PLOT: In the aftermath of the Black Death, which cut the population of England in half, the peasantry rises up against the tyrannical council of King Richard II, which taxes the population to the brink of starvation, leading them to attempt to break free of the misery that defines their lives.
REVIEW: The Uprising is one of the most bizarrely marketed films in recent memory. After months of being positioned as a grim historical drama, Focus recently did an about-face and tried to market it as a Robin Hood prequel, only to quickly go back to the old plan when the move was met with ridicule. To be sure, The Uprising is not a Robin Hood film, with it depicting the Peasants’ Revolt, even if the character played by Andrew Garfield, who simply goes by Ploughman, does have some connections to the earliest mentions of the character. But don’t go in expecting derring-do, Merry Men, or Sherwood Forest. This is a dark, grim war film about a theme as relevant now as it was then — the battle between the haves and have-nots.
Paul Greengrass brings his usual intensity, even if the film is a departure in almost every other way for this typically ultra-contemporary director. It’s interesting to see him tackle a historical epic, with the film stripped down and brutal, focusing less on spectacle and more on the muddy grimness that likely defined England at the time. While his shaky-cam aesthetic is still on display during the action sequences, it’s somewhat restrained here, given the setting.
He also doesn’t waste much time getting to the action, with us only just introduced to Andrew Garfield’s Ploughman, a grieving farmer whose wife and children died during the plague, before he beats a soldier working for a tax collector to death after the man assaults the helpless populace. From there, he joins a loose group of rebels that includes real historical figures associated with the revolt, including Cosmo Jarvis’ Wat Tyler, a former soldier who becomes the peasants’ leader, and the vengeful priest John Ball (Jamie Bell). They wage war against the fourteen-year-old Richard II (C’mon C’mon’s Woody Norman), who is plagued by nightmares of rebels coming for him in the night. However, they believe the real enemy is his council, which basically rules in his place, led by Tom Hollander’s Sir Robert Hales.
While the first and last acts are full of action, with Garfield ferocious as he picks apart knights with his razor-sharp scythe, the middle section of the film is flabby and occasionally tedious. It becomes talky as Garfield’s Ploughman, our dynamic hero, becomes mostly an observer while Tyler and Ball take more dominant roles. There is a quasi-romantic subplot with Thomasin McKenzie as a former nun turned member of the revolt, but Garfield isn’t given much to do in this chunk, with a lot of screen time devoted to depicting the king’s Machiavellian council. However, Katherine Waterston is excellent as Richard’s mother, Joan of Kent, who hopes her son will rise to his station.
Technically, it’s well done, with gritty cinematography by Pål Ulvik Rokseth that is far removed from the look of most historical epics, while Volker Bertelmann’s score is hard-driving. It was interesting to see Blumhouse and Atomic Monster among the producers, as this isn’t genre fare, although the action is really good — especially toward the end. While it’s probably too grim to connect with mainstream audiences this fall, especially with world events driving us all to seek out more uplifting fare, it could find a larger audience once it makes its way to streaming. It’s a good film that could have been a very good one had it been tightened up a tad.