benghill I thought the acting in this movie was really good. I loved all the children. But what is this movie about?Is this movie just about a game or what an actual war would look like if it was fought by children? Are we supposed to take everything that happened literally or is it all a metaphor? If the first is true, this movie is very messed up and should come with a warning before people watch it.In the opening scene, Kenney throws a paint balloon at the fat kid, killing him in the game. He then asks who else is still alive on his team and attempts to beat him up for not telling him. He is then stopped by his team captain PK. At this point I thought Kenney was just a big bully and that the movie would pick up soon. It turns out he is one of the most sane characters. He is later abused even worse by the other team and PK is reluctant to do anything about it. We are supposed to believe that this is the good team and PK is a kind and honorable soldier who follows the rules, is kind to his teammates, and will do anything to protect his friend. (He is only 12)Early on in the movie Skinner declares tyranny over the former team captain simply because Skinner is a psychopath, yet no one seems to object. Skinner then kidnaps Paul, PK's best friend. He then tortures him and I'm pretty sure he tries to murder him. (This is just a game right?) Skinner blames Paul for all the bad things that have happened to him. Paul has no idea what happened and for some reason Skinner won't tell him. Paul escapes and goes back to his team. PK tells him to go back to his prison, which Paul does for the team, but mostly out of loyalty to PK. Paul returns to prison and Skinner tortures him some more. There a bunch of other subplots, but none of them are that interesting. In the last 10 minutes of the movie PK shows up. Skinner reveals that he and PK were best friends before Paul moved to town.Why does he wait till now to tell Paul? What does he hope to get out of torturing Paul for something he didn't know he did? It is also unclear how long Paul has been in town and why this has never come up before. Skinner offers to be friends with both PK and Paul, which Paul does not seem to object to. What was the point of kidnapping and torturing Paul if Skinner was willing to be friends with both of them? It seems Paul had nothing to do with ending their friendship. PK stopped being friends with Skinner because he's a psychopath, and who could blame him? Sadly, PK shows to not be much better.Though PK has technically already won the war, Skinner declares himself the winner. He agrees to give up his claim if PK cuts Paul with a knife. PK has two choices: Keep his honor, accept Skinner's pointless self-declared victory, prove to be a great best friend, prove to be a great leader, and stand up to a psychotic bully. His other choice is to betray and physically harm his best friend, show his weakness in leadership, achieve the victory he already had, and show that he will give in to Skinner's bullying. PK ignores the obvious right choice and attempts to cut Paul. While watching this I was sure this was all a trick. He was going to beat Skinner the right way and show his loyalty to his friend. I was wrong. PK claims it was an accident, but we all saw him hold the knife to Paul's neck and attempt to cut him. PK cares more about victory than his best friend. They stop being friends. Paul, the only nice and rational kid in this movie, fights in a war he doesn't understand for the sake of his best friend and then has his neck cut by that friend.The central conflict of this movie was interesting and I wish it could have been revealed more than 10 minutes before the end. I wish they could have given us some resolutions?I know this movie is about 12 year olds, but 5 year olds should have a better sense of logic. I'd expect children who play in the woods with dangerous weapons and have no adult supervision to be more mature than 5 year olds. As far as we know, there is no prize for winning other than satisfaction. Apparently that's worth losing all your friends, physically harming and possibly killing other children, and putting your own life in danger; even if the victory is not legitimate. Even by 12-year-old logic, how can you blackmail someone into being your friend. If you have any idea of what friends are, you know that this defeats the entire purpose of having them.I'd like to hear what other people think. Feel free to agree or disagree with my comments.

p.newhouse@talk21.com This refreshing Canadian film, which is reminiscent of Christophe Barratier's La Nouvelle Guerre Des Boutons, is an eloquent and impassioned treatise on the need for gun control. These boys and girls are very serious about their war games. So serious that they start to believe the wars are real, important. So important, in fact, that they begin to think that their friends' lives are expendable in pursuit of vanquishing their enemies. It is quite clearly saying 'This is what happens when people who have no need to carry guns do so'. Only a couple of the kids don't lose sight of the fact that its supposed to be a game; they are the ones who stand back from the crowd and see the bigger picture. The acting is first rate, and the effect created by using kids playing capture the flag to represent the men and women of America's ammosexual culture is compelling.

actionfilm-2 Plot of the film is kids play war, tantrums are thrown, somebody gets hurt. Though certainly watchable, this film leans towards mild exploitation rather than any serious social commentary or observation on childhood and adolescence, so if looking for something heavy like "Ratcatcher" or "Lord of the Flies" you'll need to look elsewhere. That's not to say the filmmakers intent was to produce any type of exploitation, I really don't know, perhaps they intended to produce some type of profound allegorical tale, one to cause serious contemplation. If so, judging by many of the reviews here they achieved that goal, so hats off. Myself, I did no serious anything after watching the film, but here are a few observations. When characters are kids, no one expects them to perform with sharp logic or reasoning, so many of the lapses in such can be explained there, but it's still distracting. Several things are amusing, though not sure if intended to be. The character of field commander Quinn is described by his opponent PK as a brilliant nemesis and tactician. If leadership quality includes crying and running home when one of your own grunts pelts you with a tomato, then Quinn is a regular Patton. PK appoints the role of chaplain to one of his less aggressive soldiers, a boy who attends church on a regular basis, and as is customary in film today, his faith is mocked throughout. Another of PK's soldiers is quite inquisitive, contemplative, aggressive even, yet he goes into battle forgetting his only weapon. Fighter, intellectual, or idiot, you decide. As I said worth a watch, though you might want to lower your expectations if you've read the many glowing reviews here.

Coventry Like many fellow viewers at the Brussels International Festival of Fantastic Films that afternoon, I didn't have any clear idea on what to expect of "I Declare War". It plays at this prominent and reputedly brilliant genre festival, so it must contain some sort of significant cult value, that's for sure. But what exactly to prepare for, I didn't know… Drama and valuable coming of age life lessons like in "Stand By Me"? Adventure and thrills like in "Lord of the Flies"? Or maybe something entirely unique and innovative like "War of the Buttons", or something extreme and shocking like "Battle Royale"? It became somewhat of a mixture of everything, in fact, and yet at the same time something totally new and original. Although I certainly can't state that "I Declare War" is one of the greatest and most eye-opening films ever made, I'm nevertheless very glad that I watched it and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to a wide variety of film fanatics. It's an atmospheric and occasionally very suspenseful motion picture with sublime performances from the youthful ensemble cast (not a single adult in the film) and a well-scripted scenario that thankfully doesn't get overly moralizing or metaphoric near the finale. It's summer vacation and the neighborhood boys gather every afternoon in the woods to play war. The rules are quite simple: two camps and two generals instructing their teams to capture the opponent's flag through smart tactics and ingenious war strategies. The soldiers use wooden sticks and water balloons, but through their vivid and wildly imaginative eyes we see rifles, machine guns, bazookas and grenades. Today also promises to become a special day for the troops, as there will be mutiny within the platoons, female soldiers joining for the very first time and ordeals that will genuinely put the soldiers' friendships to the test. "I Declare War" is reasonably fast-paced and benefices from terrific filming locations as well as from steady direction and – as mentioned already – stellar performances. The sound, visual and make-up effects definitely aren't childish, but neither are they provocative or graphic. In other words, this isn't just intended for physically grown-up people, but also for emotionally mature audiences … largely accomplished by kids! What I appreciated most of all was that, at all times, the children remain in fact children. Their reasoning, motivations and interactions are exactly like any child of whatever origin or culture would react. That sounds logic, but it really isn't as the movie will make clear, and that's why it's such an impressive and highly recommended effort.