A Field in England

2014 "Open Up And Let The Devil In"
6.2| 1h30m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 07 February 2014 Released
Producted By: Film4 Productions
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

During the Civil War in 17th-Century England, a small group of deserters flee from a raging battle through an overgrown field. They are captured by an alchemist, who forces the group to aid him in his search to find a hidden treasure that he believes is buried in the field. Crossing a vast mushroom circle, which provides their first meal, the group quickly descend into a chaos of arguments, fighting and paranoia, and, as it becomes clear that the treasure might be something other than gold, they slowly become victim to the terrifying energies trapped inside the field.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Shudder

Director

Producted By

Film4 Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

cultfilm-89740 Such an amazing film, the dream like nature of the ending. Truly loved it.
patrick powell Well, views about A Field In England range from the admiring with one IMDb reviewer claiming it depicts 'the failure of the modern day class struggle and the easy triumph of liberal capitalism over working class indifference', another seeing it as an allegory with O'Neill the necromancer as the arrogant Charles I and Whitehead, the coward who finds his balls as Oliver Cromwell.Yet others claim it is a self-indulgent waste of time, nicely acted perhaps and a minimum of resources put to good use, but all to very little end. Me, I am prepared to accept that director Ben Wheatley and screenwriter Amy Jump have an idea as to what they were doing, but yours truly was left guessing.That isn't to say the film doesn't have its attractions: I did, after all, bother to watch all 90 minutes (and I am prone to give up on films which don't really strike me as worth my time, The Fifth Element recently being one on which I called time long, long before the final curtain). It is well enough made to be intriguing, but I do feel Wheatley and Jump took rather too many liberties.I see the relationship between the artist and 'her/his public' as one similar between a host and her/his guest: both have privileges and responsibilities, and as in all good relationships it is a matter of give and take between equals.So we are obliged to give Wheatley the benefit of doubt and hang on in there when we are most at sea in the hope that it will, in some way, pretty much all come together when the film is seen as a whole. I don't mean, crassly, that there should be some resolution with all loose ends tied up: what 'whole' Wheatley (or any artist) wants to serve up is entirely up to him.Wheatley, on the other hand, has a duty to give us something to go on. What that something is is also entirely up to him. And this is where I feel Wheatley has come unstuck: we get striking images and odd direction and a hint at this and that but unless Wheatley merely wants to make a film in the manner of the surrealists of 90 years ago, there should be that ingredient X for the reasonably intelligent viewer to latch onto. Well, I'm buggered if I know what it is or whether Wheatley has provided one. So for me Wheatley has failed at the final lap.A Field In England is entertaining enough - and I don't mean 'entertainment' in the 'showbiz' sense, but more that one might 'entertain' and idea, but Wheatley has got to hone his talent rather more if he really wants to evolve into a director of note. At the moment he strikes me as still paddling in the shallow end.
Adam Peters (37%) A small step back for the up-and-coming director, as this feels more like a film he would have made before becoming as renowned as he has now become. The acting is fine, and the general production for such a low budget piece is decent, but this really is nothing more than an overly experimental art film project that wouldn't be out of place in any film studies class, with its total disregard to follow any sort of plot (maybe because there isn't any) and with 50% of its run time devoted to the characters freaking out, singing, fighting each other (without reason) and long sequences of slow-mo weirdness that go on more often than not without any real outcome. It may be argued that this is not a plot driven film, but without any story to latch on to, actual meaning to anything, and things just happening at pure random, why should I care about anything that happens? This one sadly missed the mark for me by some distance.
trickpixel A pop song is such as where anybody and everybody can get the gist of the beat, the hook and the catch within seconds. Accessibility is key. Metaphorically, this is not a pop song. Rather this is something original and strategically and thoughtfully created despite minimal resources used. Made from a shoe string budget of £300,000 this is a film that in itself is a mushroom trip. If anyone's taken psychedelic mushrooms before, you know that one possible consequence of the evening is that things would occur in repetitive circular cycles. Repeating the same sequence of events over and over unknowingly. This movie feels like a mushroom trip. Shot in black and white, it spirals in and out of control, much like a trip. I watched this solely because Ben Wheatley directed this and I thought Kill List was a pretty damn good, an amazing attempt at something original and cool. Go watch that movie. then take special "mushrooms" and watch this.