User Reviews (88)

  • claudiaeilcinema28 December 2017
    Look Into My Eyes
    Warning: Spoilers
    Shattered. Yes, that's exactly how I felt. Unable to utter a word. Jonathan Banks creates one of the most hateful creatures I've ever seen on the screen and I've seen hateful creatures. I had a physical reaction to his recognizable monster, we saw him or one of his ilk marching down the streets of Charlottesville in 2017. Carey Mulligan is simply sublime. Garret Hedlund and Jason Mitchell have become two of my favorite actors. Their truth made of confusion, outrage and pain is pungently present in their eyes. Mary J Blige provides a powerful poster child for dignity and composure. A remarkable performance and Rob Morgan moved me so very deeply. A film experience that we all should confront. My gratitude and admiration to the extraordinary Dee Rees.
  • Alexander_Blanchett17 November 2017
    One of the most beautiful final shots of the year
    A good and extremely well acted film. It is really the netflix film that could make the difference in terms of awards recognition. It is not your typical racism film as it tells another side of it. It is about two young men who would never be in any way friends if it wasn't for one thing they have in common. Both are war veterans and return home with a trauma. One is the son of a farm aid, the other is the brother of the owner of the farm. But it is not the only story this ensemble piece tells. The acting is the best reason to see the film. Rob Morgan was the MVP for me. It was a performance that worked way beneath his dialogue. A very deep and moving character and he managed it absolutely realistic. Jason Mitchell was great as well, especially towards the end. He has for sure the battiest role. Garrett Hedlund comes right after with a very controlled and intense turn. He surely is underrated for his acting, I also liked Mary J. Blige who had some great small moments, but after all the buzz I expected something more intense. Much of her performance works through her expressions which were great and real. Carey Mulligan and Jonathan Banks were great as well. Jason Clarke had his moments but was possibly the weakest of the bunch, but that was mostly because of his pale character, The film was extremely well shot, nicely directed and had a great screenplay. At the beginning it dragged a little bit but it is definitely worth to see and the ending is extremely intense, shocking and memorable. And the final scene has to be one of the most beautiful scenes of the year.
  • Fredrick Jackson12 December 2017
    Tired of this kind of movie
    Warning: Spoilers
    As an African American, who is 70 years old, it is difficult to watch these kinds of movies. I don't require movies to describe what the Jim Crow south was all about. this movie was well made, but at times it was boring. The acting was well done, but some of the actors were not required to do much. It was a good movie for Netflix standards, but I would have never gone to the theater to see it. I hope that the song "Mighty River" wins the Golden Globe.
  • ElMaruecan8220 November 2017
    "Mud" happens... but it can also create the most unexpected and inspiring bonds...
    Racism, war, violence, female solidarity … however relevant these subjects are, they seem rather exhausted on a cinematic level especially when the Awards season starts.

    Indeed, on the simple basis of its trailer, one would believe that "Mudbound" is simply Netflix making its "Color Purple", "Mississippi Burning" or "12 Years a Slave". Maybe. But there is something fresh and original in Dee Rees' adaptation of Hillary Jordan's novel and it's a considerable achievement that owes a lot to the writing, the directing and the unusual structure and patient pace of the film. Sure it is a companion to all the movies I mentioned but it has a sort of haunting quality, something that sticks to your mind and dwarfs a rather good film like "The Help".

    What is "Mudbound" about? That's not an easy question to answer, a few negative critics pointed out the film's lack of focus because it's a multi-character story and there's no lead or supporting roles at first stance, just as they criticized the overuse of voice-over. I didn't mind the voice-over much, the story is so complex and multi-layered that I'd rather have a voice-over explaining things and make it my 'privilege' to pay or not pay attention to it. The lack of focus now is just a matter of half-empty or half-full glass. But here's a way to present the film in simpler terms. "Mudbound" is about two families, the McAllans (white) and the Jacksons (black) living in two neighboring farms in the Mississippi of the 40's.

    Laura (Carey Mulligan) married Henry McAllan (Jason Clarke), less moved by love than a desire to escape from her "old maid" condition, and marital life made her feel relevant and important. Henry isn't the romantic type but no bad man either, and I was glad the movie didn't take one path I expected. No, it's not about that kind of abuse. The McAllans are a steady couple and the Jacksons form a united clan whose patriarch Hap (Rob Morgan) is the descendant of former slaves who worked on that same land, Hap's dreams is to own it in the future although he's not fooled by the worth of any act of property in that racist state. The Jacksons might strike as too 'virtuous' and taking very solemn poses but once you get drawn by the atmosphere and the hostility they constantly face, you realize that "disunion" couldn't be an option. Hap and his wife Florence (Oscar- worthy Mary J. Blige) can't afford the luxury of not being at least "happy together".

    But the film doesn't venture yet in these unsafe territories; the tone is only set with the presence of Henry's father: Pappy McAllan, a bigoted racist played by Jonathan Banks and whom we suspect will act like a ticking bomb. Henry buys a farm and Laura follows him, circumstances of life will force Florence to work for the McAllans, but as long as these two families mind their own business, so to speak, nothing seem ready to create conflicts. Except for what sets up the second act of the film, the second World War. The merit of "Mudbound" is to paint notable differences at first until you realize that the two families have a lot more in common. This 'common denominator' is the core of "Mudbound": the bond between the two veterans of each family: Henry's brother Jamie (Garrett Hedlund) and Ronsel Jackson (Jason Mitchell). Here are two men who've seen hell in Europe, the things we expect and that are not overplayed, but they also lived the exhilaration of liberating countries and discovering a fraternity that transcends racial barriers.

    "Mudbound" breaks a taboo seldom explored by the movies: the hypocritical treatment of Black soldiers. America takes pride for having liberated Europe but not to the point of questioning the internal "prisons", and this is the concealed wound the film tries to heal. Ronsel is the most complex of all the characters because he embraced his country's idealism and couldn't believe he wouldn't be rewarded for it. Jamie suffers from PTSD and finds in Ronsel the only man capable to understand him, "Mudbound" began like the stories of two women, Laura and Florence who were growing to understand each other, a sort of "Color Purple" of the 2010's, directed by a woman and with enough narrative to play like a feminist hymn, but no, this is a movie about two men, Ronsel and Jamie who grow to respect each other because they found in the mud of the battle-fight the universally human bond. You know what that movie truly reminded me of? "The Defiant Ones".

    The image that immediately comes to mind from that Stanley Kramer's masterpiece of 1958 is Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier as two ex-convicts chained together and escaping from the police. They hate each other, they still carry some bits of racism but the first display of solidarity happens when they're stuck in a deep pool of mud and must climb their way to the ground. Mud isn't just about dirt or about ground but can be a powerful metaphor of something uniting two men, a metaphor for an even dirtier stuff, when "natural enemies" discover they're equally worthless when put in the same 'mud'... unless they try to overcome it. "Mudbound" carries this image but it's less about 'mud' than it is about a color-blind "bound". The mud is either literal in the film or represented by the trauma of war… and also the suffering of women, while not the focus, "Mudbound" has a saying on that subject as well.

    "Mudbound" is a proof that Netflix is becoming a major contender in the years to come, I don't know whether the film will meet with Oscar recognition but there should be some love to the haunting cinematography, the screenplay and Mary J. Blige should be a lock if Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis won for what I believe are lesser movies.
  • themadmovieman17 November 2017
    At times astonishingly powerful, but incredibly boring at others
    If there were ever a film that sums up the phrase 'mixed bag', then Mudbound is surely it. Ranging from emotionally devastating and harrowing drama to downright tedious periods of nothingness, this is one of the most inconsistent films you'll ever see, and although its highest points prove utterly enthralling and truly memorable, its lowest offer next to nothing in terms of riveting drama. Its performances are strong and its directing confident, but that doesn't escape the fact that this film is just a real mixed bag.

    Let's start with the film's opening act, which is one of the most boring and frustrating hours I've spent watching a film. Starting off with a confusing and poorly executed opening scene, the film really fails to pick itself up over the course of its whole first hour, doing little more than to establish some of the main characters and the hardships of the muddy, isolated rural community, things that could have surely been done just as effectively in a good ten minutes.

    For the duration of the whole first act, it's pretty difficult to tell what the end game of the movie actually is. For one, you've got the story of a young woman whose marriage allowed her to escape her dull family, and who also is deeply frustrated with the muddiness and poverty-stricken nature of her current life. Then there's some detailing of the horrific levels of racism in 1940s Mississippi, with the family's grandfather being the main example for some nasty remarks throughout. There's also a young black man who goes off to war, who we occasionally check in with during his battles in Europe, while we also see the brother of the central white family flying in the Air Force during the war.

    As you can tell by that very bungled description, the film's first act is an absolute mess. There's very little way to tell what the main story is, and what you should really be focusing on for the biggest emotional intrigue, and that, coupled with the fact that it moves at a deathly slow pace, makes it a very frustrating and extremely tedious first hour.

    However, things really do pick up come the second act. Upon seeing the two men return to Mississippi from the war, the film's central focus finally comes to the forefront, and we immediately get a very tense exchange between the racist grandfather and the African-American war veteran. That's undoubtedly one of the film's highest points, and sets up the atmosphere of deep racial tensions well, finally giving the film at least a continuing and consistent tension under the surface, something that was completely absent from its first act.

    The second act then goes into looking at how different generations respond to the institutionalised racism, while also shedding light on how horrifically unjust some of the hardships suffered by so many hard-working African-Americans were at the time, which proves for an interesting, albeit never quite powerful watch. The film's middle portion is a great insight into the time period, and holds your attention throughout, but it never quite manages to hit you hard enough as a film telling such a story should do.

    And then comes the film's final act, which is exceptional. For the final thirty minutes or so, the devastating reality of racism in the past is brought brutally into focus, and it makes for a deeply disturbing and uncomfortable but powerfully moving watch. With the film's tension at its height, it doesn't hold back in displaying some truly horrifying scenes, some of which are easily the most intense and powerful I have ever seen in a film dealing with the topic.

    The final act is directed brilliantly, being frank and brutally realistic in its depiction of injustice, and moving along at a slow but tense pace to emphasise some truly horrible acts, all the while maintaining a strong dignity that allows the deeper, emotional side of the sequences to shine through too, all of which makes it simply astonishing to see.

    It's fair to say then, given the huge range of comments I have for this film, ranging from total boredom to transfixing and hard-hitting emotion, that Mudbound is a very inconsistent mixed bag, however there is one element to it that works well from start to finish: the performances.

    The wide range of characters in the first act does make its story somewhat muddled, but each of the actors really shines in bringing their own character to life. Carey Mulligan is very strong and convincing as a young mother frustrated with her life in poverty, Garrett Hedlund and Jason Mitchell are both charismatic young men, meaning that their relationship really shines when it's on display, while Jonathan Banks is excellent as the terrifyingly racist old man, bringing a powerful tension into the film every time he walks into a room.

    Overall, then, it's pretty clear that Mudbound isn't a resoundingly successful movie. At times an interesting insight into racism and injustice in the Deep South in the 40s, at others a tedious slog of randomly muddled drama and characters, and at others an astonishingly powerful, hard-hitting and truly memorable (dare I say it, even Oscar- worthy) drama, it's a very inconsistent and overall frustrating film. However, with its strong performances all the way through and exceptional drama at points, it is a memorable watch.
  • riorita-638793 November 2017
    One of the Best of This Year
    Wasn't going to go to this, but so very glad I did. Netflix has made a film worthy of the highest praise. If the book is better than this movie, this is a book for your library. The entire screening audience became engrossed in this movie, so quiet you could hear a pin drop on the carpet. The story unfolds necessarily slow and snares you. The narrations by different characters at different times, helps to pull the viewer in lightly forcing a personal touch to each story. The different perspectives of the storytellers is blatantly obvious while the movie spares little in realistic actions that make the viewer cringe at times, laugh at times and cry at times. it doesn't hold back The acting is top notch, even though I had only heard of a hand full of these players, one not even being an actor. The cinematography is up there, crisp and a great player in the mood of this movie. It had educational moments too, while not being preachy, it just shows and tells where we have been. It is also a movie for our times. People from the screening audience are still taking about this move 4 days later. An Oscar contender this should be.
  • PotassiumMan26 November 2017
    Slog through this mud only if you have to
    Warning: Spoilers
    I can best describe this Netflix film as highly uneven and frustrating to watch. Know this, you will feel the running time here because the film often loses its narrative grip and takes a while to get going again. Although handsomely shot, well-acted and possessing a powerful story at its core, this work nevertheless is too bloated and at times too aimless to leave a lasting impression. I've already forgotten the several stretches here in which seemingly nothing happened.

    A melodrama about a white family and a black family on a Mississippi farm before, during and after the Second World War is a well-intended premise, but this film definitely could have used more editing. The characters are introduced quite well and there are some genuinely well-executed scenes, especially the heart-wrenching climax. But getting there takes so long and during these intervals I was wondering what the whole point of it was. Another sign that the story was not told very well: I actually forgot that the farm was struggling until one of the characters mentioned it. An important plot thread like that wound up feeling more like a footnote.

    Some of the performances, although high quality, are wasted. Carey Mulligan is the best example of this. She starts out as a relatively central protagonist before fading into the background. In the end, she's an ill-defined character. Jason Clarke starts out strong, but he's also something of an afterthought by the end. On the plus side, Garrett Hedlund and Jason Mitchell play well off each other as two war veterans who come to grips with the institutional racism of 1940s Mississippi and who both realize that life was, in some ways, better in the military. Jonathan Banks gives a committed performance as the aging grandfather who deplores any indication of social change.

    But despite the strong performances, this is a film I would only remember as one that took long to get through. To put it bluntly, I was snookered by the reviews. They praised this film as brilliant and I bought it, hook, line and sinker. Regrettably, I cannot recommend this film because then I would be joining them in that lie.
  • Richard Burin9 October 2017
    A flat, self-important movie. I'm baffled by the critical bouquets.
    Ronsel quick-drying mud stain: it does exactly what it says on the tin – attempts to create a weighty, socially-conscious art movie from Hillary Jordan's plotty, slightly trashy but well-meaning page- turner.

    Dee Rees's film spends more time in battle, fleshes out the Ronsel- Jamie relationship, and dwells on the minutiae of African-American life in the Deep South, but in a choppily uninvolving way, and at the expense of Laura's intriguing story of love, repression, sexual and racial guilt.

    Critically, it never summons the book's sense of inexorable, fatalistic dread, nor knows what to do as it reaches its climax, which is first silly, then rushed and finally pointlessly and unconvincingly rose-tinted.

    Mudbound has a few painterly images, good performances from Jason Mitchell and Carey Mulligan (who has one fantastic scene largely disconnected from the narrative and the worst pregnancy prop in decades) and an unvarnished understanding of the unglamorous, subservient pragmatism needed to survive as a black man in '40s Mississippi, but it isn't very compelling or convincing.

    I say this as a middle-class white bloke, but... what promised to be a timely exploration of the African-American experience from an urgent and valuable contemporary voice is instead just a standard book adaptation: a mediocre melodrama that deals with big themes in a handsome but hackneyed way. Plus lots of Mary J. Blige staring out of windows.
  • ArthurMausser15 September 2017
    This FIlm is engrossing, endearing, enveloping, and enthralling...
    I WikiFLix Sneakpeaked this one. The acting is superb. The Cinematography is crisp, gritty and very believable. It is refreshing to have a movie entertain you WITHOUT over the top action & coffee shop contrived dialogue. The story line unfolds in a way that keeps you captivated with nostalgia and wonder of what will happen next. This will definitely be nominated for an Oscar. It could be the first Best Picture win for Netflix! Garrett Hedlund & Dee Rees will have a great chance of winning awards as well. I would like to go into further detail about the movie but will refrain from spoiling anything. All I can say is that this 20th Century drama captures the normal events in the Deep South to perfection. You are going to want to have food & drink near you couch to avoid having to hit the pause button...
  • katish721 November 2017
    Unfocused and because of it clichéd, lost an opportunity to be better
    Gave it a 6 because it's very unfocused. I wonder if it's the fault of the screenplay or is the original book is that way too. It felt like big pieces were missing from the story or rather not needed there. By the end of the movie you realize that Carey Malligan's character wasn't really crucial to the main racism theme and two main characters involved in it, so it makes you wonder why the first part of the film actually focuses on her so much. It will be funny is she's nominated for this absolutely unnecessary role. I was more interested to find out more about 2 main characters, but because of the lack of the focus they both came up as cliché as well.
  • David Ferguson9 November 2017
    hatred is not new
    Greetings again from the darkness. The Jim Crow South and WWII have each spawned many movies, and both play a crucial role in director Dee Rees' (BESSIE) adaptation (co-written with Virgil Williams) of Hillary Jordan's 2008 novel. It's the story of two families, the Jacksons and the McAllans, striving for daily survival in rural Mississippi during the 1940's.

    The Jacksons are a black family tenant-farming on land owned by the white McAllans who transplanted from Memphis. This land is so remote and life so hard, that tractors are almost non-existent and mules are rare enough. There is such a bleakness to this existence that all seem oblivious to the always present mudhole leading to the front door of their shack. Elation comes in the form of a privacy wall constructed around the outdoor family shower, or the sweetness of a bar of chocolate. Soon after D-Day, Florence and Hap Jackson send their son Ronsel off to war. The same thing is happening across the 200 acre farm to Jamie McAllan, brother of Henry and son of Pappy.

    A shifting of multiple narrators throughout allows us access to the perspectives of multiple characters. We get both black and white views on war and farming. Days in war bring injury, death and dirt … not so dissimilar to life on a Mississippi farm. When Ronsel and Jamie return from war, they are both suffering. Ronsel can't come to grips with how he was treated as a redeemer in Europe, but just another 'black man' being targeted by the KKK at home, while Jamie is shell-shocked into alcoholism and an inability to function in society. The parallels between the war experience of Ronsel and Jamie lead them to a friendship that ultimately can't be good for either.

    Jason Clarke plays Henry and Carey Mulligan, his wife Laura. Jonathan Banks ("Breaking Bad", "Better Call Saul") is the ultimate nasty racist Pappy, while Garrett Hedlund is Jamie. Rob Morgan and Mary J Blige are Hap and Florence Jackson, and Jason Mitchell (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) is Ronsel. While all perform well, it's Mitchell and Hedlund who are particular standouts, as is a radio reference of the great Lou Boudreau. Rachel Morrison's cinematography is terrific and captures both the hardscrabble life of Mississippi, but also the frantic and tragic abruptness of war (in just a couple of scenes).

    Racism is always difficult to watch, and in that era, everyone had their place/plight in life. It was a structure built to ensure misery for most, and one guaranteed to collapse. The acting here is very strong and the film is well made. The story-telling is consistently disquieting and periodically unbearable. Still, we are all tired (or should be) of hatred. The somewhat hopeful ending caused an audible sigh of relief from an audience of viewers who had been angry and clinched for more than two hours. And though there is no joy in Mudville, we remain hopeful, even today.
  • ricovegas29 November 2017
    Dark movie...literally
    Much of this movie (like so many recent movies) was filmed in natural light which for me basically ruined the viewing experience. From the opening scene on, I had a lot of problems trying to figure out who was who and what was happening. At some point, I couldn't tell who had died in the war and who had survived. While the story line and the acting were excellent, the directing (or perhaps the editing) also left a lot to be desired. Many scenes were rambling and seemed to serve little if no purpose. My guess is that the story was too thin to carry an entire movie so filler had to be added. If the director was trying to create the ambiance of a slow, southern lifestyle indicative of the era, then kudos, otherwise, they failed to keep the narrative moving at an appropriate pace. Since there were so may compelling issues addressed and the movie's heart was in the right place, I really wanted to like this movie a great deal more than I actually did.
  • Samiam319 November 2017
    About as good as it can be (with such a derivative script)
    Mudbound stands as tall as it can, on its conviction and the quality of the performances, but its feet are sinking into the ground under the weight of too many clichés. The material is too familiar; kindness overwhelming racial tension, disgruntling aftermath of war and family feuding tied to a fallen American dream. It is heavily saturated in themes that are as rich as they are unoriginal, and the script is comprised of recycled lines like "At least I looked 'em in the eye when I killed 'em" and "You're not a big war hero, you're a drunk."

    But the movie still gets by. It's a smoothly interwoven soap opera about two families the McAllens (white) and the Jackson's (Black) living on the same piece of Mississippi farmland, both with a son who has gone (and come back from) the war. The sons become friends. Together they wallow in self pity, but deep down they have a yearning to be back there, where they feel they belong, where they are seen as heroes, and where colour matters not.

    The early scenes in the movie are cut fairly short to accommodate the exposition of an ensemble cast As a result, the opening act feels a bit rushed, but it succeeds in setting up a realized and sympathetic environment.

    In so far as the movie has any breakthroughs, it showcases rising star Garrett Hedlund in best acting to date. He sports a Glarke Gable moustache that is so sexy its almost distracting in a film where everyone is covered in dirt. but the mud is the real star of the movie. It brings a reality to an otherwise dreamy landscape of warm sunsets and endless fields of green.
  • barrylyman19 November 2017
    I can't remember the last time I watched a film that was so touching. Especially set more than a half century ago, The acting is exceptionally great. The narrative is as smooth as molasses. But what really caught in my soul was that some of these racial prejudices still exist.

    I was fortunate to have grown up in Canada in the 1950s. My Dad started his dental practice with a Japanese partner. Most of his patients were Native or Metis, who would, often as nought, pay him with chickens or a side of venison.

    As I said, this story was relaetable to me, not because I share the centuries of oppression suffered by many many millions of African Americans, But because I am a Jew. And in the decade that came after WWII, was, practically, in a small town.

    There is hate out there always THOSE WHO HATE ARE INSECURE.

    In my opinion, this film is so important to where we were and where we've arrived, that it should have been given wider distribution beyond Netflix/s web. This story and its' storytellers should have been picked-up by a major studio.

    Still, well done to all the tellers and actors - You have made my month! (maybe my year) I'd bet you'll never be the same for having the chance to perform these roles.

  • drednm25 November 2017
    Dreary Beyond Belief
    MUDBOUND lives up to its name and is thereby a likely Oscar winner in the upcoming awards. Dreary and overly long by 30 minutes, this one details the story two WW II vets (one white, one black) who return to their mud farms in Mississippi only to find that while they fought for democracy nothing in the "ol' south" has changed at all. Racism and poverty and ignorance are still the hallmarks of the region and the vets cannot adapt. This one seems to be on the awards short list in several categories. After MOONLIGHT ridiculously won big last year, anything is possible. The actors are all OK but are nothing special. Carey Mulligan, Garrett Hedlund, Mary Blige, Jason Clarke, Jason Mitchell. Probably very exciting for those fascinated by watching mud.
  • paulmcuomo22 November 2017
    Yes, I'm going to be that guy. Sorry
    Warning: Spoilers
    I've seen a lot of reviews of this movie, and all of them have been climbing over one another to say how much they love this film. It's pretty much been a case of this movie is the sole contender for bet picture this year. So, it is some shame that I come here and say that after watching it right now, it is a bit over-hyped. Obviously just my opinion.

    Firstly, I want to mention the things I wasn't too keen on. The biggest one - BY FAR - is the fact that there are so many narrative voices, and the narration is so frequent and so invasive that it started to grate on my nerves a lot. It also doesn't help that the narration contains very anecdotal stories that don't serve too much of the plot, and is a case of "show don't tell" being ignored. There is a large portion of the film when the narration goes away, and I was happy, and then it came back and I was just annoyed all over again. The more constructive problem is that this constant infighting of narrative voice keeps the film from having a clear Protagonist, and so for the first hour and a bit before the focus moves to Jamie and Ronsel, you feel very pulled in all directions, and very disengaged sometimes.

    Secondly, something that I will admit is both a blessing and a curse is that director Dee Rees has a very realistic style of directing in terms of the world's physics around it, so the light is all natural within scenes ala The Revenant so to speak. The drawback to a lot of this is that there are scenes shot at night that are so lowly lit that you can't see a f***ing thing that's going on. There's one scene this works fantastically, which is one of the best shots of the year, but aside from that, it's really hard. There's also some slight jarring from the film's score which is mostly absent and then comes in like a wrecking ball, and it's really abrupt and kind of kills the mood.

    Thirdly, somewhat less importantly, is that the film has a very vague sense of time passing, to the point where I can only tell that 9 months has passed because someone has been born, but there's nothing else to indicate that in relation to everything else.

    Lastly, whilst a lot of the cast do more than pull their weight, there are also some players that don't. Particularly, Carey Mulligan and Jason Clarke continue a trend with their work, which is that when they are not being passionate about the role, they kind of sleep it through. This is common with Mulligan, who will give performances like An Education, Suffragette, Shame and Drive, but then in a large amount of other roles, be bland as hell. Jason Clarke likewise, will be a charismatic confident leader in things like Lawless, Zero Dark Thirty and Everest, but then will do this when he is largely distant.

    And now, this is when I point out that I do like this film, a lot. It is a long movie, but I did keep going with the elements I didn't like to see where they led, and they led to a fantastic final 45 minutes. Everything has led up to this point, and this culminates in one of the most uplifting final shots of a movie this year, and a haunting scene involving the KKK and a trio of amazing actors. This scene, led by Garrett Hedlund, Jonathan Banks and Jason Mitchell give it their all in a scene that reminded me a lot of the 12 Years a Slave soap scene. Mary J. Blige is also fantastic as well, and those 4 really hold the cast together, moreso with Jason Mitchell who is one of the most exciting new actors around, and who in this movie really makes a statement for Best Supporting Actor. So do Hedlund and Banks, but Mitchell is amazing.

    So I don't regret watching this movie; just don't like it as much as others do, but I am very happy I saw it.
  • gemmaphant12 January 2018
    Kept on waiting for something to happen, like a real big finish, but, real let down. Seen better direction in similar movies.
  • bsanguin-148-1062611 May 2017
    The story follows two men who return home from WWII to Mississippi
    The story follows two men who return home from WWII to Mississippi and each has a difficult time adjusting to post-war life and dealing with the racism that is unavoidable in their hometown. Garrett Hedlund and Jason Mitchell are the two war vets, and the cast is rounded out by Jason Clarke, Mary J. Blige and Carey Mulligan. The direction is confident from young African-American woman named Dee Rees. The film was also shot and edited by women, Rachel Morrison and Mako Kamitsura respectively. The story is strong, base on a book by Hillary Jordan, and the film looks gorgeous. The performances are all strong and I expect this film will be a contender at next year's Oscars. Highly recommended.
  • adonis98-743-18650325 January 2018
    A Film about racism? i didn't see that coming..
    Two men return home from World War II to work on a farm in rural Mississippi, where they struggle to deal with racism and adjusting to life after war. This film i believe is the 5th or 10th film made about slaves and black people and even tho there's some good out there like Django, Birth of a Nation and Free State of Jones this ain't one of them and first of all who thought that Garrett Hedlund was a good idea to star in this film? He wasn't good in 'On the Road' and he ain't here either especially his accent. The film is also boring and it's clearly made for Oscars and to showcase once again racism and hate against black people which if there is today it's because of movies like this. The overall dramatic structure of the movie is also boring and the running time isn't helping either since about 30 to 40 mins could have been cut out easily. The only good perfomance from the entire film is Jason Clarke (Terminator Genisys) and that's it and believe me even if you choose to skip this movie? you're not missing anything. (4/10)
  • kevinlwalker18 November 2017
    One of The Best Movies This Year -- Raw, Real, Emotionally Captivating
    This is by far one of the best movies i've seen this year, and in my opinion will stand to be one of the best period pieces ever created.

    Two different families living in the same environment, but in different worlds at the same time. The performances were real and grounded, which created some memorable moments on camera. This film doesn't a very good job of displaying the natural love one human can have for another, regardless of their racial background, that racism is a learned trait.

    The films also highlights the lasting effects of war (PTSD,...).

    Outstanding film!
  • cmorton-9992129 December 2017
    Fighting racism with racism
    Warning: Spoilers
    Hold a mirror up to Mudbound, and it's true nature would be perfectly apparent. Were the rolls reversed, with a noble, faultless, long suffering white family forced to live in a world of evil racist, heartless, alcoholic, self-centered, black adulterers - this movie would be seen for what it really is. Racist. But isn't that exactly what this movie is against? Supposedly. But is fighting racism with racism ever acceptable? Apparently, if the reviews here are any indication.

    Stereotypes abound in this good vs. evil tale. A black family of hard-working sharecroppers are caught up in the economic oppression, and overt racism of a post-war Mississippi Delta community. But they harbor a quiet goodness and nobility, supported by their religious faith and love of family, that allows them to navigate through a world populated by callous, and often downright evil, whites. Every white American character (with the singular exception of a female shop owner, who only has two lines) is held up as flawed. While the black family's only fault is tolerating, and having anything to do with those evil whites. But they must, because they are firmly under the heartless thumb of the man. Is it any wonder, then, that the black children pretend shooting whites, or that the main black character observes that the main white character (a PTSD driven alcoholic) is "one of the good ones". How charitable. Like the Nazis remarking on the occasional "good Jew". Amazingly, the pretend shooting and "good one" remark are presented without a hint of condemnation. After all, this movie is about fighting white racism. So black racism is totally understandable.
  • Martin Randall20 November 2017
    Depressingly Depressing
    Warning: Spoilers
    I am not a fan of films that are much longer than they need to be to tell their story. Mudbound falls into that category. Forty four minutes of the run time of 134 could have easily been edited away, coming in at a trim hour and a half. The extra time is filled with pointless, overly long scenes that do nothing to move things along.

    Aside from the length, this film has a few other problems although it basically tells its story well, if a bit simplistically. The motivation of Henry McAllen to uproot his family from their comfy upper middle class life in Memphis to live in squalor on a failing farm in rural Mississippi is never explained.

    The main characters are drawn very broadly without much backstory, except the McAllen boys. Too much of the film, especially the first third, is taken up but by pointless scenes of the boys living the very white lifestyle of the Old South Gentry. Once the story gets moving, after the McAllens move to the farm, everyone is a stereotype.

    Hap and Florence Jackson have zero character development. They are merely the hard working, oppressed but optimistic black folks who meekly accept their fate. Pappy McAllen is the hateful old bigot who irrationally hates African-Americans to the point of joining the local KKK chapter. Jamie McAllen is the spoiled frat boy who never outgrew his binge drinking and irresponsible ways. Laura McAllen is the long suffering wife who should take her kids and move back to civilization but doesn't. She too, meekly accepts her fate.

    Having said that, the film does score on a few levels. It is important that movies like these are made to remind us of the hideous racism that was the norm just two generations back. Institutionalized racism still exists in this country to be sure but not to the extent that a war hero in uniform is targeted by the Klan for trying to use the front door of a store.

    Mudbound is relentlessly bleak and depressing. The only time I smiled was when the old bastard Pappy was smothered in his sleep by his much maligned youngest son. It is still worth watching for both the reminder of the way things were, and for the very good performances by the entire cast.
  • Gordon-118 February 2018
    Not really as good as I though it would be
    This film tells the story of two men who return to a Mississippi after fighting in the Second World War.

    The story explores racial and gender inequalities, but it does so in a rather dull and flat manner. There is little to engage me. Granted that Ronsel's experiences in his home town are horrible, and the privileged people's behaviour are unacceptable nowadays. However, events do not drive the subsequent events. In addition, there is little that really affects the viewers until the very last scenes. The story has little happening, and then in the last ten minutes extreme stuff happens. There is little build up, and the dramatic ending becomes unconvincing. It is not really as good as I though it would be
  • jchano12329 January 2018
    Boring and doesn't offer anything new.
    Boring, melodramatic, slow, and way too long. Some parts of this felt like splitting hairs, I swear. The characters were very bland, and because of this, I found myself not caring for most of them. The redeeming quality in terms of acting was definitely Blige. She was easily the best part of this. This really didn't offer anything new. It did have its moments, but honestly not that many. Even then, these few parts I feel like I had already seen in similar movies. Also, the visual design made it feel more like a Civil war 1800s era instead of the mid 1940s. Wasn't convinced.
  • ablack9019 November 2017
    An Important Film Even if Executed a little too slowly for me
    I felt the film dragged in the first hour, but once the two boys came back from WWII, one from a white family and the other from a black family, the story was rolling. Very sick how young men who served in the war had to return to disgusting racism. A whole new fresh horror awaited them. After the ending, I felt I needed to watch Mississippi Burning just to get a feeling of justice. What a lawless hole the south was. After seeing all the black children murdered in recent years, Roy Moore's base comments in Alabama, and juvenile actions of Trump, I ask myself where is the leadership in America to finally address the over incarceration of black men, lax gun laws, police brutality, white privilege in the justice system, etc??

    This film did not leave me with a sense of hope. After WWII, many black men moved to Europe where they were treated as equals. I realize the Mudbound story takes place in 1940s but do people actually think America is the land of the free today? I don't think so. And seeing Americans vote someone like Trump into power only makes those of us on the outside wonder ... what is the fate of this country? .
An error has occured. Please try again.