The Kelly Gang

If 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.

Forget 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.

Surprised 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

Entertaining 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.

"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.