Well the critics liked Ben Wheatley's take on the English civil war.

It is a trippy monochrome art house mystical film which has some good individual scenes but it never comes together.

Reece Shearsmith plays Whitehead, a cowardly scholar who is deserting from the war. He bands with others running away, making their way to a alehouse on the next hill.

They come across the sinister, devil worshipping wizard O'Neil (Michael Smiley) who feeds them with magic mushrooms and forces them to look for buried treasure somewhere in the field.

There are scenes where the characters pose for a painting. There is a weird scene where Whitehead has been transformed to a human metal detector.

There is some strange twisted humour in this film. I expected a modernised flip side to The Witchfinder's General but was left disappointed.

Yes, A FIELD IN ENGLAND truly is that bad. It's a massive disappointment and pity, because Ben Wheatley's previous films as director (DOWN TERRACE and KILL LIST) have showed real promise, hinting at greatness to come. But this is a step back. It's not that the direction is particularly poor, it's just that Wheatley's script with Amy Jump is so drivelling and has absolutely nothing to say.

That's what this film offers - nothing. Characters are barely realised and interchangeable, humour is forced and unfunny, and the scenario doesn't ring true. I like English Civil War-era history, but this isn't that; it could be set in any period, it's just an excuse for dressing up. I get the impression that Wheatley watched VALHALLA RISING and thought 'Ah! I want to make a film like that!' with this as the ungodly result.

The problem is that VALHALLA RISING was a great little movie, with a strong narrative to sustain the artier scenes, and it also had something to say. A FIELD IN ENGLAND has nothing to say - we've learnt absolutely nothing about anything by the time it finishes. I think the most off-putting part of it was, to me, the various interludes where the characters pause, their hair blowing in the wind, mid action. It's like some game of 'What's the time, Mr Wolf?' gone horrifically wrong.

I looked for meaning here; I looked for insight. I wanted it, I wanted to be proved wrong after my initial gut feeling. But the truth is it isn't there. A FIELD IN ENGLAND is just an obscure mess that wastes the talents of everybody involved. If you want to include arty, abstract stuff in a film, then build it into a straightforward narrative that will give viewers something to hook onto. Forget that, and forget your film being watchable in any respect.

Playing field or whatever field your cup of tea is (no pun intended). This film that is a strange step to take for the director (especially considering the movie he did before this),works more than nicely. It is black and white and it is very strange, while being medieval it does have a few strange fantasy moments thrown in there for good measure.

The acting is really good and it gets violent (might get away in some countries with some of it, because of the missing color to show the real consequences of some of it) more than once. This is not flavor of the month, but something that will either entice you or appall you from the start. So if you are checking this out, you should know quickly if you want to follow this road