Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

[baumer]

Discuss

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Loved it. Dark and funny. Great character developed and acting.  

A-  

[rockNrollaDIM]

Love love loved it. Possibly my favorite of this year.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

34 minutes ago, rockNrollaDIM said:

Love love loved it. Possibly my favorite of this year.

What did you think of the ending? I really enjoyed the ending. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Dexter of Suburbia

[That One Girl]

I love Frances McDormand.

[The Panda]

Three Billboards is dark and humorous look on ideas of mourning, suffering, the justice system and sexual assault.  It's crude but in a way that etches in your memory, and scenes that seem like narrative comments on social issues going on right now.

 

It's a timely piece of art, and despite being labeled as a comedy, it's heavily dramatic in its material.  It shows glimpses of human decency in a society riddled with issues.  McDormand feels like a jaded narrator giving voice to McDonagh's irritation of the state of certain issues in society.

 

The ensemble is impeccable, and McDormand is sensational in this film.  Rockwell also gives a striking performance and a solid character arc.

 

I thought it was an interesting way to end it all, as a way of McDonagh having McDormand and Rockwell take Justice into their own hands as a middle finger jester to what's been done about sexual abuse cases in the country.

 

It's definitely a movie I can see grow on me.  It's shot beautifully, the score is brooding, and there's a powerful voice given through each character.  I need some more time to think on it, but a solid A for now.

Edited November 23, 2017 by The Panda

[RandomCat]

Its hard to put feelings down on this movie. It's great, darkly humorous, and real. I'm not usually one to care if what I'm seeing in film is necessarily realistic, but everything in this movie felt more like an unfolding of real events, and still felt like a complete story.

 

McDormand is perfect. Rockwell is perfect. Harrelson is Harrelson. And Dinklage is an important humanizing part of the film. 

 

The ending is spot on. While I'd love the tight little bow of it all being wrapped up, but here we get character growth and that sense of...future, I guess. It's late my thoughts aren't the best. But this movie is great.

[The Panda]

Speaking of Dinklage, I really hope when GoT wraps up that he can get some more meaty roles in film.  He's honestly one of the best actors in the business, and I'd hate for him to be limited on what roles he can have because of his height.

[RandomCat]

24 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Speaking of Dinklage, I really hope when GoT wraps up that he can get some more meaty roles in film.  He's honestly one of the best actors in the business, and I'd hate for him to be limited on what roles he can have because of his height.

This is true. I'm curious if the role was written for Dinklage in three billboards. Outside of a few comments, nothing about the role has anything to do with his height. 

 

And I loved him in this, just sad there was so little of him.

[The Panda]

14 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

This is true. I'm curious if the role was written for Dinklage in three billboards. Outside of a few comments, nothing about the role has anything to do with his height. 

 

And I loved him in this, just sad there was so little of him.

To be fair, his height was a major aspect of the character.  Dinklage is interested in Mildred pretty much because he's limited in who's interested him in the town.

 

Now the same type of character could have been written for normal height actor with a few alterations.

[RandomCat]

9 hours ago, The Panda said:

To be fair, his height was a major aspect of the character.  Dinklage is interested in Mildred pretty much because he's limited in who's interested him in the town.

 

Now the same type of character could have been written for normal height actor with a few alterations.

That's kind of what I meant. He's an outcast in that small town, and here it's cause of his height. But from what little I know of McDonagh, he likes to write towards actors. 

 

That dinner scene is my second favorite part of the movie, and I'm glad he walked away in the end.

 

And other strong actors that I feel don't get enough, Sam Rockwell. It's kind of amazing that I grew to like him in the end.

[WrathOfHan]

 

Beautiful. An absolute masterpiece of filmmaking. A+ | 10/10

[Cmasterclay]

Didn't really like it. Excellent performances all around - I would be happy with McDormand and Harrelson ,yep, Woody, not Rockwell, though he is fantastic too, winning Oscars. Terrific writing, in some of the most profound scenes of the year - the scene with Harrelson's letter to his wife broke me and my mom into tears, having just lost my dad. But it's just missing something. Not resolution, the ending was fine. I think that the escalating violence in the second half didn't jibe with the rest of the movie for me, you had a guy lit on fire, some brutal beatings, two firebombings, a mother beating up kids at the school, and someone thrown out the window in broad daylight. None of these things ever have any real consequences on the perpetrators, and they're treated like violence in a comedy that just gets shrugged off. It was like Tarantino/Coens level of caper cartoonish violence in a movie that was otherwise a realistic, heartbreaking movie about sexual assault and criminal justice. Just felt off. I'm also torn on Rockwell's redemption arc, frankly. It's well written and everything and Rockwell does great, but I don't know man. I know someone will be in here calling me a libtard SJW or something (hope it makes 100m so lordmandeep can do it!), but, like, this redemption arc isn't something rooted in fiction. People get tortured and beaten and thrown out windows by cops all the time with no reprocussion. Having them do a couple decent things and expect everyone to be like "you're cool," is the exact kind of excuse meant to keep asshole cops hurting people throughout the country. I'm all for redemption arcs of bad guys - Darth Vader blew up a billion people and I was fine with it, and Hannibal Lecter can be redeemed despite all the people he eats. But real life people in the community have had their real lives ruined by people just like Sam Rockwell's character. I'm not sure he deserved a redemption arc, or at least one that easy. But Rockwell handles it well. Anyway, there's my soapbox. Still doesn't excuse the main problem with the movie, which is how the cartoonish violence doesn't match everything else.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Cmasterclay

[WrathOfHan]

2 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

I really, really liked it but something about it didn't quite come together so I loved it, frankly. Fantastic performances all around - I would be happy with McDormand and Harrelson ,yep, Woody, not Rockwell, though he is fantastic too, winning Oscars. Terrific writing, and some of the most profound scenes of the year - the scene with Harrelson's letter to his wife broke me and my mom into tears, having just lost my dad. But it's just missing something to get it into my top three of the year. Not resolution, the ending was fine. I think that the escalating violence in the second half didn't jibe with the rest of the movie for me, you had a guy lit on fire, some brutal beatings, two firebombings, a mother beating up kids at the school, and someone thrown out the window in broad daylight. None of these things ever have any real consequences on the perpetrators, and they're treated like violence in a comedy that just gets shrugged off. It was like Tarantino/Coens level of caper cartoonish violence in a movie that was otherwise a realistic, heartbreaking movie about sexual assault and criminal justice. Just felt off. I'm also torn on Rockwell's redemption arc, frankly. It's well written and everything and Rockwell does great, but I don't know man. I know someone will be in here calling me a libtard SJW or something (hope it makes 100m so lordmandeep can do it!), but, like, this redemption arc isn't something rooted in fiction. People get tortured and beaten and thrown out windows by cops all the time with no reprocussion. Having them do a couple decent things and expect everyone to be like "you're cool," is the exact kind of excuse meant to keep asshole cops hurting people throughout the country. I'm all for redemption arcs of bad guys - Darth Vader blew up a billion people and I was fine with it, and Hannibal Lecter can be redeemed despite all the people he eats. But real life people in the community have had their real lives ruined by people just like Sam Rockwell's character. I'm not sure he deserved a redemption arc, or at least one that easy. But Rockwell handles it well. Anyway, there's my soapbox. Still doesn't excuse the main problem with the movie, which is how the cartoonish violence doesn't match everything else. But that problem doesn't negate what is otherwise a terrific, beautifully acted movie.

I wouldn't really say Rockwell's redemption arc was easy. He's no longer an asshole, but he learned the hard way and isn't getting his job back.

[baumer]

Seeing it today at noon.  Can't wait!  I'll get my thoughts down as soon as i can.  

[Deja23]

Loved this. Fantastic performances and realistic portrayal of life in a small town. I really thought the lack of consequences, as crazy as it seems, was true to life. Got emotional several times. Most surprising thing was coming around to like/feel sorry for Dixon...didn’t expect that but Sam Rockwell was great in this role. My super-critical friend liked it as well, though she didn’t like the open ending. A

[La Binoche]

17 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

I really, really liked it but something about it didn't quite come together so I loved it, frankly. Fantastic performances all around - I would be happy with McDormand and Harrelson ,yep, Woody, not Rockwell, though he is fantastic too, winning Oscars. Terrific writing, and some of the most profound scenes of the year - the scene with Harrelson's letter to his wife broke me and my mom into tears, having just lost my dad. But it's just missing something to get it into my top three of the year. Not resolution, the ending was fine. I think that the escalating violence in the second half didn't jibe with the rest of the movie for me, you had a guy lit on fire, some brutal beatings, two firebombings, a mother beating up kids at the school, and someone thrown out the window in broad daylight. None of these things ever have any real consequences on the perpetrators, and they're treated like violence in a comedy that just gets shrugged off. It was like Tarantino/Coens level of caper cartoonish violence in a movie that was otherwise a realistic, heartbreaking movie about sexual assault and criminal justice. Just felt off. I'm also torn on Rockwell's redemption arc, frankly. It's well written and everything and Rockwell does great, but I don't know man. I know someone will be in here calling me a libtard SJW or something (hope it makes 100m so lordmandeep can do it!), but, like, this redemption arc isn't something rooted in fiction. People get tortured and beaten and thrown out windows by cops all the time with no reprocussion. Having them do a couple decent things and expect everyone to be like "you're cool," is the exact kind of excuse meant to keep asshole cops hurting people throughout the country. I'm all for redemption arcs of bad guys - Darth Vader blew up a billion people and I was fine with it, and Hannibal Lecter can be redeemed despite all the people he eats. But real life people in the community have had their real lives ruined by people just like Sam Rockwell's character. I'm not sure he deserved a redemption arc, or at least one that easy. But Rockwell handles it well. Anyway, there's my soapbox. Still doesn't excuse the main problem with the movie, which is how the cartoonish violence doesn't match everything else. But that problem doesn't negate what is otherwise a terrific, beautifully acted movie.

I agree with everything you said. It's a tonal issue. I give the movie a B. 

[kkccoo]

Watched this tonight with friends. Very powerful movie. Even though main characters all have their issues but you understood them somehow and liked them by the end. A

Edited November 26, 2017 by kkccoo

[baumer]

 I echo the sentiments of both @Cmasterclay and @La Binoche.  For me this was a tale of two movies.  The first half was some of the best stuff I've ever seen.  The writing and the acting and the direction were terrific.  McDormand is outstanding and so Harrelson and Rockwell is also terrific.  The first half of the movie where McDormand gets off so many great one liners and has a litany of hard hitting observations, is pure unadulterated pleasure.  The scene where she rips the priest a new asshole might be my favourite scene of the year.  It's perfect in every way.

 

But then the second half hits us and things aren't all that great in some ways.  The writing gets really sloppy.

 

The biggest WTF moment in the film is when Dixon violently attacks Welby, busts his face with his gun, throws him out of a window and proceeds to kick him while he's down, all in eyes view of the new Chief Abercrombie. Sure, he gets fired. But not arrested? Not even sued?  And there's no mention of it.  He should have been put in jail and probably for a very long time.  There were witnesses and as mentioned, one of them is the new sheriff or chief or whatever he is.  Plus, he through the guy out of a second story window.  And the story just meanders along like none of this matters.

 

Maybe someone who knows American law enforcement better than I do can explain this to me but Abercrombie just shows up the morning after the previous Police Chief died and declares that "they" sent him as a replacement. They who? Is there some force outside of Ebbing that dictates who their police chief is? That part really didn't make any sense to me. Also, replacing one of the main characters halfway through the film, a character we're starting to get to know, with a stereotype that we don't know anything about, was rather odd.  And he doesn't really do anything.  He doesn't arrest anyone, doesn't do anything about Dixon except to fire him.  There's so much more they could have done with his character, especially since he was black and there was some obvious racism on the police force.

 

There's also a really weird thing in the film about older men and younger women.  Harrelson is 56 and Abbie Cornish is 36.  They are married and have two young girls.  Then McDormand's ex-husband is dating a 19 year old girl.  This also didn't feel like it belonged in the film.  There's enough going on without this kind of distraction.  What would the 19 year old girl find interesting about a 50+ man?  How did Cornish and Harrelson's characters get together when there is such an obvious age gap.  I might be nitpicking here but it really stood out.

 

Also, does this town have no security cameras?  Mildred burns the police station down, throwing 5 Molotov cocktails out of the still broken windows of the advertising agency across the street (not boarded up by then?). And the new Chief just accepts the explanation that she didn't do it because she was with James. No more investigation.  Police station burned but oh well. And then a few scenes later, Dixon is apparently in the suppose to be burned down police station sitting there having a conversation with the new Chief.  Again, I found the writing in this to be really strange at times. 

 

I also didn't care for the ending.  I didn't like how the guy in the bar is the same one who comes into Mildred's shop and basically tells her that he raped and killed her daughter.  Then he shows up at a bar, tells some guy that he set a girl on fire and then raped her and laughs about it.  THEN, after his DNA comes back as negative, the guy is also free to go.  This guy just beat the hell out of Dixon in a bar, breaking his face up, bloodies him up and again, no charges are laid.  It seems like the moral of the film is that violence has no repercussions so you can have at it with anyone.   

 

Having said all that, I enjoyed the film over all because the good stuff is really, really good. I just wish it had been a lot tighter in the second half and perhaps things weren't so unbelievably silly in parts.  

 

I would nominate McDormand and Harrelson but that's where my praise would end.  The writing is not nearly strong enough for it to be considered best screenplay, imo.

 

I did like it over all, but it won't make my top ten of the year.

 

8/10

[WrathOfHan]

1 hour ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

There's also a really weird thing in the film about older men and younger women.  Harrelson is 56 and Abbie Cornish is 36.  They are married and have two young girls.  Then McDormand's ex-husband is dating a 19 year old girl.  This also didn't feel like it belonged in the film.  There's enough going on without this kind of distraction.  What would the 19 year old girl find interesting about a 50+ man?  How did Cornish and Harrelson's characters get together when there is such an obvious age gap.  I might be nitpicking here but it really stood out.

 

There is a GIGANTIC difference in maturity between a 19 year old and a 36 year old. The latter is nearly double the former's age for crying out loud