Ben Wheatley | 90 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | UK / English | 15
Much was written about A Field in England at the time of its release, so if you frequent the right places online or in the press you can’t’ve missed it. Nonetheless, there’s a good chance you’ll have heard of it more for its release format(s) than for anything in the film itself: the fourth feature in just five years from new British critical darling Ben Wheatley, it was released to cinemas, DVD, Blu-ray, download, video-on-demand, and shown on free TV all on the same day, a first for British cinema. Any casual viewers who checked it out for that reason were in for a shock, because this certainly isn’t an easily-digested mainstream experience.
During a battle in the English Civil War, a group of men find themselves in a deserted field. One of their number lures them on with the promise of a pub, but instead leads them into a psychotropic nightmarish hunt for some artefact of magical power, or something. I mean, that’s kinda the plot, but I’m not sure how much “the plot” matters. There is a story, clearly; and it’s a little opaque, clearly; but the mood is more the point, I think. This is a horror movie (if you will) that doesn’t set out to make you jump or look over your shoulder or show you squirting blood, but instead seeks to unsettle you, to put you at unease, to subtly chill you.
That very subtlety leads some viewers to write this kind of movie off — and fair enough, because if you’re searching for any kind of mass acceptance you don’t do it with a black-and-white film about a few blokes in period dress running around a field doing weird, inexplicable things. Though you might top it off with a shoot-out that is arguably one of the year’s best action sequences, something Wheatley and co do do. And without making it feel tonally out of place, either. Impressive. In keeping but even more memorable is the moment you’ve surely heard about — “when he comes out of the tent with that look on his face”. I wasn’t able to watch the film until something like 24 hours after its Big Premiere, by which time I’d already heard everyone talk about that, and yet it was still uncomfortably uncanny. Kudos, Reece Shearsmith, you’re an odd’un.
Part of the unusual release strategy was an online (and on-disc, with the BD at least) “masterclass” about the making of the film. At the time, I commented on Twitter that the “much-touted… masterclass strikes me as standard making-of. Not uninteresting, but something on what it’s ABOUT would be nice,” and received a reply from the film’s cinematographer, Laurie Rose (who has done excellent, striking work here, incidentally), to suggest that “maybe that’s what YOU bring to it?” Well, OK… up to a point. I mean, surely the makers intended some reading, and perhaps the director’s commentary would have been the place to share it? Maybe I was just looking for easy answers when I shouldn’t have been, but it’s a tricky film to read.
In terms of the new funding models and simultaneous multi-format release and all that… well, it depends what their goals were. If it was to make interesting, alternative, minority-interest films… fantastic, they’ve done it — and got a remarkable amount of interest in the process. If it was meant to be a way of turning a profit, or of reaching a bigger audience… well, it succeeded this time — but how many of those viewers are going to come back? A Field in England is definitely the kind of film that appeals to some people, but it is defiantly not “mainstream cinema”. No bad thing, and something that should be encouraged, supported and funded in some way; but however you do it, it’s not going to continuously bring in big bucks.
Not an easy film, then, and at times uncomfortable to watch for all the wrong reasons (when you have no idea what’s meant to be going on, it does go on a bit). But it’s a memorable one, for more reasons than its experimental release strategy.
A Field in England is on Channel 4 tonight at 12:20am.
This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.
Sharknado is a defining film of 2013. The volume of conversation it generated, which achieved the near-impossibility of higher viewing figures for its repeats, is exceptional. So I was determined to give it its due in a full-length review. But I can’t be bothered — it doesn’t merit such attention.
Without meaning to spoil anything, Wolf is rated R for “language and werewolf attacks”! I love the ludicrous specificity the MPAA indulge in sometimes. I know the BBFC’s famous “mild peril” is pretty useless, but at least they draw from an academic- and objective-sounding pool of phrases in their summaries, rather than throwing in ‘advice’ that is meaningless (there are perfectly PG werewolf attacks in other movies).
It’s those early sections where the film is at its best, when it tries to stay grounded in some form of realism. Any time it gets too Fantasy, it begins to get a tad silly. The climax in particular seems to come from a different film: Wolf abruptly moves from being an office politics drama with a fantasy edge, to a full-on manwolf-vs-manwolf brawl. As a straight dramatic director, Mike Nichols doesn’t seem to quite have the chops to pull off this fantasy/horror stuff without it beginning to look daft. That might not be entirely his fault, however, as reportedly the film was delayed by months to re-shoot the entire third act. Perhaps originally it had something more in-keeping? That said, he did want Michelle Pfeiffer to wear a red-hood sweatshirt during the finale! She refused, fearing it would harm the film’s credibility. She was right — it’s quite silly enough as it is.
I can only presume there were hefty paydays for Nicholson and Pfeiffer, both megastars at the time, and possibly Christopher Plummer’s supporting role, maybe Nichols, and on scoring duties (obviously), Ennio Morricone. And maybe those re-shoots were really extensive. Or perhaps they spent it all on the nighttime aerial photography of Manhattan, which is gorgeous — that would’ve been worth it.
Having heard only bad things, I expected a soul-crushing dud of 
Sean Bean and his ragtag band of knights investigate an unaffected village during Ye plague-adled Olden Days in this folk horror from the director of 
Once, zombie auteur George A. Romero commented that he’d hoped to make one zombie film a decade — witness 
Well, that little gang of military types are back — and now they’re the heroes. Survival even takes the time to flashback to Diary, noting the release of the film-within-a-film led to the military gang’s leader, Sarge (Alan van Sprang), being recognised. It’s not a plot/character thread Romero chooses to develop further — there’s no about-turn in his values, or a desire to hide from said recognition — which is a shame, actually, because the plot supports such a move.
It’s also here that they meet a character known only as Boy (Devon Bostick), who had been co-opted into the gang of hunters. Turns out he’s handy with a weapon himself, and resourceful and clever. What an intriguing mystery. But don’t get too caught up — Romero never again alludes to where such skills materialised from. In fact, he so doesn’t return to the Boy’s abilities that I wonder if we weren’t even really meant to notice. Which doesn’t make sense. Is he left over to be revisited in a third in this new zombie series? Romero doesn’t seem to be in any rush to produce one… but then, Survival was an almighty flop (it even went straight to DVD here), so I guess we’ll never know.
also a definition of US foreign policy, is it not. And I’m sure it’s no coincidence that the islanders are Irish; and not just Irish in the way so many Americans claim to be “Irish” or “Italian” or whatever just because 200 years ago they had some relatives who emigrated, but properly, thickly-accented Irish. Which, yes, is kinda odd on an island off the coast of America, but hey, why not.
I have no problem with CG blood splatter or what have you, and it’s as palatable here as it was there. There’s also a welcome return for his brand of humour, which went somewhat AWOL in the last couple of films. Those who criticise the film for being too comedic have, in my view, become too obsessed with modern cinema’s uber-serious tone. Lighten up folks, it’s a horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie.
While making a horror movie in the woods, a group of friends hear news of the dead coming back to life. As they try to reach home, their aspiring documentary-maker director keeps his camera rolling, recording their encounters with the living dead…
so goodness knows how it’ll look after even ten. Thing is, despite all that, Diary still has one ace up its sleeve: it’s written and directed by George A. Romero.
That said, the thematic concerns feel less resonant than in Romero’s previous work. The found-footage has led him to frame this as a film-within-a-film — the first title card reads The Death of Death, followed by one noting it’s “a film by Jason Creed”, the aforementioned aspiring director — complete with montages of news footage and, at times, a voice over narration. This rather rams the point home at times, over-explaining features that previously Romero would have allowed us to spot for ourselves. In some respects you can’t blame him being more obvious in this day and age — it needs to be on the nose to get through to some people — but it’s less satisfying, the blunt information coming across as a statement rather than asking us for our own interpretation, which I feel can lead to a more insightful analysis.
Such folks, and even genuine Romero fans, seem to have two major problems with Diary (aside from arguments about the acting, the storyline, or even the entire concept). First, the gore: where Land added CGI to the traditional mix, Diary’s almost exclusively courtesy of computer wizardry. That’s the age we live in: computer effects are so commonplace that they’re now the cheap and easy thing to achieve, rather than men with buckets of red food colouring and entrails from the local butcher. For me, it’s a mixed bag. I don’t think this is the worst CGI I’ve ever seen (unlike some commentators), but I do think it lacks the distinctive Romero feel — there’s none of his trademark eating of intestines, for instance, or the tearing a human in half that’s become a key visual in every film since Dawn. Perhaps that’s because of the realism angle? No one would film that; they’d turn away. Of course, when zombies get shot/beaten/etc, that’s different; that we can watch.
The other problem bemoaned by fans is that this is a reboot, of sorts. Romero’s previous zombie films feature no recurring characters and don’t sit properly within the same timeline, but they nonetheless feature an evolution of the zombie epidemic: it spreads from a one-night issue in Night to a dragging problem in Dawn, to an all-consuming one by Day, in which we see the zombies gaining in intelligence, to the point where they consciously form an invading force in Land. But Diary scraps all that, going back to the start of the epidemic. It doesn’t remake Night — in fact, it handles a few things notably differently (in Night the radio and TV report factual and helpful information; in Diary, they obscure the fact the outbreak is even happening) — but it does disregard the development Romero had taken the undead through.
But, nonetheless, the epidemic did develop and evolve across Romero’s previous films, and that’s been lost here. Maybe there’s nowhere further to go with it? I’m not convinced of that. Perhaps Romero will have another idea and get to tell that story someday in the future, leaving Diary (and 
#84a Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)
#92 The Tale of Zatoichi, aka Zatôichi monogatari (1962)
The fourth 
The second half is more familiar Toy Story stomping ground — indeed, if there’s one bum note, it’s that the villain and his ‘plot’ are almost a rehash of 
Apparently Toy Story of Terror! spent two years in development. While that might seem excessive for a mere under-half-hour animation, the time and effort have paid off handsomely: the result is a thoroughly entertaining short — and one that actually embraces its seasonal theme, rather than forcing it in as an afterthought. Terrific.
While the first three ‘Dead’ films (or “the original trilogy”, to put it in 
and then a desire for revenge, when he sees the glittering lights of the city in the distance. Lead he does, corralling the other zombies into a slow march towards their target.
In the world of the humans, meanwhile, we also have an oppressed majority: the slum dwellers. Attempts at revolution there are soundly ignored, with the rich quietly taking the opposition out as ‘trash’ whenever able (which, I guess, is whenever they want). The people are controlled by drink, drugs, gambling, prostitution, and any other cheap entertainment you can imagine, all secretly managed from on-high to keep the general populace docile. And those entertainments are getting increasingly extreme, too: the zombie-on-zombie cage fights previously used cat or dog meat as motivation, but now they throw in Asia Argento. Again, Romero is holding a mirror up to present-day America, where the illusion of a ‘free society’ with easy social mobility is supported by the mega-rich in order to keep the poor down. It takes the zombie invasion for anything to change, which may be a case of Romero “following the story” rather than reflecting a political reality — who’s going to invade the US?
Those commenters that do acknowledge these facets claim Romero’s just not as subtle as he used to be, which is also poppycock: Dawn’s criticism of consumerism is as blatant as anything listed here — perhaps even more so, because you can just watch Land as a near-future science-fiction humans-vs-humans-vs-zombies action flick, whereas I think Dawn’s ‘subtext’ is unmissable.
If you want to see people getting ripped apart by zombies with their guts spilling out everywhere, in traditional Romero style, then… seriously, what’s wrong with you people?! But, erm, you should be satiated.
100Films.co.uk 