Soldiers
fighting in the English Civil War split from the battlefield and take off in
search of ale. Along the way, they get
waylaid by a deranged alchemist who coerces them into finding his lost buried
treasure. Eventually, the cowardly lot
find their courage and decide to fight back.
I
was a fan of director Ben Wheatley’s High-Rise and Free Fire, so I figured I
would give A Field in England a chance.
Even though Wheatley made it two years before High-Rise, it feels like
it was made a decade earlier. Because of
the low budget, hammy acting, and bland black and white cinematography, it
often feels like the work of a first-time director. I will say that Wheatley does a good job
during the battlefield sequences with very little at his disposal. He’s able to suggest a much larger battle
than the one that’s shown by strategically placing the camera, cleverly
utilizing well-timed flying dirt, and adding in the sound of gunfire and
thundering hooves.
Unfortunately,
the bulk of the movie is devoted to long scenes of men walking around aimlessly.
This section of the picture is rather
lifeless and dull, and the addition of the annoying alchemist character does
little to liven things up. The long,
draggy middle section almost makes it feel like a short film that was expanded
to feature length.
Still,
there are flashes of brilliance here that suggests what Wheatley can do even
with the limited resources he was given. There’s a funny impromptu medical examination scene,
and some solid gore as well. The
highlight is the great, trippy scene near the end that feels like a mix of
David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, and Alejandro Jodorowsky. These moments taken on their own merits are
quite impressive, but overall, there’s just not enough of them to make A Field
in England worth recommending.
AKA: English Revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment