So much average

hyped garbage

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This thing's a trip, in more ways than one. And yeah, when you see the warning at the start about fast-moving images and flashing lights, they're not kidding around.The plot is simple, or at least I thought it was. I might be missing something. It was the kind of movie where I thought there was a decent amount under the surface, in terms of things like symbolism and themes hidden in subtext, but not being British, knowledgeable about the English Civil War, or maybe just being a little bit stupid in general meant that I'm pretty certain a good part of the film went over my head.Thankfully, it had a ton of atmosphere, a good deal of suitably creepy moments, and some really impressive shots and sequences that I can see sticking with me. If I didn't know exactly what was going on, I didn't see it as a huge problem, as that might have been the director's intent. There's a whole lot of surreal imagery and strange, unexplained moments, so I believe it to be one of those movies that intentionally doesn't let you in on everything, because that adds to the mystery and general creepiness, in a way.Even if I didn't completely 'get' the movie, I still don't regret watching it. There was enough here to satisfy me on a purely visual and emotional level, and the short running time certainly helped too. If it had been much longer, it may have run the risk of becoming too repetitive or drawn out for me.It's not for everyone, and for segments of the film I even thought it might not be for me, but I think I liked this in the end. And of course, it's always nice to watch something different and unexpected every now and then.

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

*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.

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.