The film, "The Uprising" is supposedly about the English Peasant's Revolt in the year 1381. However, according to Washington Post movie critic Thomas Floyd, the movie is really about ...Donald Trump. You don't have to even read the text of his review to discover this since the title alone reveals the absurd TDS, "The first No Kings movie is about a medieval peasant revolt and ‘people power’."
As for the body of the review, the TDS also kicks in right away:
When filmmaker Paul Greengrass prepared last year to shoot “The Uprising,” a historical epic about the 1381 English Peasants’ Revolt, he knew the movie’s climax spoke to the current moment. But it was more on the nose than he ever intended.
As Andrew Garfield’s plowman leads an ambush on King Richard II, in the wake of the quashed rebellion, the reluctant revolutionary leans toward the monarch and issues his own decree:
“No kings.”
Greengrass wrote that line — and the rest of the script — in 2020, during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic shutdowns. When filming began last fall in Germany, a few months after the first No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, Greengrass knew those words would reverberate with an unintended echo.
“I thought, ‘Well, it was in my screenplay! So I’m not going to take it out,’” Greengrass said during a recent video chat from Los Angeles. “It’s integral to the movie, and emotionally consistent with it.”
Hmmm... So filming began AFTER the far left came up with their "No Kings" shtick last year but the director claims he wrote that bit back in 2020 so it MUST be true. Right?
After a brief one paragraph respite from the Trump obsession, the TDS kicked in again:
“It felt very prescient and kind of predictive, and unfortunately so,” Garfield said of the film’s “no kings” moment. “I think that there is a very strong burgeoning emergence of truth in current activist movements, where people are waking up to the fact that those that are making the laws, those that are writing history, they don’t have common people’s best interests at heart. It feels like an awakening from a kind of cult on a mass scale.”
Unfortunately the attempt at relevance is undermined by the director's apparent lack of historical knowledge since he seems to suggest at the end of the film that the main character could be Robin Hood.
Focus Features recently began marketing the film with the tagline “Witness the Rise of Robin Hood.” But is Garfield’s unnamed plowman actually Robin himself?
“I never call him Robin Hood,” Greengrass said. “He just clearly has become an outlaw, and he confronts the king because you want him to confront the king. That’s how the legend of Robin Hood absolutely would have begun — with people surviving that rebellion and telling stories about a character a bit like that.”
Since Robin Hood (if he had existed) was said to have been active during the time of King John in the early 13th century, director Greenglass was off by almost a couple of hundred years. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of selling a film also apparently being marketed as a TDS experience.
