A Field in England 2013

Soren Anderson, Seattle Times: Prepare to be mesmerized by "A Field in England," a movie of singular originality. Read more

Peter Debruge, Variety: A defiantly unclassifiable cross-genre experiment that simultaneously reinvents and regurgitates low-budget British cinema as it goes. Read more

Mike D'Angelo, AV Club: Things get murky, even though very little actually happens. Read more

Ty Burr, Boston Globe: It's about shifting power games, mostly, and suggests a period film made by Samuel Beckett in one of his more playful moods. Read more

William Goss, Film.com: A challenging piece of work to be sure, due for eventual midnight-movie cultdom. Read more

Stephen Dalton, Hollywood Reporter: Sorcery meets swordplay in powerful low-budget horror movie. Read more

Andy Webster, New York Times: "A Field in England" tosses fascinating ingredients into its bubbling pot, and while the resulting dish - a blend of historical action drama, character study and psychedelic kaleidoscope - doesn't entirely cohere, it gives off a pungent aroma. Read more

Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com: This hilarious, disgusting, brilliant and circular psychotronic odyssey is a blast from the submerged past. Read more

Minneapolis Star Tribune: It's dementia for its own sake, an empty head-trip. Read more

Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail: It's the English Civil War on magic mushrooms! Read more

Toronto Star: A Field In England is mad monochrome mayhem that's utterly hypnotic. Read more

Tom Huddleston, Time Out: 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. Read more

Alan Scherstuhl, Village Voice: The film, Wheatley's fourth, feels both reckless yet fully controlled, a jest that's dead serious in the manner of Yorick's skull, which gets a sort of cameo in the final act. Read more