I've seen Ned Kelly a couple of times now and, while I think it has plenty of merits, I was ultimately disappointed by it.
The main problem I had was with Heath Ledger's portrayal of Ned. He certainly looked the part but I didn't think he was convincing, especially in the film's more emotional scenes. For instance, during the "inspirational" speeches, I really felt Ledger resorted to overacting because he hadn't injected much personality into the character in the first place. It seemed as though he relied on Kelly's existing notoriety to carry the film, and merely supplied an Irish accent and beard, neither of which were enough. My insecurities of Ledger's acting were rammed into conviction when Geoffrey Rush appeared on screen (for far too short a time), and blew away most of the cast, despite playing a ridiculously underwritten character. Rush was adequate in his role, which made me wonder why they didn't give him more screen time and more importantly, what the film would've been like had they cast an equally capable young actor in the lead role. I know it's pretty pointless to suggest a different actor now, but I can't help but feel that Guy Pearce would've been better as Ned Kelly.
Aside from that, I would say that it's a pretty compelling film. It's beautifully filmed and has a pretty unique atmosphere - partly credited to the "quite nice" Klaus Badelt score and the brilliant colours of the outback, which were as good as an extra character in the film.
"it wasn't overtly trying to manipulate emotions like most big budget, hollywood movies"
I do agree with that - it was pretty blunt in what it was trying to achieve, however, this brings up another problem I had with the film... It was blatantly obvious for all to see, which side of history the filmmakers took - They interpreted Ned Kelly as a hero and more or less, an innocent man. Nothing wrong with that (although I don't necessarily agree), but I did think it was to the detriment of the film. Ledger's Ned Kelly would've been much more interesting, had he been played as a morally ambiguous character, someone that's not completely likeable, a man with obvious flaws - perhaps even a nasty side. V for Vendetta as an example, showed us how powerful a character like that can be (yes it's a strange comparison, I know!).
Anyway, that's my two cents. By the way, I'm not attacking your opinion shequitaw-1,I'm glad you enjoyed the film, I just thought this was a good place to post my thoughts on it.
Cheers.
reply
share