Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Christmas baumer said:

 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

I think that's literally the point and the venting frustration of the whole movie.  It's not endorsing the violence, but it's showcasing it, as a mirror to our own society.  Some of the actions taken in the film seem absolutely ridiculous, yet it's a reflection of the state (American) society is in right now.  There's violence with no repercussions (hell Dixon got it worse than 95% of officers that commit crimes, he at least lost his job), that you can have a video tape of a crime and of a person like Trump admit to their sexual assault and the abuser still gets to walk away free, there's rampant sexual abuse by older men in power that everybody turns a blind eye too, and the psycopathic murderers and rapists are allowed to walk from our justice system (meanwhile we keep making arrests of minorities in possession of weed).  The film is saying you can place three large billboards to protest a problem, and people will simply cry that the billboards are a mean form of protesting and ignore the actual problem the billboards are trying to address.

 

I personally saw a lot of truth in the ridiculousness of some of the scenes, especially when you stop and reflect that they may not be that ridiculous after all.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by The Panda

[baumer]

3 hours ago, The Panda said:

I think that's literally the point and the venting frustration of the whole movie.  It's not endorsing the violence, but it's showcasing it, as a mirror to our own society.  Some of the actions taken in the film seem absolutely ridiculous, yet it's a reflection of the state (American) society is in right now.  There's violence with no repercussions (hell Dixon got it worse than 95% of officers that commit crimes, he at least lost his job), that you can have a video tape of a crime and of a person like Trump admit to their sexual assault and the abuser still gets to walk away free, there's rampant sexual abuse by older men in power that everybody turns a blind eye too, and the psycopathic murderers and rapists are allowed to walk from our justice system (meanwhile we keep making arrests of minorities in possession of weed).  The film is saying you can place three large billboards to protest a problem, and people will simply cry that the billboards are a mean form of protesting and ignore the actual problem the billboards are trying to address.

 

I personally saw a lot of truth in the ridiculousness of some of the scenes, especially when you stop and reflect that they may not be that ridiculous after all.

 

 

 

You make some really good points and to be honest with you, I started to wonder if there was something deeper in the film because they lack of consequence was so obvious.  Perhaps they were making a point of the lack of responsibility but it just seemed so ridiculous.  I couldn't get past it.  I didn't like that there was no resolution to the daughter's killer either.  I guess I just like my films to be a bit more tidy.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

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  

 

Sorry, I don't know what point you are trying to make.  The 19 year old was dating a 50 year old man. 

[The Panda]

2 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

You make some really good points and to be honest with you, I started to wonder if there was something deeper in the film because they lack of consequence was so obvious.  Perhaps they were making a point of the lack of responsibility but it just seemed so ridiculous.  I couldn't get past it.  I didn't like that there was no resolution to the daughter's killer either.  I guess I just like my films to be a bit more tidy.

The complaints make sense, but I do think your complaints were the points McDonagh was trying to get across.  That there's no justice in society and there's no accountability in society.

 

I can definitely see how it's themes will resonate this awards season, it screams everything going on in American society right now.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, The Panda said:

The complaints make sense, but I do think your complaints were the points McDonagh was trying to get across.  That there's no justice in society and there's no accountability in society.

 

I can definitely see how it's themes will resonate this awards season, it screams everything going on in American society right now.

 

I don't agree that there is no accountability in society.  I think there is no accountability when it comes to police violence.  I agree (obviously) that police violence, especially towards black people, is out of control.  So if that is the point they were trying to make in the film, they did it well.  

[The Panda]

2 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

I don't agree that there is no accountability in society.  I think there is no accountability when it comes to police violence.  I agree (obviously) that police violence, especially towards black people, is out of control.  So if that is the point they were trying to make in the film, they did it well.  

 

I think partially that was the point, but the other half was definitely about the sexual abuse and rape cases (obviously the film was prior to Weinstein) where the abuser gets away (or off easy) with their crime.

[baumer]

For all of my complaints, I still really enjoyed it.  

[WrathOfHan]

30 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

Sorry, I don't know what point you are trying to make.  The 19 year old was dating a 50 year old man. 

You were saying it's weird that Abbie Cornish and Woody Harrelson have a 20 year age gap but the movie treats it fine compared to the 50 vs 19 gap; they're two entirely different gaps  

[baumer]

3 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

You were saying it's weird that Abbie Cornish and Woody Harrelson have a 20 year age gap but the movie treats it fine compared to the 50 vs 19 gap; they're two entirely different gaps  

 

But my point is there was a gap and it just felt like this is something else the writers were making a point of.  

[WrathOfHan]

2 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

But my point is there was a gap and it just felt like this is something else the writers were making a point of.  

Not really? Woody Harrelson can still pass for someone in his 40s, and I didn't really Abbie Cornish was his wife until her last scene with Frances McDormand  

[filmlover]

This was great. It's both hilarious and deeply moving, and very much timely. At times it actually felt like a play; I can see the writing being just as effective on the stage. Frances McDormand is excellent in her best role in years with a brutally hilarious performance (some of her lines are gifs waiting to happen), but she's also quite heartbreaking when the material calls for it (I think the scene with the deer near the billboards is gonna go down as one of her best acting moments). Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson are both excellent too in tricky roles. A

[AniNate]

I really liked this. Will say, though, that using classical/operatic music as a ironic motif is no longer original.

[RichWS]

I wanted to hide under my seat when John Hawkes' girlfriend enters the house and her shtick BOMBS. Not a single laugh in the audience. Excruciating. In fact, that entire scene was baffling. 

 

Also, Mac's mom.

Edited December 8, 2017 by RichWS

[GroceryGuru]

I liked this film. My mom did too. Every character has time on screen and we get to see each of them develop into someone better. The pace is slow but warm and the course the story takes will keep making unexpected turns. The cast are award contenders. I highly recommend this to anyone who wants to leave the theater with something to talk about with their partner, so don't see this alone. 

[Fancyarcher]

My review of Three Billboards.

 

https://dailyuv.com/feed/935301?location=norwich-vt&radius=myStuff

[somebody85]

If I had one word to describe this film it would be inconsistent.

Tonally it could never decide what it wanted to be. I was expecting something closer to Hell Or High Water or even I, Tonya but this felt a lot more cartoonish. And none of the emotional moments really landed for me because the film couldn't decide whether to take this horrible event seriously or lead to another comedic scene with (Dixon) Sam Rockwell and the inept police department.

I also didn't like Mildred. I didn't really like anyone in this (outside of Willoughby and the 19 year old) despite the acting being solid all around. I don't know why Willoughby was married to a british woman and man the language felt so forced during that fishing scene with his children. Anne was sort of just there during multiple scenes and Dixons mom constantly reminded me of Napolean Dynamite, which made me take this film even less seriously.

I also think it fell apart in the second half.

And finally the ending. I knew that was coming. Mildred and Dixon are driving past the billboards behind them and I thought to myself "Watch it end right here" and then it kept going for a few more minutes and I was like "Huh? So it's not going to be completely unsatisfyin...." - *credits*.

Sorry I don't get the hype for this one and I was really looking forward to it after hearing all the praise. I think I saw one trailer in front of Logan Lucky and couldn't remember any of it while watching this...so basically went in cold like a lot of movies.

It's a well made film but that's it. Best of the year? Definitely not.

B

Edited December 30, 2017 by somebody85

[somebody85]

On 11/25/2017 at 9:59 PM, The Last Panda said:

I think that's literally the point and the venting frustration of the whole movie.  It's not endorsing the violence, but it's showcasing it, as a mirror to our own society.  Some of the actions taken in the film seem absolutely ridiculous, yet it's a reflection of the state (American) society is in right now.  There's violence with no repercussions (hell Dixon got it worse than 95% of officers that commit crimes, he at least lost his job), that you can have a video tape of a crime and of a person like Trump admit to their sexual assault and the abuser still gets to walk away free, there's rampant sexual abuse by older men in power that everybody turns a blind eye too, and the psycopathic murderers and rapists are allowed to walk from our justice system (meanwhile we keep making arrests of minorities in possession of weed).  The film is saying you can place three large billboards to protest a problem, and people will simply cry that the billboards are a mean form of protesting and ignore the actual problem the billboards are trying to address.

 

I personally saw a lot of truth in the ridiculousness of some of the scenes, especially when you stop and reflect that they may not be that ridiculous after all.

 

 

Sorry, if that's what it was aiming for, it didn't earn this at all with me. If it had stuck to one tone maybe but it didn't. Some times it wanted you to see this all in a realistic manner and other times, it turns into a near cartoon.

It's like getting whiplash going from Mildreds conversation with the priest to the antics of the dumb ass police department or Wickson having another conversation with his mom.

A lot of films have juggled this tone between serious and dark comedy a lot better than this did.

And people didn't ignore what the billboards said. One person anonymously pays to keep them up before Willoughby pays for another month.

[somebody85]

On 12/7/2017 at 10:21 PM, RichWS said:

Also, Mac's mom.

That's who it was outside of Napolean Dynamite! God so distracting. She is more at home in an Adam Sandler style movie or something like Logan Lucky.

[Avatree]

Loved it, not gonna write up much but I thought nearly everything was terrific. Frances McDormand was every bit as good as I had heard, but Sam Rockwell just stunned me. I'm a big fan of his but it still surprised me, he is just fantastic.

 

My only niggle is, why was the "rapist" in the shop taunting Mildred and then in the bar bragging if he didn't do it? What is the point of that? just confused me.

 

I feel I would have preferred for the movie to end in the bar, as the Sheriff wrote to Mildred "maybe some guy overhears another guy in a bar one night bragging about it"

 

I mean I love the fact that they go out to kill someone they think deserves it anyway, knowing it isn't the killer - that works really well. But I don't see why that guy had to show up and confront mildred if he had nothing to do with it. 

Also I just looked on a map, and Idaho is nowhere near Missouri, why the smeg would he be in Ebbing? rules out the idea of him being a disgruntled local / friend of Willoughby.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Tree Billboards

[Cap]

I don’t know what I hated more: the movie, or my male friend mansplaining to me that my mortality was blinding me from seeing its True Art on the way home from the theater.

 

This just exhausted me. I found it vile; everything was about was so racist and homophobic. Denise’s storyline was terrible.  It’s 2018; stop using PoC characters suffering to advance White Character Growth.  The flashback between Francis and the daughter was so troubling. That line about “I hope you get raped too” was just too much.

 

My other issue: I could absolutely NOT get past the suspension of disbelief that Rockwell and Francis’ characters wouldn’t have been arrested or in jail half way through the film. Really? He can assault someone and throw him out the window, and no one presses charges?  She assaults two students and, really, their parents didn’t lose their mind and report that? Don’t believe it for a second. 

 

We only went because it’s one of the last needed to check off for Award Season Watch. I thought Francis was serviceable but flat. I can’t believe Robbie has been losing to her all season. Insane. 

 

F