Movies & TV / Reviews
The Uprising Review
Image Credit: Focus Features
Loading...
Directed By: Paul Greengrass
Written By: Paul Greengrass
Runtime: 128 minutes
MPA Rating: Rated R for violence/bloody images.
Andrew Garfield – The Ploughman
Cosmo Jarvis – Wat Tyler
Jamie Bell – John Ball
Woody Norman – King Richard II
Thomasin McKenzie – Alyse
Katherine Waterston – The Countess
Jonny Lee Miller – Mayor Walworth
Tom Hollander – Treasurer Hales
Stephen Dillane – Archbishop Sudbury
Stanley Townsend – Chief Justice Belknap
Sky Yang – The Scribe
Director Paul Greengrass explores the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt in England in his new movie, The Uprising. Unfortunately, despite the weirdly relevant subject matter, Greengrass muddles the story, refashioning it into a flawed prequel and origin story for a figure of British legend and folklore.
The Uprising depicts the rise of the Peasants’ Revolt through the perspective of The Ploughman. Why is he called Ploughman? In one of the most uninspired lines of dialogue in Greengrass’ prestigious filmography, Andrew Garfield’s character states, “I am what I do.” All that was missing was the annoyed tax collector asking him, “First name, last name, occupation.” Garfield could have responded, “Ploughman. Ploughman. Ploughman,” and the line would’ve had infinitely more resonance.
The Ploughman is introduced at his wit’s end. His family died during the Black Death, and now the crown demands additional taxes. He then leads a revolt in his small township, but other towns are rebelling as well. People across the country are similarly organizing and rising against the aristocrats, whom they believe are holding the young king, Richard II (Norman), hostage.
Ploughman’s militia convenes with similar groups led by the former soldier Wat Tyler (Jarvis) and the rogue priest, John Ball (Bell). Despite some reluctance on the Ploughman’s part, they march upon London, demanding justice and an audience with the king, as the city becomes a powder keg waiting to explode.
Amid the violence and bloodshed, the coming maelstrom haunts King Richard II in his dreams, as he cowers in his chambers, too frightened to act. Meanwhile, Ploughman chafes at some of the militia’s unchecked violence. With the peasant armies converging on London, the city is becoming fraught with tension that could soon explode.
A movie that dramatizes England’s Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 is a great premise on its own. Unfortunately, Greengrass refashions it into an undesirable origin story, stating that it was the Peasants’ Revolt that birthed the legend of Robin Hood.
The method in which the plot integrates Robin Hood elements appears tacked on, flaccid, and arbitrary. Rather than a rousing, harrowing take on real-life events, or a grounded origin story for well-trodden folklore, The Uprising fails at both.
The Robin Hood elements detract from the narrative history lesson, rather than adding to it. The remaining Robin Hood attributes are too meager and inconsequential to provide any meaningful impact.
Greengrass’ script focuses heavily on the Peasants’ Revolt through the Ploughman’s perspective, but the third-act climax plays more like a second-act finale. Then, the movie clumsily shambles to its ending, essentially offering an abbreviated final act as the epilogue, and its head-scratching, inept final moments prove deeply unsatisfying. Rather than ending on an awe-inspiring and rousing moment, it concludes with an absolute thud.
The director likely sought to depict a type of “truth” behind the legend of Robin Hood, showcasing how real-life historical events gave rise to the hero of legend and folklore. Instead, a story that showcases events where real-life history and legend are intertwined runs in a clunky, uneven fashion.
The Uprising does feature impressive production values and set pieces that look authentic and provide some nice immersion into the time period. It’s a very dreary and muddy-looking film, but for all intents and purposes, the appearance is appropriate. England in the 1380s, after the Black Plague, should look dreary and ugly.
The main actors do not leave a sufficient impression, except for Woody Norman as King Richard II. The young thespian shows presence, charisma, and ability beyond his years with his impressive performance.
Garfield’s fury and contemplative stoicism never ring true. His performance feels hollow. Cosmo Jarvis as Wat Tyler probably should have been the protagonist of the movie since he’s the main figurehead and leader of the peasant army. Bell, as the vengeful priest, John Ball, also comes off as out of place in this story.
Thomasin McKenzie appears in a thankless, underwritten role as Alyse, a former nun and member of the revolt. She primarily acts as a pseudo non-love interest to The Ploughman, encouraging him to stay with the revolt, despite his doubts.
Alyse comes off as a cookie-cutter character shoehorned into the story, much like the wealthy noblemen, whose callous actions provoke the eventual revolt. As the narrative’s main antagonists, the “traitors” lack any genuine depth or intrigue, despite having such strong actors like Tom Hollander in the roles.
The plot’s most inspired moment comes when the militia starts rampaging through the streets of London, and decades of righteous anger and fury are unleashed. People are killed, beaten, and executed, righteous or not. Greengrass’ penchant for handheld, shaky cam works in this sequence because it reflects the uncontrolled chaos of an unruly, furious mob.
Greengrass also throws in some uncharacteristic, poorly rendered aerial shots that don’t mix as well throughout the more chaotic mob sequences, detracting from the experience. It comes off as if Greengrass wants to mix in a more traditional style with his more modern, grounded, and gritty direction presentation, but these ideas never coalesce, much like the rest of The Uprising.
Where To Watch The Uprising
The Uprising arrives in theaters on Sept. 11. Ticket and showtime information are available on the movie’s website.
