Andrew Garfield trades in modern-day angst for chainmail and mud in “The Uprising,” a new historical drama from director Paul Greengrass that takes on the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. The film, which premiered to early press screenings this week, arrives with considerable ambitions and, according to the first wave of critical response, a decidedly mixed execution.
Greengrass, known for his jittery handheld camerawork and tense real-time set pieces in films like “United 93” and the Bourne franchise, applies his signature documentary-style immediacy to one of England’s most explosive chapters of social upheaval. The result, per early reviews, is a picture that captures the chaos and desperation of the era but struggles to find a consistent dramatic rhythm.
The story centers on the historic rebellion led by figures like Wat Tyler, a grassroots uprising fueled by crippling poll taxes, feudal oppression, and the lingering trauma of the Black Death. Workers and commoners, pushed past the breaking point, marched on London demanding economic justice and an end to serfdom. It is a narrative ripe with parallel relevance to contemporary debates about wealth inequality and the power of ordinary citizens to challenge entrenched systems.
Garfield steps into the role of a central figure within that revolt, though the production has been careful not to position the film as a strict biopic. Rather, it follows the ranks of the disenfranchised as their movement swells, reaches its bloody peak, and ultimately fractures at the gates of power. Garfield’s performance has drawn praise from multiple corners, with critics noting his ability to channel righteous fury while maintaining a vulnerable humanity under layers of grime and desperation.
The film aims to bridge a centuries-old gap, drawing psychological and political parallels between 14th-century serfs and modern audiences who have grown increasingly skeptical of institutions. That connection is Greengrass’s primary gambit, yet several review excerpts suggest the filmmaker’s kinetic style, so effective in contemporary thrillers, sits awkwardly against the period backdrop. Medieval warfare, it turns out, does not always lend itself gracefully to the Bourne-like shake of the lens.
One recurring criticism is tonal inconsistency. The film reportedly shifts between intimate character moments, sweeping battlefield spectacle, and political maneuvering within royal courts, occasionally losing the thread of coherent momentum. While the opening acts effectively establish the grinding poverty and simmering rage among the peasantry, the middle section wanders through episodic confrontations before careening toward its inevitable bloody climax.
Still, the film’s ambitions are not lost on reviewers. Many acknowledge that the subject matter requires a bold, unconventional vision. Some have pointed to the film’s most visceral sequences - street-to-street skirmishes, burning manors, and the crushing weight of armored cavalry - as moments where Greengrass’s signature intensity pays off spectacularly.
The wider context matters here. Hollywood has a mixed history with the medieval era, often defaulting to swashbuckling heroics or grim-dark fantasies rather than grounded political histories. “The Uprising” attempts to break that mold, treating the revolt not as a backdrop for individual heroics but as a systemic, collective eruption. That choice gives the film an intellectual weight that distinguishes it from more conventional costume dramas.
Garfield, who has built a reputation for transformative roles since his breakout in “The Social Network” and subsequent work in “Hacksaw Ridge” and “Tick, Tick… Boom!,” brings a physicality and earnestness that critics seem to view as the film’s backbone. One noted that even when the screenplay wobbles, Garfield’s commitment to the squalor and sorrow of the period never falters.
But uneven supporting characters reportedly dilute the impact. Where the peasants feel fully realized, the nobles come across more as archetypes and foils, reducing some scenes to simplistic class caricatures. This imbalance prevents the film from reaching the tragic nuance of a true historical epic.
Audience anticipation remains high given the creative pairing of Garfield and Greengrass, who previously collaborated on the acclaimed true-story drama “Bleed for This.” Their reunion on a project of such historical gravitas signals an attempt to merge prestige storytelling with visceral emotional impact. Whether the gamble pays off in full will depend on how general audiences respond beyond the festival and critic circuit.
“The Uprising” is currently in circulation for press and early screenings, with broader commercial release details expected in the coming weeks. Awards chatter, while premature, has focused primarily on Garfield’s lead performance and the film’s technical craft - particularly its production design and sound mixing, which pull viewers into the cacophony of medieval conflict.
For now, the conversation around “The Uprising” is one of admiration for its audacity and frustration at its gaps. It is a film that reaches for something large - an understanding of when the oppressed decide they have nothing left to lose - and often grazes that target even when accuracy is sacrificed for allegory.
Whether it settles into the canon of great historical dramas or becomes a footnote in Greengrass’s filmography, one thing is clear: “The Uprising” refuses to be politely conventional. It is messy, loud, uneven, and occasionally transcendent - much like the revolt it depicts.
Source: Variety