Rent A Field in England (2013)

high ambitions should be praised - A Field in England review by AM

What would you rather watch? A film that sets its ambitions low (follow a formula, obeys the convention and ticks the demographic boxes) and delivers on this, or a film that aims high (to plough a new furrow, to become this year's cult hit) but ultimately falls short?

A Field in England falls firmly in to the second category. It wants to be Withnail and I, Eraserhead, or even the Blair Witch Project, but ultimately, reminded me far too much of those three films to be a true original. That is its central failing - it doesn't manage to be as good as it wants. But it looks wonderful, holds the attention throughout. Where it fails is possibly due to the acting - to often the humour feels hammed up. This is the style of humour that Withnail sent up (a film I love), and gives the film a derivative feel.

So if your answer to my original question was 'the latter', then watch this film with low expectations for a pleasant surprise.

A Field in England (2013) - A Field in England review by NP

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 horror? Well, judging by the incredible acting from Reece Shearsmith in one scene alone, I’d say yes.

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.

Pretentious, State-funded, Confusing, Unconvincing Mess of a a Britflick Movie - A Field in England review by PV

I was open-minded about this film as I am about all British low-budget films in particular. However, this is awful.

Confused, confusing, a throwback to late 60s and 70s psychedelic film-making esp trippy editing, and why filmed in black and white. Ah yes, because everything was black and white in the past, esp films made in the 17th century. I hate it when TV does that, history docs showing old battles in black and white with scratchy 'film' (in fact, a digital film option, sadly).

It is no doubt meant to be profound, but it isn't. I was going to give it 2 stars but the final act out-baffled the first two, and I found myself watching some 21st century actors dressed up in a field rather than believing they were 17th C English Civil War deserters.

This film has the stink of the theatre and should really be in fringe or at the Edinburgh festival, not as a film - and I hate the way the state (Film 4, Lottery funding, EU funding) gets given to such duff movies, often I notice with female/ethnic angles. The former in this case as written by Amy Jump who has written other films like Kill List which I also gave 1 star. Very annoying when there is SO much writing talent out there. It's all so corrupt - who gets the free money. So much croneyism, backscratching and diversity worship.

Instead of this boring nonsense, watch the early 70s UK film about the English Civil War starring Alec Guiness as Charles I and Richard Harries as Cromwell (I think called CROMWELL). That is a hugely enjoyable film and will teach you a loot; this mess isn't, and won't.