UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

kipdunlap I can not think of a more chilling film. It is a pity that this movie is not available in the United States. I had the luck of watching it in a hotel room in London during a week long trip. I intensely admire the BBC for their intellectual programming. This film would almost never be shown on any American network, sadly. Yet it is a wakeup call to the world of the serious need for drug regulations to be tightened. It is perhaps the most serious call for action in the cellular science era. The warning contained in Fields of Gold cannot be missed, nor avoided by any stretch of the truth. Perhaps one of the most true-to-life depictions in the movie is the portrayal of dazed, confused, elderly people being raped by pharmaceutical companies. The film conveys a mistrust of drug companies I have not left behind in the 3 years since I watched the film. While the movie is admittedly terrifying to adults and children, having seen it when I was 14, the movie put into context many things that all citizens should know. I would wish that everyone could see and learn from this movie.

Theo Robertson Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience !!!! SPOILERS !!!!FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces " A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger " then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via " Mercy killings " . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogicalAs a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this

ffranc Pseudo-scientific scaremongering rubbish, only made faintly plausible by Anna Friel and by Phil Davis's turn as a veteran journalist. The dialogue is crude and, once it gets away from the newspaper office, incredible.If an unknown writer had turned up at the BBC with this, he would have been shown the door sharpish.

Keith F. Hatcher I cannot help thinking that the BBC made a mistake in the dates on which this film for television was first broadcast. Saturday and Sunday 8th/9th June, 2002 must have been somewhat inappropriate, judging from the negligible feedback available.Co-written by Ronan Bennett and Alan Rusbridger, science correspondent of the Guardian newspaper, `Fields of Golds' sets out on the not at all science-fiction story of things going wrong in genetically manipulated crops experiments. Also the film includes the illegal use of an antibiotic drug in a hospital, with the result of a few people dying. Far fetched? Not at all: here in Spain in the last few months we have had two such similar cases of unlicensed drugs being used and even being sold in pharmacies.This film, then, raises some very dark questions: how far are the big multinational pharmaceutical groups prepared to go in the pursuit of money? Are they out of responsible government control? Is transgenic food really the answer? Personally I have very strong doubts on this last question, but no doubts on the first two. There is a lot of shouting in favour of and against the breeding of transgenic crops. Anna Friel as Lucia Merritt the photographer for the newspaper, and Philip Davis as Roy Lodge the reporter, put in good performances and help hold the whole lot together. Anna Friel does not just look nice but also acts rather well, and Philip Davis as the rather slovenly, ill-mannered and drunk working- companion offers some really good moments, though I rather fancy the last scenes were a bit overdone. The climax did not seem to follow the basic line adopted throughout the film. The message was clearly stated, evidently.Patients in a hospital develop VRSA - Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - caused by a pharmaceutical company experimenting with transgenic crops, and which is supposedly highly contagious in the air or even from contact by clothes. In fact, Staphylococcus aureus is a hospital- and community-acquired infection, derived from vancomycin-resistant enterococci recognised in 1988, and is not contagious in the air as purported in this film (John Hopkins Memorial Hospital). The Pennsylvania Department of Health also has published a very recent paper on this matter [Oct.11th 2002 /51(40);902].Thus I was unable to make the connection with references in the film to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) or Aphteuse Fevers, as this is confined to animals and is a virus of the order Mononegavirales family Picornaviridae, genus Aphthovirus, which could not be caused as depicted in the film. Also, such references to FMD in Britain might be called an ill-judged moment. Half the farmers in England have either gone out of business or are still struggling to make up economic losses as a direct consequence of the recent outbreak. There were a few other loose ends which had me guessing a bit.However, technicalities apart, the film was obviously intended to raise serious questions on how science can get out of hand, especially in the field of genetic engineering which is gathering momentum by the day and outstripping paquidermic legalities, and so deserves recommendation at the very least. Better still would be that the BBC make a bit more noise on these issues and repeat the showing of the film at a better moment - for example in the middle of the Christmas holidays. Hopefully a few US TV channels will show it: it might well put somebody off their transgenic turkeys and genetic groceries ....