MovieChat Forums > Ned Kelly (2004) Discussion > The only good thing in this bad movie

The only good thing in this bad movie

posted 20 years ago by moviepassion
75 replies | jump to latest

was Orlando Bloom. I thought the script was horrible. The story about Ned Kelly and the Kelly gang is interesting and a great movie could have been made but this was not it!!!!!!! I thought Heath Ledger did a horrible job, he was not convincing at all, he brought nothing to this role. It's like he signed on to do it and then realized the script sucked and gave up. The dialogue was bad, they did not give enough information to make me feel anything and I didn't see a connection to anyone from Ned Kelly(heath ledger. I thought Orlando Bloom did well with what he had but thought nothing of Naomi Watts performance, if she was so important in Ned Kelly's life they did a bad job showing it. For the little they did with her character they should have just left it out.
I think this movie could have much better, should have cast Colin Ferrel or someone else that can show emotion or something, just not Heath Ledger. I normally like Heath somewhat but not in this.

[–] SumrKindofWonderful 20 years ago

..You're kidding, right?

And... Colin Farrell? ..This must really be a joke..

"I don't believe in heaven! I've been living too long in this hell!" -Lancelot, 'King Arthur'

[–] bloominnutz 20 years ago

Ned Kelly was not a bad movie. It was quite dark, and possibly not as detailed as it could have been in regards to the role of Ms.Watts. I did enjoy Orlando Bloom's performance, the Irish accent was not exactly spot on, but, who am I to say, I am not from Ireland. I thought Heath Ledger did a good job.

Naomi Watt's character, was necessary. If she had spoken up and just comeout with the fact that she had been going at it in the tack room with Ned Kelly and not been too spineless to stand up when someone else's life was at stake, then Ned Kelly never would have had to run.

[–] tijuanaman 20 years ago

Do you know that Orlando Bloom is from Ireland? so his Irish accent would of been spot on. Also Naomi Watt's character wasnt really neccessary, because she is a figment of a writer who had the intention of making a crowd pleasing Hollywood script, and never existed.

Whoever said Colin Farrel would be good in this role isnt to far off the mark, he was Irish too so its not completely out of the question. They should of made this movie more dark, like Ravenous.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Morningofpalespring-1 20 years ago

correection but orlando bloom was born in Cantebury, Kent, England. just wanted ot clarify that...

[–] Arwen_1984 18 years ago

Ok, i know this post is old, but i was reading through the replies, and I have to correct someone. Tijuanaman....Orlando Bloom is NOT from Ireland! He is from England, in a place called Canterbury. So your comment about 'his Irish accent would have been spot on' was bs. However, I still think he did a pretty good job despite the fact he is not from Ireland. The Irish accent is a very difficult one to impersonate, so hats off to him. As for the film, I agree in the sense that it could have been a great epic and up there with 'Titanic' and 'Lord of the Rings', if the director had done more with it. It was mildly entertaining, and the acting was good, but it should have been much much more.

[–] annex10 20 years ago

moviepassion-i couldn't agree with you more. i saw this in the video store and i saw names like bloom and rush and thought it could be good. i think orlando did a good job with what he was given, but the script was so weak...and yes...heath ledger...ouch. i felt like he had no sense of character at all, like you said he just kind of gave up. i was really surprised to come here and find so many people who thought it was an amazing film.

about colin ferrel...i guess i don't agree with everything you said ;)

[–] behjeh 20 years ago

Yes, this movie was very flat. Ledger showed little to no emotion but then again, I've never been impressed with any performances by him. Orlando Bloom was decent, but nothing spectacular. His character "needing a drink" at the end was just stupid and pointless. I guess they all just had a death wish. You'd think they would fight to the death or attempt to escape instead of just give up. Dialogue was definitely unimpressive and the movie as a whole was certainly nothing spectacular. I give it a 4/10.

[–] kristolk 20 years ago

I read the book on which the movie was based "Our Sunshine" by Drewe, and that is how it was in the book. I thought it was odd too. but I think it was just his way of committing suicide without doing it himself. In another book about the Kelly Gang, Joe byrne was smoking opium with his Chinamen friends and Aaron Sherrittquite often. He was set on catching a ship to America to escape, but he couldn't get Ned to agree and he said he wouldn't leave his mate behind. Just a little background info...

[–] pigsqueler 20 years ago

The movie is not particularly horendous but it's not the best. Heath sucked very horribly and completely overacted on everything especially his "inspiring" speeches, really cheesy and fake. I think this is Orlando's best movie yet. He was very good, much better than Mr. SuckyActor a.k.a. Ledger. As for Colin Farrel... he wasn't so bad in Phone Booth.

"I was more frustrated than an Amish electritian." Larry the cable guy.

[–] roentgenation 20 years ago

Some of the comments here are interesting... kinda like an Australian seeing a movie about your war of independence and basically just responding "I don't see the point."

This is a very dark movie, and for the most part doesn't have the typical heavy-handed Hollywood "this is a depressing/uplifting/crying moment so pay attention" treatment (e.g. over-bearing music).

Colin Farrel?? Errr, he's not in this movie...

This film is somewhat fictitious (hey, it is a movie) but all the important parts of the story are true, and I believe it conveys the spirit of the times quite well.

What exactly were people expecting from Ledger? An Arnie or Stallone performance in an action packed cops and robbers movie?

This is a tragedy, in the sense that it's the story of struggle against unavoidable doom (i.e. not the media-hype use of the word). It isn't Die Hard. It's more subtle than your average "blockbuster". The director doesn't hold your hand as much.

It's not the very best movie I've seen recently, but it's way better than most.

As for the the Irish accents... give me a break. I know that their very recent ancestors were from Ireland, but there people were *Australian*.

[–] born-to-dance-00 20 years ago

roentgenation- I couldnt agree more, this movie is never going to be the biggest blockbuster in the world, but that is neside the point. Ned Kelly is one of the biggest icons in Australian history, the story is moving, yet thrilling at the same time. I have to say this is one of my top 20 fave movies.

And like what you say with the accents, it's like 2nd generation Australia and they have so many people from all over Brittan (mostly England and Ireland) so they wouldnt have a perfect Irish accent, both of my grandmothers are Irish and my friends says that I still have a sorta Irish accent but not a full on one, because my family has lived in Australia and you adapt to the way people talk and take on their accent (my cousins have done it with American tv shows, they now have American accents)

sorry for rambling on.

[–] moviepassion 20 years ago

I guess I was just expecting some emotion from Heath, I assume Ned Kelly was a passionate man, he would have to be to do what he did. I just thought Heath brought nothing to the role. I wasn't expecting "blockbuster", I could care less about that I was just expecting Heath to bring Ned Kelly alive and he didn't.

[–] user-8678 18 years ago

cheesy speech? It was the exact words spoken by Ned Kelly, careful darlin dont disrespect an aussie icon now. Joke say all you want... but just in case you didnt know I wanted to point that out. But I thought heath did a fine job.

[–] nikki-120 19 years ago

A bit more info: I read somewhere Joe was using alcohol to 'kill the pain' of his gun wounds at Glenrowan... Ned said 'let's get out of here' then Joe made to have a last drink but was shot again... that shot along with the previous ones was fatal :o(

On a different note, I really wanted to see this film cos I haven't seen/read anything about ned kelly, only a documentary. Funnily enough, I only saw that cos I knew there was this new movie about him...!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wouldbegiant 17 years ago

you are an a__ that is all

[–] magnacide 20 years ago

I disagree.

In the last twenty years or so, we have changed a lot as People; Certainly there is a general sense of desensitisation in which we view the world. The entertainment industry recognises this and continually takes us one step further. It isn't a bad thing -and it isn't a good thing ... it's just the way life is.

Every aspect of a film is designed to draw emotion from us. From dialogue to camera angles to lighting. And in some small degree, these characters in (almost any) modern film, whether they be fictional or not, we look up to them as our role-models; We like to reflect them in one way or another.

I didn't recognise any of the above in Ned Kelly, and for me, this is what made the film work.

It was a film (whilst some-what fictionalised) about a real person dealing with a real situation. There was no snappy dialogue, no dramatic camera angles (as such). It is what it is.

Yet this goes against the popular ideals we have of Ned Kelly when viewed in an artistic manner.

Moviepassion, may I suggest that you do not look at this film as a means of escapism, but rather put yourself into the lead role. Would you deal with the situation as you deal with your life, or would you pause at each moment and think "hmm, one day my life could be turned into a movie. I should show some real emotion here ... after all, that's real."

:)

Just my 2c

[–] moviepassion 20 years ago

I guess I just live my life with passion and emotion, especially when faced with difficult situations. I think emotion and passion naturally come out when you care about something and especially when dealing with injustice and when fighting for your life and the lives of your loved ones. You can't fight against something without passion and emotion and I thought Heath showed neither and it really bothered me because I think it made it all seem unrealistic.

[–] Howlin Wolf 19 years ago

... but if it's not 'cinematic', then don't film it...

When you don't see her for ages, you think no-one's THAT beautiful. She is.

[–] derat-1 20 years ago

Unsure why Naomi Watt's character is in the film. She did not exist, Ned had a girlfriend (of sorts for that day and age), but she was a childhood friend, not a married woman.

[–] PatrynXX 20 years ago

I supposed comparitively... it would be such a roll that Sophie had in Braveheart. Having Wallaces child and all that. Which is clearly false.
---------------------------------
Books are meant to be read, if not, they'll die and so will we!

[–] PatrynXX 20 years ago

hmmm I thought this was Heath's best film since the patriot. Great acting on his part. Very convincing. Orlando Bloom seemed alright, but his character wasn't fully developed. Naomi continue's to impress. Though I still disliked her roll in The Ring. (bad bad movie remake) But after seeing her awesome performance in 21 Grams, I expect good things from her. And at times in Ned Kelly reminds me of how Nicole Kidman used to be.

---------------------------------
Books are meant to be read, if not, they'll die and so will we!

[–] perilouslyfair 19 years ago

I was really bored when I watched this movie. I was looking forward to seeing it for a long time and I was so dissapointed. Heath Ledger's character was so BORING. I couldn't even figure out what kind of a person he was. and as much as I love Orlando Bloom, I can't agree that he was the good part of this movie. The entire time I Was thinking "ouch...he needs acting lessons or something" because I thought his acting was a bit forced and at times you can see him looking off screen and looking bored. needless to say, I watched the second half of it on fast forward.

"I did do the nasty in the pasty!"
-Philip J. Fry

[–] Karelia 19 years ago

Considering Bloom, before seeing this film I thought he would need a little more experience, but in this film he really acted well. But anyway, this is just my opinion.

[–] Lauz_06 19 years ago

::nods head in agreement::

I love heath ledger, but he musta had a bad year or summit, the passion just wasnt strong enough when in context to the realy ned kelly film. he ate his own horse for f's sake! Colin farell wudda bin awesome for the job, i have yet to see a film where he isnt passionate, maybe heath wasnt ready for such a emotional character? i dont know... but better luck next time. btw, hated directing, hated it. not enough cinematography either, to get to grips withthe nasty dry barren outlands they were cast into. the script? NAFF! lol

oh well, least it wasnt as bad as Gigli, or You got served... heavable!

*~*-*ELLE*-*~*

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dbc1951 19 years ago

Robert Drewe and John McDonagh would appear to be Australian and British respectively.

Now what was that about "GERNS and EXPLOSHUNZ" again?

[–] wrshpshakespeare 19 years ago

I didn't think the movie was particularly bad, I just thought Heath Ledger was awful. Orlando Bloom was excellent, however. He had so many wonderful moments and I really was the most captivated by his performance. His death scene was outstanding. I also loved Joel Edgerton and the young actor who played Dan Kelly. In my opinion, those three had the best, most fully realized performances.

I'm a little dissapointed in Naomi Watts. Yes, she had a small role, but even small roles can be made recognizable and good if the actor puts in the work and thought behind the character. She didn't do this and her character just didn't come across as anything in particular.