Look back at our favorite moments throughout the year, from award shows to up-close shots of celebrities.
Related lists from IMDb editors
Related lists from IMDb users
Title: A Field in England (2013)
Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.
| Credited cast: | |||
| Julian Barratt | ... | Trower | |
| Peter Ferdinando | ... | Jacob | |
 |
Richard Glover | ... | Friend |
| Ryan Pope | ... | Cutler | |
| Reece Shearsmith | ... | Whitehead | |
| Michael Smiley | ... | O'Neil | |
| Sara Dee | ... | The Field (voice) | |
| Rest of cast listed alphabetically: | |||
| Laura Obiols | ... | Anastasia | |
Fleeing for their lives, a small party abandon their Civil War confederates and escape through an overgrown field. Thinking only of what lays 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 jessgiostan
Mr Wheatley's work seems to embody the concept of the Emperor's New Clothes. Each new offering seems to cause a ripple of delight amongst critics, yet the experience of actually watching his films is reliably disappointing. Admittedly, "Sightseers" had a certain darkly comic appeal, but "Kill List" was dreadful and this latest offering manages to be less interesting still. Historically implausible accents and dialogue aside, we are expected to swallow a series of random plot elements (presumably on the excuse that things need not make sense on mushrooms). Sorry, but that isn't good enough. Narrative may not be fashionable, but it does at least serve the purpose of keeping the audience interested. It is, however, very difficult to maintain any interest beyond about 40 minutes at which point it becomes clear the film is based on the law of diminishing returns. Back and white cinematography? Why is that, I wonder? Could it be to make things more realistic because they hadn't invented colour film in the 17th century? Please!