William Kelly's War (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Surprisingly Interesting Australian Indie on one families' WW1.
t-dooley-69-38691623 October 2016
The Kelly family have carved out a little piece of paradise in the old Australia where their father has created a cattle ranch and brought up a loving family. Then the Great War breaks out and the two eldest brothers, Billy and Jack, sign up together with their rambustious cousin Paddy.

We also have the antics that take place back home, with the opposition to conscription, the fretting of the families and the low dealings of opportunistic bush rangers.

Now I watched this on Amazon Prime Video and thought it would be a time killer, but no it is actually really good for an indie. The WW1 scenes may be lacking in money but they have tried extremely hard to recreate the terrible atmosphere of the war. Purists will not be impressed though. There are some scenes that are a bit of a stretch in that they never could have happened and that has caused some criticism – the hospital for example – but I do not want to spoil the plot.

The acting is very good to 'just OK' but the story is strong enough to make you forgive any shortcomings as this is a film that demands that you go along for the ride and you will enjoy it. I was hooked right till the end so this is one of those films that I can recommend but with the above caveats and I am being glass half full.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
David Budget, Goliath Story
Heres_Johny21 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
*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.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Worth a watch- a good alternative to the 'blockbuster'
danny_silk11 September 2017
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.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great movie but.....
pub-2110 May 2019
It's worth the watch especially for Aussies. It so could have been great except for. The copious goofs The unrealistic bits throughout the movie. Other posters here name some but there is way more . And then there is some terrible acting and that brings me to my point "Nepotism killed this movies sucsess."
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth a watch
jlorenz-6053315 July 2019
Although the film seemed to have a slight issue with the flow, I though the historically based story was interesting. I liked the family aspect of the story. The acting had ups and downs, but didn't significantly take away from the film.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Rather good for a low-budget film
Marlburian6 October 2022
Considering the low budget and a cast of unknowns, this film was very good. Several basic goofs have already been noted: the 1914 tank, the unmilitary haircuts and beards, for example. Perhaps the most jarring event was the soldier-deserter being handcuffed to a hospital bed on the eve of his execution, which was carried out immediately outside the hospital.

A frequent gripe (usually relating to Westerns) that I have with depictions of solitary horsemen on long treks through remote country is that apart from a modest saddle roll they seldom have saddle-bags carrying food and other necessities. (Heck, even I on a six-hour walk take a rucksack of bits & pieces with me.)Thus it was with Billy's extended quest for his sister.

Here and there the acting was somewhat uninspired.

IMDB gives the film's length as 94 minutes, but the version that I saw on YouTube ran for 108.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I really wanted to like this small budget flick
rc-3284225 April 2021
The story had promise but the weak acting and dumb over-exaggeration killed it for me.

I guess it would make good comedy if satire is your thing?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A unique war story that ticks all the boxes
Scollop16 March 2015
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.
35 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unreal
bryan_iz11 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Apart from the ridiculous three ducks in a row at a thousand yards. Simple variance in cartridge and bullet wind velocity change, etc just not real. The band wearing AIDS red ribbons, everyone wearing remarkably clean clothes. The three man firing squad, at least nine in practice no trial for the deserter the Germans somehow being able to set up a heavy machine gun in the middle of no mans land...no duck boards in the trenches the ability of Turkish artillery to hit a small sandbagged enclosure with one salvo...and nothing else! It's just a host of poorly acted scenes, grossly historically inaccurate production that destroy what might have been a good story. I cant speak for the entire film I turned it off
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great movie.
mark-102-13735127 April 2020
Just watched it on Amazon Prime. The person who said it was impossible to group 3 bullets like the 3 in a row shown in the movie. I agree at 1000 yards, it would be tough. The most important thing at that distance is a powerful high quality s one. William wasn't using a scope. It would be super human to even see the center of the target let alone 3 .308" bullet holes at 1000 yards. But great bench test shooters. ( I did it for years) not only shoot a lot... but the larger part of a shooters time is working up cartridge loads for their weapon. Literally you don't just have how much gun powder . But I can think of a dozen or more variables that a loader/shooter would try to consistently get their bullet in the same hole 3 times. Not at 1000 yards, but I had a perpose built 100 yard outdoor range I built at my ranch. I had many weapons but I also had just 2 or 3 special weapons that I worked on to get that bullet to go through the same hole 75 out of 100 times. Or better. So yeah I'm sure. That was a cgi shot. But his shooting was the. Center of this movie for me.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Shocking for it's lack of reality
brewster1392 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
9 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
William Kelly is a lie. Billy Sing was the real deal.
gpgxfbkg23 May 2021
This film whitewashed an Australian-Chinese soldier named Billy Sing. Apparently the filmmaker didn't feel the man suffered enough anti-Chinese racism in 1917, so he rewrote him as strictly Anglo. The battle back home seems to have been invented from whole cloth.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good movie - better with bigger budget
bobwarn-938-5586724 January 2019
The initial clunkiness of the acting and low budget war scenes gave way to a gripping story of the survival of two brothers and their cousin who volunteer from a small fsmily farm in Australia to fight in WW1. The story covers both their war experiences and life at home as the family waits anxiously for news of their boys. Ben Meyers International blew it off as weak.

It is Mr Myer's arrogant and dismissively offhand review which is weak.

He showed his ignorance and raised doubts as to whether he had actually viewed the movie, when he said the brothers were conscripts. A significant part of the home story is about the failed referendum to introduce conscription. The Australian Army in WW1 was 100 per cent volunteer. As it was in WW2.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Some Observations on William Kelly's War!
spookyrat17 April 2020
1 I like to see independent films give things ago and this is one area where WKW really does succeed. You virtually get 2 movies in one, like an old drive-in double bill. Producer/script editor Phil Avalon has been involved with independent Australian productions, just about what seems like forever. Nice to see he's still up to hanging out his shingle.

2 I don't think I've ever seen a longer cast list in an independent production. The IMDB full cast list is still much abbreviated. The post credits cast list in the film is huge.

3 BTW. Speaking of the cast, was the deserter, shot by the firing squad a female dressed as a male? Didn't really sound like, or even look like a male soldier. Even though it was a speaking part I couldn't see any reference on the IMDB cast list. Also good to see veteran actor Tony Bonner again, playing Mr Kelly. He's been around forever too and will always be remembered for his role as the helicopter pilot in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.

4 I think the advertised running time of 95 minutes is incorrect. I had it much closer up towards the 2 hour mark.

5 It's no real secret that the movie was primarily shot on a farm in Victoria, so it's a little bizarre that the primary Australian setting was Proserpine in tropical North Queensland, a good 2000 km due north. As a former resident of Proserpine which is a centre for sugar-cane production, I can vouch that at no time in its history did it have cattle stations running over 1000 head of cattle just out of town, complete with gangs of roving, murderous cattle rustlers. Kind of funny to see a lack of tropical vegetation, but heaps of eucalyptus gum trees instead, as well as lots of blokes wandering around in heavy overcoats. Broken Hill looked extremely sodden and green too with plenty of trees in the background. LOL! For the interested unfamiliar viewer with Broken Hill's environs, check out Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. The geography is tellingly different. But again, why choose Proserpine when they could have chosen some place geographically closer to their filming location and it wouldn't have made any difference to the story, except make it seem more realistic?

6 Loved the Aussie guy's accent; the one playing the German torturer. Classic Sgt Schultz stuff! "Vee have vays and means ov making you talk!"

7 It was great to try to film an overview of Billy's participation and experiences of 4 years of fighting during World War 1, on a farm's property. But after about 45 minutes of close-ups, I was getting giddy and have to say, that not all of the action (and there was plenty) made a lot of sense. At least "back in Australia", we got some pulled back shots.

8 Good to see there were some cops finally brought into the story, after all this cattle rustling and murders around dear old Proserpine.

9 Quite honestly I thought the story was pretty silly, but there is plenty of action, one way or the other in William Kelly's War. Phil Avalon comes through again.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Sensational Drama
fossiesfollies10 July 2022
Magnificent Australian Film. If your interested in Australian History this will become a classic. Gripping story lines, great acting brings this movie of historical facts to life. Set before the Great War, during and after, William Kelly's struggle continues.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is more a goof
jlfeatherstone15 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
There is no way in hell billy would have been given his cousin's VC.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Biggest load of codswallop I have ever had the misfortune to watch
jlfeatherstone15 June 2019
Poor acting, errors designed to perpetuate stereotypes. The least they could have done is given the military proper haircuts.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Most enjoyable.
sunline-1269523 April 2021
One of the best Australian movies I've ever seen. Wonderful story.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Messy
dcarroll7427 August 2021
My Grandfather fought in WWI there have bee very feww movies about WWI, this one didn't help one little bit.

Ironic that most WW movies are based about WWII yet, no one has made a decent movie about WWI, except War Horse, and maybe, Galipoli...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Enjoyable Movie, with great Aussie feel.A lot of the shooting scenes with 3 ducks in a row where BS, but who cares.
gnomeau20 February 2022
Enjoyable Movie, with great Aussie feel. A lot of the shooting scenes with 3 ducks in a row where BS, but who cares.

Loved the fact that they didn't need to use lots of swearing and had the family as what bound the story together.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
More a melodrama than a war film.
adrian_wood28 October 2020
One hour into this movie and my patients has finally ended. Some war scenes but not many. More like a melodrama with mediocre acting. Give it a miss.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A very rough film Warning: Spoilers
I am very fond of Aussie productions as a whole, William Kelly would be the exception, gratuitous violence was strike 1, two stories are being told as if the director/producer fell in love with and bought two books. Unable to make up his mind on which to go with he tried to work them into one, it didn't work. Strike 3 Playing "Whose the enemy.", Could it be the English soldiers who treat the Aussies like last week's fish, the Turk's for certain, they are on the Axis's side, and here at home we have the criminal cattle/wife rustlers. The film prey's on the watchers basic emotions playing the crowd like a bass drum. *Yes, I know it's a war film, in part, I have 2500 War films, documentaries, and battle films. Not one seems to stress blood and guts as William Kelly. "Less is More" should be tattooed on the forehead of every film student.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
GAVE UP AFTER FIVE MINUTES
au56126 March 2021
This film has the production look of a High School Senior project, and in many places not even that good. After five minutes I couldn't take any more.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed