The Uprising Feature Scores
Explore all 42 feature scores for The Uprising, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
42 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.07 (17%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.412 (29%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.410 (24%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.410 (24%)
-
Very negative below 1.53 (7%)
Pros
Sort
-
The supporting cast receives unusually consistent praise. Jamie Bell, Cosmo Jarvis, Thomasin McKenzie, Woody Norman, Katherine Waterston, and other character actors are repeatedly described as strong, outstanding, or scene-stealing.
-
Andrew Garfield is the strongest point of consensus. Most reviewers praise his grief, humanity, physical commitment, or intensity, though a handful find the role too passive, one-note, or ill-defined.
-
The film is strongest when wrestling with whether justified anger can survive mob violence without becoming vengeance. Reviewers repeatedly praise that moral unease, though a few think the political ideas remain too broad or shallow.
-
The ensemble is one of the film’s safest strengths, with many reviewers calling the performances strong, first-rate, or effective. A small minority found the acting monotonous, but the broader cast response is clearly positive.
-
The film lands emotionally for many reviewers, with the revolt’s grief, betrayals, and class suffering described as heartbreaking, moving, or bracing. Even some negative reviews acknowledge moments that rattle the nerves or carry real weight.
-
The battles are often praised as intense, brutal, and well staged, with several reviewers loving their immediacy. The main tradeoff is legibility: shaky camerawork and rapid cutting sometimes turn the fighting into a confusing blur.
-
When the film leans into moral conflict, grief, and the revolt’s human stakes, reviewers often find it gripping and effective. The drama is especially praised for showing how a righteous cause can curdle into vengeance.
-
The film is effective at building tension and dread, particularly in the final act and during the revolt’s escalation. Even reviewers divided on the style often acknowledge the intensity.
-
The film’s scale, sets, crowds, and period environments are frequently praised as impressive or top drawer. A minority sees some set pieces as underfunded, so the production can look grand in one moment and constrained in another.
-
The film’s ideas about class, power, justice, faith, and revenge feel timely to many reviewers. Some praise the moral warning and urgency, while others think the politics are ham-handed, vague, or insufficiently developed.
-
Volker Bertelmann’s music is usually praised as hard-driving, rousing, or imposing and helps sustain the film’s urgency. One sharply negative review calls the score unlikable.
-
Many reviewers buy into the mud, grime, physical hardship, and lived-in medieval world, praising its ground-level realism. Others argue the same brown-and-gray aesthetic feels artificial, stereotyped, or performatively grim.
-
Historical-drama and Andrew Garfield fans are repeatedly identified as the likeliest audience, and several reviewers recommend the film to them. Its grim tone and rough style may be a tougher sell for broad mainstream crowds.
-
Most reviewers praise the dirty, class-conscious period costuming, with one calling it phenomenal and another highlighting how clearly it separates rich from poor. A historically focused critic pushes back on some armor and the overly brown peasant palette.
-
Garfield and Thomasin McKenzie are singled out as especially effective together. Their scenes give the otherwise broad historical drama a more intimate human connection.
-
For viewers already drawn to historical movies, the film can hit the mark. One enthusiastic reviewer specifically recommends it to fans of the genre.
-
One review explicitly praises the visual-effects team for helping deliver sweeping scale. Other digital-imagery complaints are captured under CGI quality rather than this broader effects rating.
-
The medieval setting is praised as lived-in, dreary, and tangible rather than polished fantasy. That grounded texture helps make the social conditions feel immediate.
-
One reviewer specifically praises the plot’s mix of revolt history and Robin Hood hints as fascinating. That novelty is real, even though other reviews dislike the same conceit in broader originality discussions.
Cons
Sort
-
The sound mix is one of the clearest technical complaints in the video reviews. Multiple reviewers say dialogue is hard to understand because the mix is poor or noisy.
-
The ending is the clearest source of disagreement and the most repeated complaint. Most reviewers dislike the Robin Hood-flavored coda as awkward, silly, or unearned, while a smaller group sees it as a hopeful or energizing finish.
-
The violence is relentless, graphic, and often deliberately disturbing. Some reviewers see that brutality as essential to the film’s argument, but family-oriented and more critical voices find the level excessive or difficult to watch.
-
Character depth is one of the most repeated complaints: Ploughman and several rebels are often described as thin, archetypal, or underwritten. A few reviewers found the side characters distinct and well introduced, so the weakness is not universal.
-
The visual approach is mostly dark, muddy, and aggressively handheld, which some reviewers find raw and appropriate. Others reject it as ugly, flat, repetitive, or visually out of step with the material.
-
Digital imagery is a recurring weak point, especially aerial views and hazy-looking backgrounds that some reviewers say break the otherwise grounded feel. A few found the effects acceptable, but praise is limited.
-
Editing is a recurring concern, particularly during action and in uneven middle sections where the film can feel chaotic or messy. One strong counterpoint praises William Goldenberg for keeping the movie moving with urgent pace.
-
The film’s graphic medieval bloodshed makes it an adult-oriented watch. One family-focused review explicitly advises that kids and teens sit it out.
-
This is not framed as family viewing. The graphic executions, battlefield deaths, and sustained brutality lead a family-focused review to recommend it only for discerning adults.
-
The length is a recurring drag for some viewers: even at around two hours, the film can feel much longer, while one review cites a roughly two-and-a-half-hour cut and wishes it were tighter.
-
The screenplay gets mixed-to-negative marks overall. Some reviewers praise strong or efficient writing, but many find the script thin, trite, overly expository, politically shallow, or missing connective tissue.
-
One reviewer reports that the critics-only screening audience reacted very negatively, even though that reviewer personally loved the film. That makes critical appeal look uncertain rather than broadly secure.
-
One strongly negative review finds the film’s tone as flat as its imagery, contributing to a monotonous experience rather than a dynamically modulated one.
-
Some reviewers appreciate a simple through-line that stays understandable without much historical background. Others find motivations, transitions, and the middle act muddled or disjointed, making clarity a genuine point of division.
-
Dialogue draws more criticism than praise, with descriptions ranging from hokey to trite and hard to hear. Strong performances occasionally give weaker lines more weight.
-
Levity is scarce, and at least one reviewer sees that as a drawback because the unrelenting seriousness makes some reaction shots feel unintentionally comic rather than relieving.
-
Pacing varies sharply by reviewer and by section. The uprising itself can feel propulsive and urgent, but the middle often gets called flabby, tedious, or overlong, and several reviewers wanted a tighter cut.
-
Reviewers generally think the film captures the revolt’s social pressures and medieval atmosphere, but many object to major liberties and the Robin Hood connection. The historical core earns respect; the mythic additions are much more contentious.
-
The handheld cinematography is intensely divisive. Supporters find it gritty, immersive, and ideally suited to chaotic revolt, while detractors call it distracting, exhausting, nauseating, or mismatched with a medieval epic.
-
Paul Greengrass’s direction produces some of the film’s biggest highs and lows. Reviewers praise his intensity, action staging, and urgency, but many also think his modern handheld grammar is a poor or exhausting fit for the period material.
-
The attempt to fuse the Peasants’ Revolt with Robin Hood mythology is certainly distinctive, but it is also the film’s most polarizing creative choice. Some call the blend fascinating or unique; others see it as a cheapening gimmick.
-
The central revolt story earns both enthusiastic praise and strong criticism. Supporters find it gripping, timely, and compelling; detractors call it disjointed, simplistic, or weakened by the late Robin Hood turn.
-
Overall enjoyment is mixed: several reviewers call the film gripping, fun, worthwhile, or highly entertaining, while others find it tedious, exhausting, or deeply disappointing. The experience depends heavily on tolerance for bleakness and shaky-cam intensity.
Cast & Creators
-
PloughmanGarfield is the film’s clearest acting strength, with reviewers repeatedly praising his grief, humanity, physical commitment, and ability to ground Ploughman. A small minority finds the performance passive or one-note, but the consensus is strongly favorable.
-
John BallBell is repeatedly praised for making John Ball fiery, forceful, and emotionally credible. Reviewers highlight both his conviction and vulnerability, with several calling his work outstanding.
-
Wat TylerJarvis earns strong praise as Wat Tyler, bringing force, physicality, and a magnetic leadership presence. Reviewers consistently see him as one of the supporting cast’s strongest anchors.
-
Richard IINorman earns some of the film’s strongest supporting notices as Richard II, with reviewers calling him brilliant, riveting, terrific, and even the movie’s scene-stealer. One dissenting review finds him miscast, but the overall response is highly positive.
-
Joan of KentWaterston draws consistently strong notices as Joan of Kent, with reviewers calling her excellent, compelling, or quietly scene-stealing. Even with limited dialogue, she makes the role feel substantial.
-
AlyceMcKenzie receives standout praise for fierceness, vulnerability, and barely contained fear. Several reviewers see her as one of the supporting cast’s most affecting performers.
-
ComposerBertelmann’s score is usually described as hard-driving, rousing, or imposing. Reviewers credit the music with reinforcing the film’s momentum and intensity.
-
CinematographerRokseth’s cinematography is praised for gritty immersion and strong period texture. His work supports the film’s ground-level sense of chaos, even as the broader handheld style remains divisive.
-
Costume DesignerAttila’s costume work is praised for helping distinguish the wealthy court from the battered peasantry. The clothing design contributes materially to the film’s class contrast.
-
William WalworthMiller is praised for relishing the heavy and making his antagonistic role compelling. His villainous presence adds energy to the royal side of the story.
-
ScribeYang makes a strong impression in the supporting role of the Scribe. The available review praise is brief but clearly favorable.
-
Costume DesignerDániel’s costume work is praised for making class differences visually legible, especially the contrast between lavish court clothing and battered peasant garb.
-
EditorGoldenberg is praised for editing that keeps the film moving with an urgent pace. His contribution stands out as a positive counterpoint to other reviewers’ complaints about chaotic cutting.
-
ActorFinn is briefly cited as part of the film’s unusually stacked supporting cast. The available assessment is positive but limited in detail.
-
Simon SudburyDillane is praised as effective within the royal-council ensemble. His performance helps sell the cold, self-protective world around the throne.
-
Sir Robert HalesHollander is praised for effectively embodying the royal establishment’s smug, self-serving side. His work fits comfortably within the film’s strong character-actor ensemble.
-
DirectorGreengrass sharply divides reviewers. Some praise the urgency, empathy, and action craft he brings to the revolt, while others think his shaky-cam style overwhelms the story or simply does not fit a medieval epic.