Amid the Civil War in 17th-century England, a group of deserters flee from battle through an overgrown field. Captured by an alchemist, the men are forced to help him search to find a hidden treasure that he believes is buried in the field.
Nearly a year after a botched job, a hitman takes a new assignment with the promise of a big payoff for three killings. What starts off as an easy task soon unravels, sending the killer into the heart of darkness.
Fleeing for their lives, a small party abandon their Civil War confederates and escape through an overgrown field. Thinking only of what lay behind, they are ambushed by two dangerous men and made to search the field. Psychedelia, madness and chaotic forces slowly overtake the group as they question what treasure lies within the malignant field. Written by
Even if it only costs me the time I sometimes wonder why I still bother? I'll try and be charitable and put that this 90 minute film will entertain students the undisciplined and the pretentious, and I might have enjoyed it as well at 15. But as you get older it should get easier to gauge this kind of arty nonsense as something to avoid to save your own precious time. Over the decades I've sat through all kinds of good stuff and all kinds of trippy tripe from Bunuel to Vigo and Pasolini to Goddard but still get caught out in seeking genuine Art. I first learnt to be more careful after UK ITV hyped up their premier broadcast of Peter Hall's Akenfield on 26th January 1975 what a good looking colossal waste of space that was! As profoundly empty as this is.
Some of God's Englishmen, five earthy soldiers in the English Civil War have some kind of mind experience in a couple of fields full of mushrooms in avoiding the heat of battle. The sharp black & white photography and imagery is excellent and sometimes marvellously bizarre, but the story is obviously secondary and appears to be an afterthought. At least the sets were cheap what sets? At turns it's boring, violent, rambling, seedy and pointless, which if you add intensely incoherent makes it a perfect bad trip. And it definitely wouldn't have helped me to see as well as hear the process of the noisy defecation or for the camera to have gone right up the bloke's poxy penis, however 'tis a pity the black planet didn't swallow them all up. Probably Bunuel would still have enjoyed it though!
Most of us don't understand the minds of psychopaths; I wouldn't knowingly cross the road to get to know one better, and so with films. I seek no answers because I expect no answers, only some amount of entertainment. I read so many times from "open-minded" highbrows expressing their lofty criticisms of feeble-minded middle/lowbrows, whilst in various ways they explain they're not sure of and/or hope there is a meaning behind the art film they're commenting on - what can I say in the face of such misplaced optimism?! Only: Time Will Tell. I personally think the true meaning can be found with the in-your-face noisy defecation, the director probably only regretting he couldn't physically rub the audience's nose in the excrement being forced out.
No wonder UK Film 4 is non-subscription nowadays if this is an example of how clever they are in chasing an audience. If you're pushing 40 you probably should avoid this drivel (life's short), but if you're young and with moderate sense but without hang ups you could watch it just to give yourself a very base point for all the excellent and even arty films you will see in the future.
34 of 66 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?