Generally favorable reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 19
  2. Negative: 0 out of 19
Watch On
  1. Reviewed by: Robbie Collin
    Jul 5, 2013
    Wheatley’s extraordinary film shakes you back and forth with a rare ferocity, but the net result is stillness.
  2. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Feb 6, 2014
    On a more fundamental level this hilarious, disgusting, brilliant and circular psychotronic odyssey is a blast from the submerged past.
  3. Reviewed by: Alan Scherstuhl
    Feb 4, 2014
    It's sweaty, disorienting, thrilling. Rarely has a narrative feature so marvelously integrated a sequence of experimental filmmaking, and that sequence alone guarantees A Field in England should thrive on the midnight circuit.
  4. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Feb 5, 2014
    In many ways, A Field in England is a funhouse mirror of audience expectations and something of a filmic Rorschach test.
  5. Reviewed by: Jessica Kiang
    Jul 8, 2013
    The film is the most formally experimental, and probably the least approachable, of the director's titles to date. But it's further proof of Wheatley's singular sensibilities as a filmmaker.
  6. Reviewed by: Stephen Dalton
    Feb 2, 2014
    A Field in England is a rich, strange, hauntingly intense work from a highly original writer-director team.
  7. Reviewed by: Philip Kemp
    Jul 8, 2013
    Ben Wheatley’s strangest movie yet: mysticism, mystification and magic mushrooms in a English Civil War setting. Often confusing, occasionally infuriating – but audaciously original.
  8. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    Jul 8, 2013
    Very physical, with intense performances and half-serious period talk, it’s an impressive, haunting picture — though the sort of thing you have to meet at least halfway to enjoy.
  9. Reviewed by: Tom Huddleston
    Jul 8, 2013
    This is a film built on sensation, misdirection and randomness. The result can be maddeningly obtuse, but it’s also breathtakingly lovely and genuinely unsettling.
  10. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Jul 5, 2013
    Wheatley's new film is grisly and visceral, an occult, monochrome-psychedelic breakdown taking place somewhere in the West Country during the civil war.
  11. Reviewed by: Liam Lacey
    Mar 13, 2014
    Over all, A Field in England aims to confound. The filth-encrusted characters aren’t easy to keep apart, and the narrative is too fragmentary and freakish to grasp (the sun turns black, a character vomits rune stones).
  12. Reviewed by: David Lee Dallas
    Feb 3, 2014
    Ben Wheatley's film is a reckless combination of period piece, war drama, broad comedy, psychedelic fever dream, and occult horror-scape.
  13. Reviewed by: William Goss
    Feb 11, 2014
    I’ve given A Field in England two tries now and each time found it to be occasionally ferocious and funny, severely trippy for stretches and at times outright tedious. With that said, I still can’t wait to see what the man does next.
  14. Reviewed by: Andy Webster
    Feb 6, 2014
    The actors are uniformly impressive, and Mr. Wheatley’s longtime cinematographer, Laurie Rose, shooting in black and white, combines stunning pastoral compositions with bursts of graphic violence punctuated by blazing flintlocks.
  15. Reviewed by: Inkoo Kang
    Feb 6, 2014
    The happenstance plotting and over-reliance on violence as a plot motor dissipate the film's energy by the end.
  16. Reviewed by: Matt Singer
    Feb 6, 2014
    Even though the film’s overall impact is blunted by Wheatley’s frequently inscrutable plotting (co-written with Amy Jump), Rose’s images...speak louder than words.
  17. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    Feb 2, 2014
    Clearly, Wheatley is bored with the paint-by-numbers approach of his horror contemporaries, but has swung so far in the opposite direction here, the result feels almost amateurishly avant garde at times, guilty of the sort of indulgences one barely tolerates in student films.
  18. Reviewed by: Mike D'Angelo
    Feb 5, 2014
    It’s the period itself that’s front and center here — not in the usual sense of historical accuracy, but as a sort of theater of the bizarre that allows Wheatley and his wife, screenwriter Amy Jump, to indulge in dementia.
  19. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Feb 20, 2014
    What he ends up with is a film that boasts undeniably intriguing parts, but that -- unless you've just eaten some magic mushrooms of your own -- just doesn't gel as a whole, unified moviegoing experience.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 9 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 1
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 1
  3. Negative: 0 out of 1
  1. Feb 7, 2014
    If this movie was in color it would be better. If the budget had of allowed for some more special effects ( not cgi necessarily but like atIf this movie was in color it would be better. If the budget had of allowed for some more special effects ( not cgi necessarily but like at least ONE supernatural/psychedelic experience). Showing 'something' in the hole woulda been fun and then a clearer ending. Full Review »