Watch Ned Kelly For Free

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

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.

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!

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.