With the story of the Australian gangster Kelly, I was hardly familiar. I just heard something. The film began to watch because of the participation of Russell Crowe, who, by the way, I think, played a very memorable character. It is a pity that he was not given much time.
As for the film itself, the story is generally interesting. Whether it should have been filmed is a big question for me personally. The film is frankly cruel, filled with a lot of scenes that cause disgust.
The film itself tells not about the gang and its adventures, but about the endless self-reflection of the main character, who constantly turns to his childhood and asks why this happened. It seems that this is a deeply resentful person who is constantly trying to prove something to himself.
Overall, the film is definitely memorable. But I certainly don’t want to watch it again. And it's not because he's cruel. You just expect something different from him. And here are the philosophical reflections of some guy, very rarely diluted with scenes of even some “battles”. By the way, the scene of the final shootout should be watched very carefully. A seizure of epilepsy is possible.
At first, I couldn’t figure out how to position this movie. What is it, arthouse or mainstream? Because of this, there was cognitive dissonance, it was not comfortable. But by the middle of the picture I realized that it was punk and everything immediately fell into place. That is, it is still a pop culture, but with a crazy bias. Ned Kelly at the end of the film even acts and looks like a rock star under drugs. The costumes in the movie also add crazy ones. The case takes place in Australia in the 1860s, but the characters are dressed not in coats and hats, but in clothes very similar to modern. Such clothes for every day, without reference to fashion trends. Even the women on the screen at the time were wearing trousers and the men in shorts. The LGBT issue comes with a very bold hint. The whole gang is dressed in women's dresses, always hugging half-naked. Freudism blossoms with a violent color, as if all the fault of childhood psychological trauma and the Oedipus complex. But pedaling psychology spoils this punk film, the themes do not go together, it turns out very average.
Actors play very well, remember. Not a bad band of actors.
The film is not unambiguous, I’m sure someone will like it, but not me. Too many different components it is molded, and they do not combine. A movie for an amateur.
An interesting experience from watching the film is waiting for you only if you watched “Gang Kelly” in 2003 and you will have something to compare.
Ned Kelly is a known criminal in his homeland, but the figure is extremely ambiguous. Some consider him an ordinary bandit and a ruthless killer, while others consider him a symbol of national resistance as a ruthless policeman. And if the 2003 film reveals Ned Kelly really as a symbol of resistance, though certainly highly romanticized, then this film reveals absolutely nothing.
Ned Kelly in True Story is not a violent criminal and certainly not a national symbol. He is an ordinary maximalist boy whose figure carries nothing but a tragic childhood and tantrums. Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about him. The film, obviously, tries to reveal the hero, make him a looped madman, but in the end can not do it. And none of the characters of the film is really revealed, except Kelly’s mother, whose self-centered nature moves the whole plot.
Again, going back to the 2003 film, the characters are simpler, but they are revealed, and indeed the whole gang, not just Ned Kelly. Here - all the emphasis on Kelly, the rest of the characters scored a bolt, but even such victims of the main character did not pull.
The trailer, by the way, gives a deceptive expectation from the film and overstates the bar - you wait for a beautiful, dynamic and dramatic western, and you get a long story about a looped maximalist. The beginning of the film is quite decent, and there are a couple of beautiful scenes, but there is nothing else there.
The history of the life of a rational person is written over millions of years, from the development of upright walking to our time, and will be written for many centuries. However, regardless of the period of people’s level of education, their horizons, planetary time zone, latitude and longitude, the materialization of certain needs was, is and will be significant. In other words, commodity-money relations haunt a person throughout his formation. And as long as this persecution continues, the principle of “everything has a price” is rooted in human thinking.
In classical, standard families, the inoculation of this postulate occurs sequentially, in reasonable stages. The child receives dosed information at each level of his growing up, forming a full picture with multiple leisurely strokes. Kelly's family home, unfortunately, cannot be attributed to such examples. The main character, Edward, became a man while still a pre-sexual boy. As a child, he already realized the benefits of female flesh among lustful men, the role of silence in moments when words are superfluous, the cost of responsibility for rash and sometimes noble and fearless actions, but most importantly, he learned the cost of his own life – 15 pounds. Exactly for this amount, a loving mother left her son in the care of a local bandit.
The film is not about the great gang of criminal Kelly, not about the battles of the armies of Ned and Constable Fitzpatrick. No, the picture demonstrates the formation of human life by the example of George Mackay. Each of his subsequent periods of existence were mentors of different classes, but each of them made his own individual contribution to the formation of the personality of Edward Irish Kelly. The first, of course, was the mother, her merits in creating a strong male core in the boy, she instilled in him an incredible attachment to the family and herself. The amazing Russell Crowe shared second place with Charlie Hunnam - the seducer of women's hearts clearly showed the boy the cost of pounds and shillings, and a cold-blooded killer with sensual features added the color of masculinity to the appearance of a teenager. And so on, and so on, until the temper of the constable became the last obstacle to this short journey.
The authors initially warn only about the possible demonstration of real events that took place in Australia. We should not approach this issue from the scientific and pragmatic side. Justin Kurzel’s work was to create a beautiful film full of fascinating dialogues and rich storylines. Whether or not he is a witness, he decides.
P.S. The ending could have been better...
'The skin won't tell you what the flesh is underneath.'
In the emerging new Australian folklore of the late 19th century, Edward 'Ned' Kelly takes a separate chapter. For the then Australians, among whom there were a large number of convicts or their descendants, Ned Kelly became a symbol of the fight against colonial authorities and police impunity. He even received the nominal title ' Australian Robin Hood' because Kelly became truly folk heroes, being just a native of the poor, and then fearlessly raised weapons against people in uniforms. But the life story of Ned Kelly is ambiguous, and if for some he is a hero, for others - a villain and a criminal who robbed banks and killed police officers. And, nevertheless, later Ned’s life was repeatedly transferred to the pages of biographical books about him, as well as screens. Among the most famous adaptations are the tapes ' Ned Kelly' 1970 and ' Gang Kelly' 2003 (by the way, in the latter the main roles were performed by Heath Ledger, Orlando Bloom, Jeffrey Rush, Naomi Watts, Joel Edgerton, and directed by Gregor Jordan).
And in 2019, another adaptation based on the novel by Peter Carey ' True History of the Kelly Gang' was released. And this writer deserves a few separate words, because he has several prestigious awards in the field of literature, in addition, he has three honorary degrees, and his portrait was immortalized on postage stamps in the series ' Legends of Australia'. And, in theory, based on the formula that a good plot is half a good movie, we were right to hope for a thrilling crime drama, where robberies and gunfights will maintain the entertainment and dynamism of the picture, but Ned Kelly’s path to crime and its sad end is a necessary dramaturgy. But embarrassed by the fact that the director of the film adaptation was appointed Justin Kurzel. His career began with the film 'Snow City' (2010), telling about the most terrible serial killer of Australia, John Bunting, for which Kurzel received the award of the Cannes festival. Next was the strangely created almanac ' Moments of Love' (2013) and Kurzel's most famous film ' Macbeth' (2015). Local successes allowed Kurzel to take the place of director in the film adaptation of the cult computer game 'Assassin's Creed', but the project failed. And to return to the top again, Kurzel returned to the fold of Australian history.
So what did we get? To be honest, a lot of this picture causes some underlying disgust. I don’t know how realistic it is, but to be honest, the life of young Ned Kelly and his family is an abyss of gloom and disgust. As sinful as it may be to say, first of all, Ned Kelly’s mother is disgusted and her lifestyle, her actions are the path of a fallen woman without principles and ordinary social responsibility for us. The actress Essie Davis, who played this character, recalled the villain from the American Crime & #39; (2007) performed by Katherine Keener - the same bastard and vile essence, but still such a depth of character as Keener, Essie Davis did not have. Not attracted by some charisma and romantic halo and the hero Russell Crowe, another Bushranger (robber and murderer) Harry Power, mentor, so to speak, the future character of Australian folklore. Notably fertilized star ' Gladiator' (2000), ' The Mind Game' (2001), 'Knockdown' (2005) spent his part of the film with a gloomy facial expression, not wanting to move and strained monologues. Somewhere went the typical glint of Crowe's eyes and his mischief.
There are almost no kind words about the characters of other famous actors - Nicholas Holt and Charlie Hunnam. And the point is not that the actors out of hand did their job badly, but the fact that their images are not sufficiently written, they are superficial and do not cause any emotions other than the fact that the same hostility arises. But this feeling, as you understand, accompanies all the time watching 'The True Story of the Kelly Gang'. But, unfortunately, George McKay, who many have already managed to enter the rank of future big star for his roles in the films 'Captain Fantastic' (2016) and '1917' (2019), completely did not fall into the role of Ned Kelly. We all imagined him in a completely different way, and here is some feeble young man, in whose hands the weapon looks like a cow saddle. And no matter how hard McKay tried, he was never able to embody the role of a national Australian hero. Of course, maybe we wanted to provide everything, tell a true story, but it turned out to be completely unpleasant, sometimes strange and disgusting, with awkward characters and constrained acting.
I confess that after the first ten minutes of watching the film, I clearly realized that I was wasting my time and my mood gradually deteriorated depressingly. Neowestern Justin Kurzel failed from and before.
I didn't like the movie because:
1. It's been a long time.
2. There is no final culmination of the plot and the outcome of the story.
However, the first part of the film (and we are divided into the childhood and adult life of Kelly) insanely interesting and dynamic. It is like a story that has a definite outcome. Moreover, it brought together beautiful actors: Russell Crowe and Charlie Hunnam, who give highlights to the plot.
My main complaint with the film is the lack of emphasis on the crafts of the Kelly gang. He is known to be a cult character in Australia. But after watching this movie, I didn’t understand why it was so interesting. What I was shown, I perceived as just a group of mentally ill people who do something for a purpose.
All the gloom of the character in the gray tones of the visual picture - frankly spoil the entire impression of the film.
Brilliant cast, excellent camera work. Beautiful scenery. And such a bummer!
Mackay's cute face looked good in '1917' appropriately in the comedy 'Second Date Sex Guide'. But on the robber and murderer the actor with all his efforts does not pull.
Essie Davis as Ned's mother looks stupider. I didn’t get into her filmography, but I give up, she played in the movies of the 90’s. She stayed. Ned's mother is sick and annoying at the same time. The most virulent manipulations that she uses, subordinating her son to her own will, put under huge doubt the very fact that we are talking about the leader of the gang.
Russell Crowe and Charlie Hunnam were delighted. Both are very convincing in their roles. I think both are pretty good.
A huge minus of the picture is the plot. Or rather, a lack of logic. More reminiscent of molded from pieces somehow author's film with a low budget. Apparently, chasing the transmission of the inner state of the hero, the director missed that the external picture would not be bad to convey.
It is a pity that this unfortunate oversight negates a great job.
Edward (Ned) Kelly, an Australian bushranger known for daring bank robbery and police killings, was executed when he was 25. Traditions and ballads about the exploits of Ned Kelly, where he appears as a “noble robber”, appeared during his lifetime and became an integral part of Australian folklore. The attitude towards Ned Kelly in the country is far from unequivocal: some Australians consider him a ruthless killer, some - a symbol of resistance to colonial authorities and the embodiment of national character.
Judging by the biography of Ned Kelly himself (the impressive and magnificent George McKay) - the film fully follows its accuracy - telling its main milestones in a short period of time: where Ned's father, Irish John (Red) Kelly, was exiled to Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania) for stealing two pigs, and was subsequently imprisoned for stealing a calf (although, in the film, Ned himself steals a calf); Ned travels with the robber Harry Power (who here has a separate plot and performed by the impressive Russell Crowe with a beard), and his mother does meet with his stepfather - a young Californian George King. To feed the family, Ned's mother gives her body for money to a local brazen sergeant (Charlie Hunnam), and his father wears women's clothes - which will become vital for Ned himself in the future. Ned Kelly's fame began - Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick: On April 15, 1878, he showed up at the precinct with a shot in his hand and blamed almost the entire Kelly family for the armed attack - and he has a special role here between Ned and justice, and Nicholas Holt creates one of his most powerful and complex images. Kelly's gang - Ned, his brothers and assistants - in women's dresses ' catches up with horror' on the local neighborhood and banks. ' I'll be like a battleship ' Monitor'! - says Ned about the picture of the ship he sees at Fitzpatrick, and comes up with his famous ' iron armor' from bullets. ' I asked for justice and got nothing! We are stolen people on stolen land!' Ned writes in a future letter to his daughter.
Biographical film from the director Justin Kurzel, based on the novel by Peter Carey, which brought the author the second Booker Prize with the beautiful music of Jed Kurzel - a rebellious film about the struggle of people with universal injustice, where this very injustice - like ' bone in the throat'. Recalls the film 'Gang Kelly' (2003) Gregor Jordan with a more traditional presentation of the story and plot compared to the new film, which itself is still ' Treasure chest'. Before us is a minimalist production (where the setting and costumes - ' conditionality' in the proposed circumstances) in the spirit of the Theatre Experiment' among the deserted prairies of Australia - where the struggle and spirit of history itself - have not disappeared, but have acquired grotesque and symbolic forms of human history and tragedy.
When you start watching a movie called 'The True Story of the Kelly Gang' you expect two main highlights: the story and the gang. That is, in your mind imagine a film based on a story about a real robbery, attacks, atrocities, the fight with the police and everything that is due to it. But the film, in which the gang itself appears only in the last quarter of the story, and all the adventures of the gang are reduced to one single (first) raid, which lasts a couple of minutes and is shot by a shaking camera, showing mostly the face of Kelly himself, rather than the events taking place.
The film does not show the gang as such, although the film as a whole should have been about it. What individual nuggets of history touch this topic, but the gang itself as confused appears, and faceless disappears. The final scene of the fight is a real shame in terms of narrative, action and logic of events. No formation, no development, no apogee. Only emptiness.
The plot is mainly built around the growing up of Ned Kelly himself, who, by the way, is shown for the most part by memley and a mentally vulnerable type. Much of the screen time is given to Ned’s mother, and her amorous relationships with everyone in a row. At the same time, a number of characters related to the love line of Ned Kelly’s mother do not carry any plot load at all.
We'll see the suffering of the boy Ned, we'll see the suffering of the man Ned. But where in the film is the same Ned Kelly who horrified Australia, robbed banks, attacked travel? Is this the same guy from the movie?
Best of all on screen looks Nick Holt and Charlie Hannam, who clearly pulled the blanket over their characters - they came out bright, characteristic and tangible. The rest of the characters, alas, came out crumpled.
The film is frankly weak both in the study of characters, and in the poverty of locations (they are scarce and can be counted on the fingers), and in the plot, for which after an hour of viewing you already want to fall asleep. There are splashes in the narrative periodically, but they also fade away quickly as they appear.
If this was the true story of the Kelly Gang, Australia is probably the safest time on earth ever.
5 out of 10
The life of a criminal can be cool and short. History, however, has a long memory and many people, even in Russia, have heard of Ned Kelly, a robber from distant Australia. His “feats”, coupled with his charismatic image and skill (like equipment in natural armor during raids), made him an almost perfect film hero. The role of Kelly was visited by Mick Jagger and Heath Ledger. In The True Story of the Kelly Gang, the image of the legendary bandit was tried on by the silent Briton George Mackay. And although the quality of the acting is unquestionable, in general, “True Story” sometimes wants to shrink: yet this beautiful and competently staged film sometimes contains inadvertently funny solutions. Most of the script is a rather bold approach to a biographical project that focuses on the person, not his actions, but the angle does not always make the film thematically interesting.
When we first meet young Ned, he is a boy watching his mother’s immoral acts. His family is Irish in a newly colonized country, his mother leads a loose lifestyle, and his father is a drunkard. In the end, Ned falls under the wing of a tough robber who allowed the boy to taste the criminal life. Later, Ned goes to prison, and after leaving it as a young, slim and self-confident man, Kelly reluctantly leads the gang. How he came to this, exhaustively stated in the story.
One undeniable fact about The True Story of the Kelly Gang is its cast. To be honest, impressive artists even overshadow directorial decisions. George McKay is experimenting with his dark side. Charlie Hunnam and Nichols Holt play, like, representatives of the law, but got the opportunity to turn into monsters and scum on the screen. Russell Crowe? Age and unhealthy lifestyle take their toll, but his charisma is simply incredible. Even supporting actors give their all and allow you to penetrate the illusion of the Australian outback of the 19th century.
But the director Justin Kurzel, best known for “Macbeth” and “Assassin’s Creed”, seems a little confused by his sensuality. There is little energy in his work; he has focused too much on the outer shell. As a result, the picture turned out to be stunningly beautiful and, nevertheless, in terms of conceptualism, “Authentic History” fails well. The film eventually came out as something between a historical opus, a biographical film about the formation of a “rock star”, a gangster project and, um, the origin story of the Joker. The result is a mix of stylistic approaches. Everything mixed together in the film, on the one hand, brings something audacious and cruel that works perfectly for the atmosphere, and on the other hand, well, is too strange structure. The devil, as usual, is in the details. Realizing Kelly's story requires a carefully tuned atmosphere and narrative. If the first one is still being implemented, then the second scriptwriters clearly failed. The notorious band of scoundrels that stormed Australia is fine, but it takes almost an eternity for the plot to get to that point. Instead, "The Kelly Gang" is loaded with a slew of scenes with a young Ned unnecessarily lengthy first act without much narrative and/or dramatic sweep. In other words, Kelly’s unexpected turn to the dark side of the Force does not click in the mind of the viewer, because the realm of gangster terror in Australia does not look particularly thoughtful, and his ascension to the throne of crime passes as quickly as his further fall.
The retelling of the acts of one of the most infamous figures in Australian history is cruel, shocking, anarchic and damn strange. Despite its name, the story is entirely fictional and on the verge of fiction. It's too confusing, as is its central hero trying to find his place in the world, and viewers wanting to get closer to the hero's world. Ned Kelly is not a freedom fighter, but a murderer and a criminal and, it seems, the tone of a dashing gangster comedy would suit the project with the title “The True Story” much more than in the format of a depressive drama. The film ends on an inevitable tragic note and, of course, from this can be worrisome, since the hero was in many respects a victim of circumstances: manipulative mother, terrible childhood, betrayal of friends, etc. Anyway, "The True Story of the Kelly Gang" does not answer any questions about the life of the protagonist, but, as contradictory as it may sound, a person as tightly anchored in folklore as Ned Kelly deserves just such a film.
6.5 out of 10
In 2015, Australian director Justin Kurzel thundered around the world with a revisionist adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Dark visual poetics, masterful directing, coupled with brilliant acting works by Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard fascinated not only critics and audiences, but also impressed studio bosses who entrusted Kurzel with the long-awaited adaptation of the cult game “Assassin’s Creed”. As a result, the creative castration of the director by Hollywood producers led to a standard failure on all fronts and multimillion-dollar losses. Such painful kicks serve as an excellent reason for the albeit slightly painful, but sometimes enchanting return to the author's womb. For example, for Guy Ritchie, a similar outlet was the daring and politically incorrect Gentlemen (after the failure of Arthur and the studio order Aladdin), and for Kurzel, a delightful reinterpretation of the legendary Australian personality, Ned Kelly.
For 140 years, the figure of Bushranger Kelly has acquired an incredible number of myths: someone considers Ned a kind of Robin Hood and an irreconcilable fighter against the British colonial authorities, and someone a ruthless killer and robber who managed to do a lot of black things over 25 years of his life. Kurzel, in his supposedly true history (the initial credits mock this fact), wading through the thickest flair of ambiguity, masterfully dissects both folklore essences of Kelly, offering at the output a spectacular narrative symbiosis of conjecture and truth, from a numerous creative array of motives and peremptory logic of dry facts.
It is an attempt to understand and analyze the nature of toxic masculinity: whether it is possible to survive and raise your child in the ruthless wastelands without appealing to its pernicious essence. An entity capable of transforming existence into a rather destructive and painful relationship: with the mother, with the harsh reality, with the powerful and, above all, with its own nature. And George McKay simply divinely conveyed these borderline states - his acting dedication hypnotizes and delights, and from the joint scenes with the screen mother performed by the stunning Essie Davis (she is not used to playing infernal mothers - thank you, "Babaduct"), the screen oozes a mix of mad rage, hatred and at the same time some strange all-forgiving love and devotion.
All in all, sumptuous in its harsh visual beauty and spectacularly ruthless in serving is the true (?) story of the Kelly gang. One of the best films of this stingy pandemic year.
Stories about gangsters have always attracted the eye of moviegoers, especially if they are qualitatively filmed and told with an inherent criminal saga atmosphere. Stories of John Dillinger, the Kray Brothers, Don Vito Corleone - all of them were filmed and gained great success, forever imprinted in the memory of the viewer.
The time has come for the Kelly gang, which was not the first time they tried to tell. I will tell you how well it turned out in my review.
Edward 'Ned' Kelly is an Irish boy who is forced by life to become a gangster, pushing him on the path of crime, murder and robbery. Starting to watch a movie with the title 'The True Story 'Something' expect to be told a really interesting story full of facts, twists of fate, blows of evil rock and the like. But the story we're talking about doesn't do that.
Baby Ned spent his entire childhood in poverty, living on the outskirts of the desert of Australia, watching his mother, a fallen woman, earn prostitution for the miserable existence of her family. And here we see that from a very young age, it is this woman, who is disgusting to the viewer in all her appearance, who is involved in the development of Ned as a criminal. He steals for the first time to feed the family, then learns that his mother sold him for 15 pounds. And it is this sale that plays a crucial role in shaping his bandit ego #39. Next, the plot shows how Ned grows up visually, but inside he remains the same boy, scared and wondering what he is doing in this life. And that's how it goes until the end of the movie.
I started writing this review before I finished watching the movie. I'll explain why. I've been waiting an hour and a half for that famous Kelly gang to show. When will the famous bandit appear, who more than plundered banks and made raids. But you and I will never see it in this picture. Sometimes I got the impression that I was watching some crazy house where men dress in dresses, homophobia flourishes and at weddings dancing with pig heads on their shoulders. The theater of the absurd, although it skips for a short time, leaves an indelible imprint that goes with you the whole film with a thin red thread.
The entire Kelly gang that the filmmaker shows us is a dress-clad idiot who steals horses and calls themselves the sons of Seava. In the film there are no bright robberies, raids, everything for which Edward Kelly was so famous. Sometimes it only slips from the words of the main character that he is already considered the most dangerous criminal. What for? Show me for what? For stabbing the constable twice? When you watch a movie about a true story, you expect a story. Here is a crumpled story about the atmosphere of poverty and vegetation in the outskirts of Australia. Ned Kelly could have been replaced by any other criminal and the essence of the film would not have changed. I don’t know why this movie was made.
This product of the film industry turned out to be certainly atmospheric, but very controversial. There is not a drop of vivid and epic about the Kelly gang, there are many harsh, gloomy landscapes that do not affect the story itself, but create a certain oppressive atmosphere. Throughout the film, we feel this atmosphere. Dirt, poverty, prostitution. There’s very little about Kelly’s gang in this film, but even fewer pleasant experiences, or any impressions at all. The whole story is rather blurred and empty, this film should have been called differently.
A very unsuccessful attempt at film adaptation. Ned Kelly would not forgive.
Think sometimes of Dubrovsky, know that he was born for another purpose, that his soul knew how to love you.
'Noble robber Vladimir Dubrovsky', 1988, dir. V. Nikiforov
The film I would ironically call 'Rabbit, Rabbits and Rabbits'. I will not be able to do much wrong with the truth. Mating and giving birth. They give birth and mate again. There is an Australian outback in front of us. Livestock in human form. One kid isn't enough? And two? And three? And four? And if, sorry for the honesty, there is nothing to eat, then still bear and give birth? But for whom? And for what? For fun? For your own howl? There's nothing to eat, right? And if so, then through stupidity, through stupidity of his own. Because of my own limitations. And think hard. And brainwashing, no desire. So what will grow out of rabbits?
And add here more ' sketch ' the beauty of the surroundings - a deaf mania among the naked, absolutely without foliage of the forest, and a miserable hut, a shack of sockets back and forth ... Impressive? Did you feel the author's tear? Or stiffened, obsessed with the delights of cinema in a series of paintings? Say 'mut' in front of you? I don't know, I don't know. . .
The beginning of the narrative is the doom of hopelessness. Horror, chilling blood. A boy, a child peering into the slot between the boards, and a mother kneeling before a stately gentleman in the form of a constable... Fellation is a promising prologue for future narrative. That's it! That's what the author dances for. This is the essence of a two-hour crime drama. Scary? Scary? Turns out ... ordinary. So what do you want from these half-animals, half-humans? Except they're not roaring yet. The Irish are here. Descendants in the third tribe exiled to Australia from Britain publicans of the shackled harness.
I came from the (Irish) quarter.
I was conceived for three rubles in the attic.
There was not enough tyres for all of them.
And I was born angry and longing. . .
. . My family was free of morals.
And I got used to it in the end:
My mother is careless and rightly
I have often changed my fathers.
The last one was my closest friend.
He didn’t love me at all.
And it was different that he did not blush.
I took the girls up the stairs. .
Alexander Novikov as accurately grasped the plot palette played out here 'Vodeville' with shades of Western. A boy with no future in front of us. He's like a weather vane in the wind. Where is the wind blowing today? Hungry? So you have to steal the meat. Did you get into a decent house? Why not grab something you like? A dashing highway robber needs a handyman? You can serve as a distraction. Mid-nineteenth century. A separate continent washed by the Pacific and Indian oceans. Distance from 'civilized world', beyond.
The boy first. In the first part of the narrative. And after prison, having served his sentence (and how else can it be?) already a young man ' kind' deeds in the step of manifestation.
I grew up with the (Irish) kids.
Everyone, like me, is wearing rags.
My brothers and sisters are my parents.
There's a potential thief at heart. .
.. . I have forgotten my sick childhood.
And he began to look secretly at the female sex.
I have a wonderful inheritance.
At the age of fifteen, I brought a woman into the house.
Of course, I didn’t have enough money.
I'm not going to tell you that.
And we became friends from the quarter.
Raid to distant lands. . .
Here you and the reversal of the picture in consonance with the Russian chanson. Exactly. And no gypsy is needed for divination. The guy decided on his own ' to go out into the people' And here we go. Revolvers, the courage of robberies, ' pee in the head '. For what? Why? For what purpose? No, no, no, no, no. ': Go out into the people ' to establish oneself in oneself. That's all.
It's not a spectacular picture at all. It's a grim picture. Dull. Grey, as well as the everyday lives of these unfortunate people. They claim to be descendants of Shib and are proud of it. But what did this hardly epic ancestor of the family give them? Wealth? Title? Earth? A full life? Opportunity prospects? Nothing. Honor. And grief.
This is what the story is about.
Think of Dubrovsky sometimes, know that he was born for a different purpose. ..
First, the pros. In the movie, it's just, oh, what a visual! Well, it's so beautifully shot, as if your eyes are eating exquisite food. The beauty is fascinating.
That's it. Now for the minuses.
Are you waiting for an Australian western full of dashing raids and shootouts? Could it be a historical biopic about Australia’s national hero? Kiss my wombat! The main character is not looking for victory over the regime, but his own sexual orientation.
Before browsing, read Wikipedia and see how powerful ' the true story' is not authentic. In general, this is what the opening credits tell us, so the historicity of the plot can not be considered. Instead, we will delve into the wilds of sexual relations and mental disorders of the main characters.
So, the authors clearly scoffed at the topic of tolerance and diversity. Judge for yourself: the only strong woman in the film is engaged in the sexual service of white men while her husband is in prison. The second most important heroine, by the way, does exactly the same thing.
The boy grows up to be a complete psychopath. As a child, he is traumatized by seeing a homosexual. You think he's going to be a homophobe? But no, he grows up to be bisexual! But not just bisexual, but bisexual homophobic! Who hints at the homosexuality of his brothers causes a fierce, furious tantrum and screams 'atata, so low!'.
Incoherent and illogical? We do not forget that the main character is an unbalanced bouquet of mental disorders. He even has a lover who appears two and a half times and has no influence on anything, and a wife who is very important to the plot. It turns out not just bisexual, homophobic, but bisexual-homophobic-polyamor. Modern! Tolerant!
But who are the chiefs? And the Glavgade, the enemy of the main character - an honest policeman, a cattle-breeder and a child seducer. Why do authors elevate some sexual orientations and degrade others? In this age of diversity, this is unacceptable! Ephebophilia, in fact, is not considered a disorder of sexual preference, as homosexuality.
I think it’s an omission that there are only two genders in the series. After all, a few Kelly brothers give fertile ground to show all the diversity - there can be a transgender, an agender, an assault helicopter, a gender queer, pansexual, asexual and many, many others.
There are no blacks or Asians in the film. Although, according to one version, the most famous armor Ned Kelly just looked at the local Chinese immigrants. In the film, he watched them in front of the greatest and all-powerful army... well, you know what a nation we have the greatest and all-powerful.
So what do authors teach us? And it turns out that a psychopathic mother raises a psychopathic son, bisexual, homophobic, polyamorous, robber and a brutal killer. What conclusion should I draw from all this? That gay people are all criminals? That a strong single woman cannot raise a decent, mentally balanced person? Are you serious?
The film “The True Story of the Kelly Gang”, released in the national rental on February 27, is actually not genuine, and I must say thank you to the director of the film for saying this already in the first screen credit. By the way, it is funny that in 1906 there was a silent picture with the same name “The True Story of the Kelly Gang”, which is considered the first full-length film in the history of world cinema. However, apart from the absolute truth, this anti-Western is missing and the story of the legendary Australian gang of robbers. The picture of Justin Kurzel, who became famous for the visionary stylish "Macbeth", and then badly screwed up when filming the popular computer game of the same name "Killer's Creed", looks fragmentary and more like a colorful video clip where the plot fades into the background. The viewer should catch his eye for the main images feel the picture somewhere in his subconscious, see it with his inner gaze.
Ned Kelly - Australian Robin-Hood, about whom many legends were composed during his lifetime, lived only 25 years, but managed to turn the business around during this time, that 140 years after his death they continue to talk and make films. However, not everyone considers him a fighter against the British colonial authorities, and called an ordinary criminal from the high road and a ruthless killer (Ned shot 16 police officers). So the Australian director himself, as it feels, not fully determined on whose side he is on, gives us a story about a rabid and rather stupid scumbag, which, like, life forced to cross the line, but, like, he himself is not against such a scenario. On the other side, we see British power in the face of two different officers, who are basically the same scum, only with a badge. Therefore, it is almost impossible to understand and accept any of the heroes. They are all evil, and they are all evil. Men are murderers and women are whores.
For all the masculinity of the film, where textured, often naked to the waist George McKay (Ned Kelly), who is not afraid of either snow or cold, along with the most natural cruelty in the person of Russell Crowe (a small role of the mentor of young Ned), and other severe male images with weapons in their hands (Charlie Hunnam, Nicholas Holt), the guys from the Kelly gang like to dress up in women’s dresses. They do this supposedly to give themselves a crazy appearance during attacks, but you will think that everything is not so clear. True, how this should affect the disclosure of images and what an outside observer not particularly familiar with Australian folklore should think remains a mystery. Perhaps on this southern continent, at the very bottom of the classical geographical map, there is a real hell, and now people live here, mired in all kinds of sins.
"The True Story of the Kelly Gang" rhymes with its brutality and decadence with another Australian director Jennifer Kent's recent work, "The Nightingale." And in one and the other picture, the atrocities of British officers, oppressing both exiled convicts and innocent or freed immigrants, are touched upon, and in the Nightingale, it is also said about the real genocide of the indigenous population. In many ways, the motives of the main characters are similar, including revenge and hopelessness, as well as the atmosphere of films, with an endless mystical forest (in both films, albeit in different ways, it inspires primitive fear), in which members of the Kelly gang gradually go mad. But no matter what, the national liberation movements, fighting against the arbitrariness of the authorities or noble robbers, are out of the question. And in the "True Story of the Kelly Gang" and at all visible only madness, but skinny interest.
Since Justin Kurzel filmed some of his own story, more like another myth told by a drunken aboriginal at the night campfire, it is absolutely impossible to give an objective assessment of this picture, as well as try to adequately analyze it. “The True Story of the Kelly Gang” attracts with an audiovisual narrative, thanks to the wide-angle camera of Erie Wegner and excellent Australian nature, powerful musical accompaniment from the director’s brother Jed Kurzel and good editing by Nick Fenton. The film, like a performance, is divided into three parts and due to a little infernal finale, after leaving the cinema there is a slight feeling of euphoria, which begins to disappear when trying to understand the picture and pose such an annoying question: what did the author want to say?
7 out of 10
The True Story of the Kelly Gang. Ironically, from the beginning, no one is going to claim that this is the truth. The truth must be pure and immaculate, so in most cases it is accessible only to the eyes and only once. All attempts to retell it, put it on a piece of paper or show it in any available way will end in failure. The true lie is what we get when viewing a two-hour biography, and the viewer can (and should) be grateful for the chance to see his truth through a small hole in the wall that was erected on motherly love, poverty and blood.
Ned Kelly is a name bulletproof, like the armor of the Monitor. An Australian robber, "Robin Hood," a burglar and thug, a hero and legend. Crazy. You can talk about it for hours, but not everyone dares. A person whose story oscillates between truth and fiction. I think it is better to learn about all the real events in a different way, without touching this film, but if you want to closely consider the destruction of such a loud, multifaceted person that began from an early childhood, director Justin Kurzel politely opens the door to let you into the world of a madman who will also politely point the barrel of a revolver right in the face.
It's an uncomfortable movie, and here's all its charm. Filming and landscapes act like an explosive mixture. The musical accompaniment is like a thousand blades: the bow of the cello presses on the throat. Under the knock of hooves and the cry of children, very tiny and already doomed, a Man blooms before us, who tasted death as a Boy. George McKay's performance is beyond praise, it's his finest hour - he's like a Molotov cocktail in human form. The image of Ned Kelly complemented his outlandish appearance and created a completely new personality: nervous, desperate, whose face is saturated with horror, and whose eyes are even more madness hiding behind a bright iris.
Everything from the mode of narration to the shaking camera and flashing light, comparable to an epilepsy attack, reminds every second that what happens on the screen sooner or later will lead to only one outcome. It can't be otherwise. Not in this country, not at this time and definitely not with this person.
Would I recommend watching The Kelly Gang Story? Definitely. Who? Another question: very few, in fact. The film is not made for the mass audience, although in some moments it tries to be. This fact makes it neither better nor worse, but gives history its breath and allows it to exist independently. You can feel the blood boiling, and the inner beast, dressed in a dress and smeared with soot, bursts out. And you can just get a headache and ask yourself, “What was it about?” during the closing credits.
It all depends on whether you are ready to stain your hands with black blood and plunge headlong into dirt and injustice, whether you are able to consider the all-encompassing tragedy of endless dialogue and devoid of common sense actions, and, most importantly, whether you can understand and believe the words of a murderer who claims that his fate is to become one. Burn him in hell if he's lying.
7 out of 10
It is a pity that I did not read the review of the film, as I do before, before going to the cinema.
I really liked the trailer, liked the scale, scenes, camera work. It is a pity that this is so poorly reflected in the film.
The film will turn out in ragged pieces, with a slurred plot, good play by Russell Crowe, which was so little to save this film.
After watching the film, I did not understand where this gang is, because 1/3 of the film at the beginning shows only the life of Ned, another 1/3 of the film of his experiences, torment and scraps of dialogue, and another part of the film beautifully shows a very rare forest in this side of Australia.
I never understood from the film the gang’s entire mission what they fought for or fought for, except for the merciless killing of several police officers who raided them.
The theme of the struggle and hatred between the British and the Irish is known to almost everyone, in the film about it even slip a couple of phrases, but the general outline of this struggle is very blurred, it is not clear whether Ned is taking revenge on all the police for the death of his father and broken life, or just all the English. But I am sure that this moment is described better in the book and it is worth reading the book first, and then watching the actor’s play and the landscapes of this part of Australia, which we are not used to seeing.
It is also not clear from the film why he was called Robin Hood, where he helped the poor. And where "all the police shudder at the mention of his name."
Obviously, the dashing raids and other crimes of the Kelly gang are sucked a hundred times in films and other works. Obviously, Peter Carey’s book, which is based on this film, was favored by readers and critics precisely because it offered a different perspective, from a new perspective. That’s why the movie is so boring.
The audience has long been fed up with films about the relationship between children and parents, at least when everything proceeds quite standard (of course, unconventional for today’s realities, but quite typical for such works). And the banality of this toxic relationship is not to blame neither the filmmakers nor Ned Kelly himself, because, according to the film, the only problem is that his mother was the dumbest woman in Australia. When dealing with such a degree of stupidity and ignorance, it is difficult to expect to see anything bizarre.
In the text format, I am always happy to immerse myself in the well-described drama of one person - what he turned into, what paths remained open to him. No matter how banal it is, and there is still no escape from banality - circumstances dictate their conditions. What other upbringing and attitude could a child from the lower layers of this huge dump of human waste, which was taken away from the Metropolis on makeshift garbage trucks?
But in the movie format, I just don’t want to watch it. Kurzel tries to visually diversify the film as he can and should be given credit. But in sum, I would still call this film the weakest of his widely known works. Yes, it leaves an even worse impression than the “killer’s creed”, which in itself is terrible.
The saddest thing is that this movie doesn’t make sense. If you’re interested in Ned’s supposed inner world, read the book. If you're interested in a gang, you'd better watch other movies, or watch Wikipedia, or... Any source would describe the gang better than this movie. If you’re generally interested in Australian crime, Australian westerns, and the Australian frontier, check out The Proposal (2005), Wolf Laws (2009) and Nightingale (2018). There, by the way, and abuse and injustice, which constantly speaks Ned in the film Kurzel and which I did not notice in it, ten times more.
Of the positive can be noted the music of Justin’s brother – Jed. Yes, it's a cello and flute again, but it sounds quite nice.
I had this question during and after watching The True Story of the Kelly Gang. Ned Kelly was a notorious criminal, with countless myths and ballads that became an integral part of Australian folklore. You know how I know all this? From a Wikipedia article. Because the movie doesn't convey that. Judging by the "True Story of the Kelly Gang," Kelly and his gang were nothing outstanding. It's just a bunch of disparate young people dressing up in dresses, who are loitering back and forth and do not understand what they are doing. "Bold" robberies are shown in one 10 second scene and one mention of it from the words of the character.
The gang itself and their activities are not given much time. They looked like a faceless gray mass with an incomprehensible number of members. All their actions are shown so crumpled that it seems that they did one robbery, and by tomorrow they were already tied up, and it took several days or weeks, not whole years, as it was in reality.
It seems the filmmakers wanted to focus more on the formation and motivation of Ned Kelly, as well as his relationship with his mother, which had the greatest impact on him. But we failed here. Ned's motivation goes something like this from his mother's mouth: "You're the son of Siva," but what that means is that it's also impossible to understand without additional material from the Internet, and the film doesn't explain it. In theory, it should be connected with the protest of the Irish against the British oppression. But this aspect of the film is not fully disclosed. All the injustices and atrocities of the colonial authorities are shown only by the dishonest treatment of women. Ned himself is not shown to be a strong charismatic leader capable of forming a gang.
In addition, the film has a rather poor scenery. Everything is filmed in almost two sheds, so you do not feel the scale of everything happening. Australian Robin Hood - Russell Crowe, Charlie Hannham, Nicholas Holt and George Mackay were also unable to save this poor in the literal and figurative sense of the picture.
I can’t recommend this film to anyone who wants to learn more about the Kelly Gang (there are 3 more films out there) or anyone who just wants to see an interesting movie. The story of Kelly’s gang may have been significant enough to take such a place in history, but this film certainly didn’t make it that way.