The fact is that Kelly’s father was a habitual thief. He died shortly after he was born. He was also lacking education since he was a child. He has been stealing, robbing, fighting, and insulting women. Teenagers and wanted criminals in their 30s and 40s are mixed, not juvenile criminals. As for the film's emphasis on a policeman molesting his sister, many Australian scholars hold the opinion that Kelly steals the horse and that the police sells the stolen goods, and the accomplice relationship is caused by contradictions due to uneven distribution of the stolen goods. Of course, this is just a point of view, but at least to explain that the so-called "special treatment" by the police to their family is simply inexplicable. As for the attitude of the police in the film, it is actually not bad. It was his stupid brother who attacked the police. What's the problem with wanted? After killing three policemen in the jungle, that is, according to the Bark Creek incident, Kelly, who played in Heath Ledger’s film, really made the majority of girls cry. Killing can be so touching, "Why did you run, I I don’t know how to shoot.” In the end, crying to make the deceased feel better was superfluous. At the end, I didn’t know why I took the deceased’s watch. A few days ago I watched a youtube video, ABC filmed introducing the Kelly Gang, basically standing on a more objective level, and interviewed the Kelly Gang's descendants, experts and scholars, and some descendants of the deceased. There are both sides. The descendants of the last policeman Kennedy who died are now Melbourne policemen. He concluded that the Kelly Gang killed people in self-defense is nonsense. Excluding the factor that he is a descendant, first of all, from the perspective of this film (the process basically conforms to history), what is Kelly's motive for chasing the policeman? He went to chase Kennedy, but the surrendered policeman in the beginning escaped with this, and no one was chasing him. That is not a very strange thing. Secondly, I think Kelly's behavior in this film is completely chasing and killing, which is estimated to be the same in fact. Third, judging from the description of the escaped McIntosh, the idiot brother of Kelly shouted at the time: Kill that xxxx, it is obvious that the murderer should not be so glamorous at all. Kelly did not forget that he was a thief after the murder, and even took someone else's watch.
Regarding the letter written to Melbourne's senior management, some experts interpreted it as "self-righteous", "persecuted delusion", "find a reason for one's own killing", and "have not been educated to live in my own world since I was a child". After all, it's a subjective feeling, so let it go. Tell me about Kelly’s last hijacking of the hotel. First, let’s talk about the Kelly Gang’s plan. In history, Kelly helped assassinate the traitors, took hostages, and prepared to wait for a train full of police to come and arrest them, and they intimidated the workers to demolish the railroad tracks, thereby causing massacres. But the problem with the plan is that the police protecting the traitors were too scared and contacted the headquarters very late to arrest people. The second was that a teacher hostage in the hotel ran away and stopped the train. It is very disdainful that the teacher is described in the movie as being extremely insidious, and it feels like a KKK ? Is the police's fate not fate? The police should die? Then there was a gun battle between the police and Kelly’s gang. The police first shot at civilians, and then they were beaten to the ground by four Kelly’s gang. It was so flesh and blood that the citizens were killed by the police one by one, including the famous acrobat, Heasley. Jie really couldn't bear it, so he went out to single out the police, and finally outnumbered, and before he died, he missed a few more police officers. Sorry, this is a fake. This battle has been fought for a long time in history, but the reason is because the opponent has a large number of hostages. The Sydney hostage incident has been seen some time ago. In the final casualties, the police did not die. The civilians were killed or injured. 2-3, the gangsters were wiped out except Kelly. I don't know where the courage of the director came from, making it so touching, as if the kidnapper was not Kelly.
Finally, let me talk about why Ned Kelly is a hero in Australia. First of all, Australia does not have a long history, and Ned Kelly's existence is indeed a man with a story, who can make money. Second, some people in Australia have forgotten their ancestors. Kelly confronted the Victorian police, and thus rose to a fierce collision with the Victorian colonial period, expressing how dark the colonial period was. If you don’t steal or rob, who will trouble you every day ? Third, many young people like to disdain authority, so movie biographies like to stand on that side and make a fuss. The noisy minority kidnapped the silent majority. In the final analysis, this person is not worthy of the status of a national hero in the hearts of Australians today. The term "robbing the rich and helping the poor" does not exist in him. The first important confrontation with the police is equal in number. The second victory was a fragile defeat. In fact, there were only two occasions. The others were all acts of sneaking and bullying capitalists without weapons. No matter whether it was business or standpoint, there was nothing to say.
The actor's acting skills are okay with Heath Ledger, the screenwriter and director, you have to forcefully whitewash or completely beautify it. I think it is completely ineffective in the modern multi-thinking
View more about Ned Kelly reviews
