"Mudbound" clearly aspires to be a cross of "Days of Heaven" and "Sounder" with a TV movie of a woman who has to endure harsh conditions in a historical setting. It has very little new to say or show. It goes through the motions, showing us a montage of clichéd scenes during the first half, as it goes between different characters and plot lines. Fortunately it is edited at a quick pace, and the characters are engaging enough, that it is watchable.
Then by 1 hr 10 minutes it feels like the writers or director realized that it would be best to settle on the two most interesting characters, and progressively ditches all of the rest (and their story lines), to focus on them. There we get a buddy movie of two WW2 veterans who bond together as they struggle in life after war: one dealing with PTSD with alcohol, and the other dealing with racism at home after fighting the Nazis and leaving a romance behind. This is a better, more satisfying, fresher tale, and engages more.
As much as I enjoyed watching Ronsell and Jamie's story, it all feels odd when the movie ends, as I wondered why I had to watch the first half of the movie. One family's tale has a conclusion, but I felt disconnected as the plot was so removed from them by then. The other family's tale is left not so much unresolved as flat out abandoned, despite their characters being the ones who started the story and dominate the first half of the movie. And the next-to-last scene has notable continuity errors with the opening scene, which depict the same event.
An aside note on the cinematography: I don't understand the accolades. There is one impressive shot of field workers at sunrise, and about two other pleasant but easy shots of sunsets. The rest is quite standard, using the same lighting and filters that are used in most historical dramas nowadays, being especially similar to that of "12 Years a Slave". Unfortunately, in an effort to be Mallick-like, the camera is quite often hand-held and moving around, but unlike Mallick, with no apparent reason, perspective, or art. Instead it at times feels jerkier than "The Blair Witch Project".
Then by 1 hr 10 minutes it feels like the writers or director realized that it would be best to settle on the two most interesting characters, and progressively ditches all of the rest (and their story lines), to focus on them. There we get a buddy movie of two WW2 veterans who bond together as they struggle in life after war: one dealing with PTSD with alcohol, and the other dealing with racism at home after fighting the Nazis and leaving a romance behind. This is a better, more satisfying, fresher tale, and engages more.
As much as I enjoyed watching Ronsell and Jamie's story, it all feels odd when the movie ends, as I wondered why I had to watch the first half of the movie. One family's tale has a conclusion, but I felt disconnected as the plot was so removed from them by then. The other family's tale is left not so much unresolved as flat out abandoned, despite their characters being the ones who started the story and dominate the first half of the movie. And the next-to-last scene has notable continuity errors with the opening scene, which depict the same event.
An aside note on the cinematography: I don't understand the accolades. There is one impressive shot of field workers at sunrise, and about two other pleasant but easy shots of sunsets. The rest is quite standard, using the same lighting and filters that are used in most historical dramas nowadays, being especially similar to that of "12 Years a Slave". Unfortunately, in an effort to be Mallick-like, the camera is quite often hand-held and moving around, but unlike Mallick, with no apparent reason, perspective, or art. Instead it at times feels jerkier than "The Blair Witch Project".