Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

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.

Seth_Rogue_One First off, I'm not the one who usually goes 'I can't stand child actors' like many others, there have been many cases in which using child actors for a serious movie have worked very well.'Stand By Me', 'Mean Creek' or 'King Jack' to name a few all had excellent acting in them by leads consisting mostly of kids.But the acting here (for the more-part of the cast) really is sub-par, even for child actors. And it doesn't help that the dialogue often gets truly cringe-worthy: "even retards are more popular than me!" cries the stereotypical bully in one scene for example.The actual plot though overall is pretty decent and with a better cast and director it could have been fairly decent.It's listed as a comedy here but there is very little fun in this movie as it portrays children playing war in a very serious fashion, perhaps to draw some similarities with real war, but I didn't think it really worked.If you want a movie with kids playing war in the woods then go see 'Son of Rambow' instead, that's more on the comedic tip but at least it entertains without getting cringe-worthy.

Peter Pluymers I really wonder where the comedy part actually was in this movie, as stated in the genre section by IMDb. I rather felt sorry for some of the leading playing figures. I think that P.K. and Skinner would be very interesting study objects for aspiring child psychologists, and eventually could use some proper psychological assistance.On second thought I ended up watching 90 minutes at a cinematic display of a game played in the woods like scouts members still play. But in this case performed by a group of youngsters with a lot of dangerous imagination. It reminded me sometimes of "The Goonies", but without the pirate ship and without Chunk.At times the acting was very annoying and amateurish. All the characteristics of a low budget film were there : the same location all the time, endlessly running back and forth in some local woods, no expensive action scenes or props. Personally, I thought P.K. wasn't exactly a textbook example of a leader. He'dd rather gather in the group of most bullied boys at school.The concept is original. It shows how children experience the adult traits like hatred, jealousy, love, loyalty and friendship. In reality this could also lead to similar incidents, unfortunately. Only the effect is weak and makes this film a slow, boring and totally not emotionally touching film.More reviews at http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be/

Viktor Vedmak (realvedmak) Story this was based on was probably really good. Unfortunately, this movie is so badly executed it will be quickly forgotten.Kid actors did their job perfectly. I question casting choices simply because P.K does not look like kid that would have been a leader, but that type of kid that gets picked last. Girl should have been dressed more intelligently, rather than like a poor peasant girl with no taste in clothing. Where this movie really starts to suck is unclear division of reality and fantasy. Adding sounds of gunfire, explosions, making kids look like they just crawled through pigsty, these were not good choices. This movie apparently happens one nice afternoon. Unless they are supposed to be living in ghetto and be dirty 24/7, there is no way normal kids would get this dirty that quickly. Some parts were written like kids are 6, some like they are 20. Not having read the original story, I have to guess that these were changes made by somebody at some point, and that somebody is pretty clueless about child psychology.Its movie that is about halfway there, and if I believed in 1 to 10 system I would probably give it around 4, but since I only believe in 1 or a 10, this movie got all I could give it, a 1. You will lose out on nothing by choosing not to see it.