Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports

A Field In England 2013

NR CC

England - 1648 AD. A group of English Civil War soldiers in the 17th century are captured by an alchemist and led into a vast mushroom field, where they fall victim to violent and nightmarish forces.

Starring:
Julian Barratt, Peter Ferdinando
Runtime:
1 hour, 30 minutes

Available to watch on supported devices.

When renting, you have 30 days to start watching this video, and 3 days to finish once started.

Rent Movie HD $3.99
Buy Movie HD $9.99

Rent

When renting, you have 30 days to start watching this video, and 3 days to finish once started.

Rent Movie HD $3.99
Rent Movie SD $2.99

Buy

Buy Movie HD $9.99
Buy Movie SD $7.99
More Purchase Options
By placing your order, you agree to our Terms of Use. Sold by Amazon Digital Services LLC. Additional taxes may apply.

Product Details

Genres Drama, Mystery, Horror
Director Ben Wheatley
Starring Julian Barratt, Peter Ferdinando
Supporting actors Richard Glover, Ryan Pope, Reece Shearsmith, Michael Smiley, Sara Dee
Studio Drafthouse Films
MPAA rating NR (Not Rated)
Captions and subtitles English Details
Purchase rights Stream instantly Details
Format Amazon Video (streaming online video)

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Amazon Video Verified Purchase
I understand why some people rated this film so poorly, and don't blame them. 'A Field In England' only works if you work it; that is, appreciation of this movie demands complete immersion in the experience, a level of commitment most people aren't willing to take on the basis of a shoddily made trailer and a few positive Amazon reviews. Few filmmakers make any real demands on their audience other than 'Sit, watch, be entertained'. Wheatley does and by doing so he more or less automatically alienates the majority of his audience, who have more or less been conditioned to sit, watch, and be entertained. What he's asking of his audience is essentially subjective participation, for lack of a better descriptor. You, the person watching this movie, are forced to take part in it to enjoy it. You must become engaged in the experience.

You aren't lazy or stupid if you don't like this movie--and I bring this up because that's the way art house snobs typically view those who aren't into unintelligible, incoherent gibberish disguised as art, created to confound and show contempt for the bourgeoisie--and the kind of filmmakers I'm talking about almost always employ neo-Marxist terms like 'bourgeoisie' whenever they talk about the films they make, pretentious bastards that they are.

So yeah: feel free to not like this movie. Turn it off. Find something else, something you like. I liked it. I loved it, in fact. I'm just sorry I didn't watch it sooner, when it first came out, on a big screen somewhere.
Comment 27 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: DVD Verified Purchase
Straightaway, I must say that director Ben Wheatley has created a film that I feel is indeed polarizing, to say the least! The plot, which involves a small group of 3 English Civil War deserters, an alchemist and his assistant, and a field in England, is very well explained by the above review by Robert Beveridge. The events all take place in 1648 England, and yes, all occur in a filed in England, which just happens to contain a circle of hallucinogenic mushrooms. That is on the surface, so to speak. I say this because, in this film, time and space don't have conventional meanings, but instead move at a different speed. Some viewers will find this film as some sort of pretentious slop, while others will consider it a masterpiece! The film is not recommended for anybody who does not have an open mind. Some will absolutely hate the film, while others will embrace it with both an open mind and heart, as well. That said, I shall move on and declare that the film is indeed surreal, and operates on several levels and layers, as well. Mysticism and folklore are indeed prevalent in this film. I found the cinematography, which is in B&W, to be excellent, and add an extra dimension to the story. I also found the musical score, which is a mix of electronica combined with acoustic, rustic guitar playing, to also add an additional dimension to the film. I found the film to be a bit too violent for my own taste, but really, it is framed by a war around it, so what should one expect. I found the acting, for the most part, to be very good to excellent, as well. I especially found Michael Smiley's devilish alchemist to be excellent! The sound mixing and sound editing also add an essential element to the film, and credit should be therefore given to Martin Pavey, who created the sound design.Read more ›
Comment 22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Amazon Video Verified Purchase
Wheatley's "A Field In England" is not quite anything like "KIll List". Not anything at all, really. Anyone expecting anything in common with those two movies (except the director's obvious fascination with the occult) has barked up the wrong tree.

This is intensely subjective. While I wasn't in the mood to watch something like this, I did get into it while not entirely understanding all of it. The English are busy at war a long time ago and we are following this psychedelic path of four soldiers right down into the rabbit hole.

This is my cursory understanding of the events: a very intelligent but helpless looking alchemist--and a working knowledge of alchemy helps to understand the decidedly nonlinear plot--arrested for intellectual treason--is faced with some uncanny circumstances as one of the soldiers undergoes a transformation.

Beyond that, one really has to pay attention. The only objection I have to the movie is that mushrooms don't really work in the cinemascope, ultra fantasy fantastic way as displayed here, but it was necessary to the plot that they do work that way. This is also a viciously effective anti-war film.

If Lewis Carroll and Syd Barrett wrote historical fiction together, it'd be like this. Recommended.
Comment One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Blu-ray Verified Purchase
Typing on my phone so forgive the typos

I really really wanted to like this movie. It had alot of good things going for it. The premise is fresh and interesting. The cinematography is very appealing and I am a massive Shearsmith fan. But all in all the whole thing just fell short for me. I read an interesting interview with the director and he cited "primer" as one of his inspirations because of its complexity. He found it admirable that primer didn't "hold the audiences hand" it just said here's the science you either get it or you don't, probably not but whatever. Wheatley (the director) compared the experience to being dropped into a story in the middle of Japan stating something along the lines of "you wouldn't know what the f* is going on. " and you know what, I can appreciate that approach to realism. I totally see where that influence impacts the film in a posotive way. Some of the early dialogue was skillfully crafted to reflect historically accurate conversations that might have been had in that time period. And for the most part I didn't understand most of what they were saying. In this light I think Wheatley accomplished his goal. The end result in scenes like this is immersion. It actually does feel like youre dropped in the middle of an ancient battle and listening in on a conversation of people from the past, so I have to applaud him there. The language isn't dumbed down: it's not just regular English spoken in an 'old-timey' accent. The problem comes from the rest of the story. The film is fairly comprehensible up until... I'd say a little over halfway through. It's slow albeit artful. Then from there on out there no sense to be made of anything. And it's not that it's too intelligent or subversive...
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Most Recent Customer Reviews