I guess it's all about expectations, having watched this film with no high expectations on the quality of acting, script or sets I was very much surprised. I found it a very enjoyable film and gave it a 6/10. The cast acted fine for the script, it was no 'Saving Private Ryan' and I was not expecting a high quality experience when looking at the cast. For me it was well worth a watch and I am glad that I did, well written, great landscapes and the war scenes were realistic enough. If you like war films to be gritty then this has it but also there are two stories going on here which merge well.Again, my expectations may be low, but at the time of writing/rating this had a score of 6.4, not bad for a low budget offering and I look forward in seeing the cast in future projects.

In relation to the films production values I have no problem at all with this film. What is really quite terrifying is how this film for the at least the first section specifically portrays WWI as a big jape and a "larf". Even the scenes where there is armed conflict, death and trench squalor this has seemingly been glossed up and presented like a boy scouts adventure.To compound this watch out for the ridiculous metaphors such as the two soldiers preparing a meal of minced meat in the hospital tent and then later on another Aussie describing the war as a, "meat factory". Metaphors for the stupid should be the tag line here. Those scenes which are supposed to present, "the horrors" of war are extremely tame. If you also throw in some amateurish acting especially from the cousin of the main protagonist then you have got yourself a one star film. Terrible.

*Minor Spoilers*William Kelly's War suffers from a single drawback, in that it's essentially two stories: soldiers fighting in WWI on the western front, and the drama back home in Australia. Pacing suffers, and it sets the viewer up with expectations which either don't pay off at all, or too late. Having gone into the movie cold- not one blurb or review read, not one glance at Wikipedia or IMDb- I'm not sure if I'm watching a family drama or a war movie. One half is bound to turn off those viewers looking for a Hamburger Hill or Private Ryan type of experience, while the war-violence possibly disenfranchises viewers who'd otherwise enjoy the drama.That said, it's worth a watch, assuming one manages their expectations.William Kelly lives with his brothers, sister, and cousin on a cattle farm in pre-war Australia bush-country. In the preamble we learn he's handy with a rifle: their father provides them with a single bullet for their kangaroo hunts, and the siblings rarely come back empty-handed. Narrated by the younger sister, we're treated to a picture of turn-of-the-century rural Australian life, which is actually a lot less dangerous (at first glance) than most of us expect from the land-down-under, where everything you see is actively plotting your demise. Despite some heavy-handed acting and stilted portrayals from the supporting cast, I'm digging it, and- considering it's set right before the outbreak of WWI- it's not too difficult to guess where it's going.Billy's handy with a rifle? All hell's about to break loose in Europe? These boys are obviously getting shipped off. We assume they'll be lucky to come back in one piece, if at all. If that wasn't enough, their sister's narration informs us in no uncertain terms that things are not going to be roses and daisies, either on the front or back on the farm.So now I'm thinking it's a war-film. Which it isn't.There's certainly 'war violence', but the instances are episodic. There isn't any continued narrative besides the three of the boys- William, brother Jack, and cousin Paddy- and their experience as the war reshapes their characters and strengthens their bond. We aren't on a hunt for a missing private, or a mission to take some useless hill, but neither is it a For Whom The Bells Toll narrative, condemning the uselessness of war. Combat is presented in a realistic fashion. Minimal focus on the gore in favor of a higher concentration on the individual experiences and even slice-of-life episodes of daily life on the front (when they aren't busy sniping machinegunners, skewering charging Germans with bayonets, or getting shot at themselves). I got the impression they might have gone bigger on the special effects had their budget been larger, but they work well with what they have.The true narrative (and my "aha!" moment) kicks in far too late. A band of rough-looking men ride up on the farm and find William's sister and father alone. The tension amps up as they hint at wanting to buy the father's herd of cattle, but then reveal in quick succession they own no land on which to graze said cattle.Armed ruffians in the cattle market without any property to their name? All the young men are busy off fighting the war? Father's the only one there to defend the homestead if anything goes wrong? OK. Now I get it.From here my investment in the film skyrockets. We're presented with all the ingredients of a tragedy, something far more heartbreaking than the statistical slaughter of millions of men in France and Belgium. At the exact moment three strapping lads well-trained in the art of war are needed, they're thousands of miles distant, struggling to survive.William Kelly's War doesn't bring much to the table in terms of acting, besides from William himself (Josh Davis). Nothing egregious, but some of the dialogue was cheesy. I found myself questioning character's reactions several times, and some of the intra-cast dynamics came off as incredibly awkward. I cringed twice, which isn't indicative of anything good, but the plot and unanswered questions held my attention enough to finish the film.Will the boys survive the war and return home in time to deal with these cattle-wranglers? Will there even be a home left for them to return to? The sister was narrating, which left me with the uneasy feeling that she was the lone survivor of the building bloodbath sure to come.William Kelly's War is nothing if not ambitious. Director Geoff Davis worked cinema magic to pull off both the war and farm sets in rural Victoria, Australia, utilizing limited resources and an indie budget. My appreciation doubled after learning it was essentially a one-man production, and when recommending it, I'm careful to point that out. Too many indie films take ninety minutes to give us pensive loser protagonists staring off into the distance, wrestling with inconsequential themes of puerile self-discovery. The tone (including the non-HD shooting and the retro-style voice-over) lends the aspect of a much older movie, and the pace doesn't do it any favors, but it stands on its own two legs regardless.For what it aimed to achieve and what it had to work with, I can't call the movie a failure. Far from it. But I can't say it was a total success.William Kelly's War gets points for a small team tackling a bold project, and perhaps that's the highest praise I can offer. See it, but know what you're in for: a David-budget wrestling with Goliath-content.

William Kelly's War was a complete surprise. It was launched in cinemas without much fanfare. I wondered why? It had great reviews, a well known producer, a director on his second assignment and a little known cast in a story that had the audience cheering at the end of the movie. The tale of the two heroic brothers with their cousin Paddy really drew me in, I really cared for them as they are sent from battlefront to battlefront whilst their family back home are involved in another war with Bushrangers. The loving close-knit family is very cleverly set up at the front of the movie. The period settings, set design and characters are authentic, the pace perfect. This is a movie that connects with its audience, highly recommended.