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.
Similar titles
Reviews
well this is the third time i have tried to watch this film and this time i forced myself ,literally forced myself to watch it till the end. so here is my take on this film. a group of soldiers from a British civil war all with cowardly characters and an intuitive bravery for greed (a treasure is deeply implied) in a field in England. well that's it really , add a few toilet and sexual references and bad acting then that is all there is ,did i forget to mention mushrooms and a totally unbelievable reece shearsmith (league of gentleman fame) wasted on this dross.not a film i would recommend to the sane and serious film viewers ,but someone did get stung by nettles hence i gave it a very generous 4
Visually speaking Ben Wheatley's film bears strong links to Peter Watkins's groundbreaking CULLODEN (1964), which treated the epic battle between the English and Scots (1746) as if it were a contemporary news report. The stark black-and-white imagery of the conflict and its aftermath contrasted with the matter-of-fact narrative to illustrate the true horrors of battle.A FIELD IN ENGLAND is likewise shot in black-and-white, with grainy imagery of the English Civil War (1642-49) and its aftermath. There are no major battle-sequences (the film's budget would not extend to that), but Wheatley makes it clear why the deserters have abandoned the conflict in the interests of self-preservation. Cavaliers and Roundheads were quite literally fighting to the death; and none of the protagonists wanted to meet such a grisly fate.Matters take an unexpected turn, however, when the deserters encounter an Irish alchemist O'Neil (Michael Smiley) who forces them to seek out hidden treasure that he believes has been buried in a field. Whitehead (Reece Shearsmith) is quite literally reduced to an animal as he is tied to a leash and made to execute O'Neil's orders. Wheatley's narrative style also changes, as the film moves away from quasi- realist mode into a surrealistic sequence of images where cinematic style appears to seem more important than plot coherence (as other reviewers have noted).Or perhaps not. An alchemist professed to be able to transform base metal into gold, and by doing so had privileged access to the universe's darkest secrets. In the previous century John Dee had established a considerable reputation at the court of Queen Elizabeth I through his presumed knowledge of alchemy and the occult. By the mid-seventeenth century, however, the practice had been satirized in Ben Jonson's famous comedy THE ALCHEMIST (1610), and had subsequently lost a lot of its mystique.What A FIELD IN ENGLAND shows is the potentially destructive consequences of O'Neil's practices. The deserters are not only transformed into slaves, but the music of the spheres has also been challenged. The alchemist has dared to pry into divine knowledge and reduced the world to chaos as a result. No one is safe; in a series of shoot-outs the deserters try to kill him, and O'Neil responds in kind. Concepts such as "good" and "evil" no longer exist; the world has degenerated into a dog-eat-dog environment wherein only the fittest survive.This is a powerful antiwar message, made even more powerful when we realize that Wheatley's screenplay had been inspired by association with The Sealed Knot, the Civil War re-enactment society. A FIELD IN ENGLAND communicates a trans-historical perspective, making us aware of the sheer futility of war, whether practiced for real or simply played out for fun.
I couldn't make it through the first half of the film.Even after 30 minutes I was wondering whether it was worth carrying on towards the end.With most movies, I'll watch until the end credits roll, even when the film is bad or average, just so I can form a full opinion.With "A Field In England", however, the novelty and enjoyment wears off quite quickly due to the very slow pace and it's hard to see the kind of direction this film wanted to go in. Having turned off the movie halfway through and watched , I had to look up the plot summary to see what I had missed, which, in the end was just a very ambiguous finale.I'm glad I didn't force myself to sit through the whole runtime but also disappointed that I couldn't seem to pluck anymore enjoyment from the film and didn't have reason to watch to the very end.Sure, "A Field In England" may have a hidden subtext or meaning, but it's way too buried for anyone to see and extrapolate how it would come to fruition in a way that's purposeful and makes sense.
I've seen this project labelled as 'pretentious' by more than one reviewer. I'm not sure that's fair. And yet it is difficult to find a label for this film at all. It succeeds in being like nothing I've ever seen. Is it even a horror? Well, judging by the incredible acting from Reece Shearsmith in one scene alone, I'd say yes.Shot in black-and-white and financed by Film4, this was released on that television channel at the same time as its cinema release. What really impresses me about this is the incredible acting on display. The cast is made up of names mainly associated with their comedic work, and all are exemplary. Subject to the harsh conditions displayed on camera by director Ben Wheatley (a British talent really making a big impression), his cast were encouraged to improvise to a certain extent, thus producing passionate and organic characters. Shearsmith and Julian Barrett (famous as one half of 'The Mighty Boosh' amongst other things) in particular, turn in amazing performances, but everyone involved really rises to the occasion. This is by turn baffling, violent, outrageously funny, frightening and strangely touching.Some of the whirlwind style of story-telling maybe due to the characters' indulgence with natural hallucinogens. As a lot of the action appears to be seen from various points of view, this may be the reason why things appear to happen in a non-linear style. Such usage (in this case 'magic' mushrooms are consumed in quantity) was often used during the English Civil War, which serves as the setting for this. The wide, open-skied setting becomes an endless, rolling playground – or tomb.During one scene, the bullying O'Neill character (Michael Smiley) shows the submissive Whitehead (Shearsmith) a vision of death/hell inside a tent, which the audience does not witness. Instead, we get Whitehead's subsequent reaction – his mind is damaged by the vision, and yet instead of running from the scene, he emerges from the tent with a death-head smile of disturbing serenity on his face. Shown in slow-motion, it is worth seeing 'A Field in England' for this startling scene alone – although it is much more effective in the context of this strange and wonderful project.
