I watched the uprising movie with Garfield in it. I know it's based off of the 1381 great peasants revolt and supposedly, according to the actor Garfield himself, supposed go scare the billionaires shitless.

First off, I learn once again I do not like Paul Greengrass' shaking camera style.

Second, I do note it's a thoroughly lib film. Thankfully the director tries to keep it historical so things that come off as rather maga hoggish have to be understood in historical context though I do wonder why would peasants be concerned with secure borders. At one point during the March on London, the thought occurs to me that you could easily draw parallels to the Maga hogs March on DC. If it wasn't for my familiarity with the Russian history of peasants with a crank priest marching on capitals to petition their sovereign I would've thought this was too on the nose an homage to the hogs. I went into this unfamiliar with the actual history of the peasants revolt but it did strike me immediately that "it would be super funny if history actually rhymed and this was going to be the precursor to the bloody Sunday the Russian peasants experienced." While they were being lead to an open field outside London to meet with their king. Of course the director agreed with me, and so does history and arrogant kings, because that's exactly what happened. Peasants blinded by the supposed divine glory of the sovereign, believing he's being kept captive by the evil aristocracy who torments his subjects with blood and taxes, being slaughtered like lambs by wolves at the order of the king because the dirt scrubbing peasants were being uppity asking to be freed from serfdom.

All in all, a rather lame movie, throes out a "We the commons are free in these woods, there are no kings to rule us" yadda yadda, the protagonist Garfield has the king that slaughtered his entire village at his mercy of his sickle and he let's him go because "there will always be another king" bleh.

This is why I prefer Soviet filmography.