Too much of everything

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Better Late Then Never

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.

Solid cinematic storytelling, with a commendable performance by Mick Jagger. While the movie would've benefited a great deal from a soundtrack produced by The Rolling Stones themselves, NED KELLY isn't so much a "rock and roll" picture (except, perhaps, at heart) as it is a damning indictment of The Powers That Be (that WERE). It's gritty in that GREAT NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA RAID-kind of way (which was likewise a tip of the hat to some of those "gray area" folk heroes, though the James and Younger brothers are generally acknowledged these days to have been outright outlaws) and, in its depiction(s), somewhat ahead of its time. (It may be hard for some people to believe, but there was a time when Good was good and Bad was bad and never the twain met- at least not on The Big Screen- not often, at any rate, especially in movies made in America-, and never EVER on American television.) With the housing crisis in this country in mind, NED KELLY just might be the kind of movie more people should seek out...

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.

This film probably is a far from accurate depiction of the Ned Kelly story, and it no doubt outraged some Aussies at the time, but it is nearly not as bad as one might think for such a little known or seen film. It definitely has a non Australian feel to it what with Waylon Jennings' excellent ballad score and Mick Jagger in the title role. Though probably the wrong choice to portray Kelly, Jagger nevertheless possesses a certain amount of youthful charisma here which somehow just demands you watch him. An interesting and decidedly obscure entry in the downbeat anti-western genre of the 60's and 70's. Shades of Peckinpah. If you're a fan of Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, you may find this one worth seeing.