Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

El-Kapitoshka *Warning* If you're one of those people who need meanings and conclusions then don't even bother. Watching films should be about opening your mind to new things and exploring new concepts.To those who criticise for those very reasons: Don't be ridiculous darlings! Now, here's what I think.I remember watching this and much like any of Ben Wheatley's films, was memerised by the surrealism and boundary pushing style he seems to have a knack for. After being gobsmacked by Kill List, I was so happy to get this on DVD and finally watch it.Not many directors dare to go for setting the majority of their film in one setting. But Wheatley pulls it off making the whole journey both interesting and intentionally confusing. It invites the viewer to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The psychedelic side adds a more violent edge, not in terms of graphic or gratuitous violence, but more like the Jim Morrison LSD fueled psychedelic violence of the music they made. Aggressive and uncompromising...even poetic. This might be a bad explanation if you're not into music. The black and white works well as does the simple setting. There aren't any flashy backdrops here or groundbreaking camera techniques, just the actors in a field giving it their best and yes their best is awesome.I wanted more from this, even, dare I say it a sequel of sorts to show what happened before/after these events. Open your mind and enjoy the ride.

l_rawjalaurence 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.

Lucabrasisleeps As a big fan of Kill list, I was really looking forward to this one. Those high expectations may be the big problem. The predictable replies would be there. Yes, maybe more viewings might be necessary. But personally I am the kind of person who would like some sort of an attraction in the movie for me to watch again. I was not particularly interested in the setting. The setting was a thoroughly desolate part of England. The characters were somewhat irritating. When the main character is so spineless, it is a little difficult to continue watching. The others were not too interesting to me either. I didn't like the comedy aspect much either. It felt like they were trying too hard to be smart. It didn't seem like I was watching people from 200 years ago, it felt like I was watching a bunch of drunk guys in the present time watching football. The comedy seems forced and I couldn't appreciate it. For a long time, it was moving on aimlessly and finally they hit upon a treasure hunt. So what was that about? I don't get it. There were some obvious drug induced behaviour at various points (during the tent scene for example). Frankly I was wondering why the characters wouldn't just kill each other. They seemed to irritate each other as well. Talking about the nudity, well you get your fair share of nudity from the men. Yes, that is disappointing but there it is. And that too, pretty ugly ones too.The whole movie can be considered as the meek striking back against the bully but I don't understand how some drug induced behaviour or black magic (I think that was a part) had any part in fighting against the bully. Yes, there was a particular scene towards the end but frankly he could have dealt with him earlier as well. In much simpler ways. But it does give some interesting visuals and nice music. And what was with the frozen shots? That doesn't make any sort of sense to me. It looked ridiculous to see that frequently in the movie. I don't get it. 4/10 (for some interesting visuals and music)

paul2001sw-1 'A Field in England' is exactly the film it tells you it's going to be: set entirely within said field, it tells the story of a group of soldiers from the English Civil War going mad from a combination of (the 17th century version of) shell-shock, their own religious beliefs, and an unhealthy dose of magic mushrooms. It's brilliantly acted, imaginatively shot and scripted, and yet, having watched it, I find it very hard to say what it's actually about. Stylistically, and atmospherically, it's coherent; yet its artistic success is, apparently intentionally, not supported by logic. I think it does what it sets out to do; but what exactly that is, it's harder to say.