularly plot holes, like "Why would he do that?" and "How could that person know that?". But Ned Kelly is based on a true story and supposedly stays fairly accurate to the events in the life of the real Australian outlaw Ned Kelly, so I can only trust the film to depict things that were already there. As in, maybe it WASN'T explained in Kelly's life how a certain person could know a certain thing, or why one of the bandits did the things they did. I'll give the filmmakers the benefit of doubt on this one. Another problem that most people seem to have with the film and that is unforgivable is the allocation of weight placed on the different characters. The brilliant Geoffrey Rush as the head policeman chasing after Ned Kelly and his bandits is something of an untapped source; he doesn't get nearly enough screen-time and his character isn't nearly explored enough. We want to know what drives him, more than his profession, to go after Ned Kelly with gigantic police contingent. No satisfying explanation is ever really offered and Rush's character ends up one-dimensional and his struggle emotionless.
We feel for Ned Kelly's gang of bandits, but we're not with them every step of the way as the film fails in establishing a true "hero-feeling". The closest we come to feeling this way is when Ned gives one of his pep-talks to the hostages in the banks he robs, urging people to fight the "coppers" and resist the harsh rule. That's nice and all, but it's not enough. I felt more for the characters during the last ten minutes than I did throughout the entire film.
The problems I had with the film were mostly in the plot, and particularly plot holes, like "Why would he do that?" and "How could that person know that?". But Ned Kelly is based on a true story and supposedly stays fairly accurate to the events in the life of the real Australian outlaw Ned Kelly, so I can only trust the film to depict things that were already there. As in, maybe it WASN'T explained in Kelly's life how a certain person could know a certain thing, or why one of the bandits did the things they did. I'll give the filmmakers the benefit of doubt on this one. Another problem that most people seem to have with the film and that is unforgivable is the allocation of weight placed on the different characters. The brilliant Geoffrey Rush as the head policeman chasing after Ned Kelly and his bandits is something of an untapped source; he doesn't get nearly enough screen-time and his character isn't nearly explored enough. We want to know what drives him, more than his profession, to go after Ned Kelly with gigantic police contingent. No satisfying explanation is ever really offered and Rush's character ends up one-dimensional and his struggle emotionless.
We feel for Ned Kelly's gang of bandits, but we're not with them every step of the way as the film fails in establishing a true "hero-feeling". The closest we come to feeling this way is when Ned gives one of his pep-talks to the hostages in the banks he robs, urging people to fight the "coppers" and resist the harsh rule. That's nice and all, but it's not enough. I felt more for the characters during the last ten minutes than I did throughout the entire film.