Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

[worldsgreatestsinner]

Politics aside:
- I wish they didn't do the midget stuff. Why's that in there?

I actually think Dinklage played one of the only sympathetic characters in the film. He's someone who just likes her and he gets to tell her off for treating him a bit shittily. But she doesn't treat him bad because he's a midget just because she's focused so intensely on one thing.

- I thought the characterisation was a bit patchy at times. There were scenes where the characters' behaviours didn't ring true. For example when her ex-husband flips the table and pins her against the wall, the son then to puts a knife to his throat. Then they almost instantly settle back down and resume their frosty conversation. People don't do that.

I thought that actually rang true for these characters. They've obviously been in those kinds of situations so many times they're behaving automatically

- Willoughby's last act is to spend £5k on keeping the billboard up when he's just blown his head off and left his wife and two young kids behind!? Even if he's got life insurance and they'll get his pension and whatever else, it's still £5k and they're got a funeral to pay for.

Yeah, but they obviously have plenty of money. They had a nice house, a couple of horses in private stables, it doesn't seem like they would miss it.

- Why was Woody Harrelson's wife 20 years younger than him?

Don't say that too loudly, it'll turn into the Schweinstein thread.

[RDRR]

- Why was Woody Harrelson's wife 20 years younger than him?

Because he's got a hot cock & a good fuck, dingus.

Knew next to nothing about this going in. Thought it was almost laughably shit, for reasons mostly already outlined. The dialogue (see above) was painful.

No mystery how the author of this first paragraph can have loved it
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/12/three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri-review-frances-mcdormand

[zomgmouse]

Knew next to nothing about this going in. Thought it was almost laughably shit, for reasons mostly already outlined. The dialogue (see above) was painful.

Is this taking into account that the film is at least half comedy? Or did you think the entirety of it was in earnest therefore the bits that were intentionally funny were bad?

[Twit 2]

Well, having copy and pasted other people's reviews for a while, my serious one is that I thought it was really good, great in places. Couple of odd moments in tone and dialogue but overall it's a very successful and well made film. I know it's McDormand's film but Rockwell was brilliant. Mind you, he's brilliant in everything.

One plot point that was interesting was army guy in her gift shop. Are we mean to believe that although he didn't do it, he knows the person who did? Otherwise, why seek her out to begin with? I felt like it was implied that the conversation about raping/burning that Dixon overhears refers to a crime in the Middle East and because what happened to Hayes's daughter is so similar that one of his mates decided to do it back home too. This gives a nice frisson to the unresolved ending because if they do get to the guy and ask questions before shooting they might solve the case.

[RDRR]

Is this taking into account that the film is at least half comedy? Or did you think the entirety of it was in earnest therefore the bits that were intentionally funny were bad?

Yes, no. I actually genuinely have an opinion of the film that's different from yours and it doesn't have to mean I've misunderstood. I realise the 'Oscar Wilde' bit was meant to be funny - I just found it painful.

[zomgmouse]

Yes, no. I actually genuinely have an opinion of the film that's different from yours and it doesn't have to mean I've misunderstood. I realise the 'Oscar Wilde' bit was meant to be funny - I just found it painful.

Fair enough. I've just read reviews of this where people are failing to give the film credit for some level of self-awareness and mistakenly ascribed that to your reaction as well.

[Wet Blanket]

Wasn't convinced by its being tonally all over the place - the Coen Brothers and Quentin Tarantino, who it owes the clearest debts to, tend to merge the horrible and the comic much more elegantly - but I did enjoy it.

Some very cheap shots in terms of characterisation; her ex-husband's shacked up with a 19-year-old, and she's a bimbo, as is Cale Landry Jones' secretary; 'midget' jokes... come on. In all of McDonagh's films I've found his attempts to shock a bit puerile: I felt he was throwing the n-word and the cunt-word around with abandon more to get a rise out of his audience than it being true to the characters involved.

As with others I didn't think Rockwell's character arc was necessarily one of redemption. At best the ending is morally ambiguous, but then there's a very vocal contingent online at the moment with little time for ambiguity.

[Mister Six]

Some very cheap shots in terms of characterisation; her ex-husband's shacked up with a 19-year-old, and she's a bimbo

She's also very sweet, and gets the message of the film long before anyone else... Even if it was on the back of a bookmark.

as is Cale Landry Jones' secretary

Is she? I got the impression that she was just flustered because she has a crush on him.

In any case, the film has a massive cast and pretty much everyone else other than Rockwell is pretty smart to highly intelligent. This feels like splitting hairs.

'midget' jokes... come on.

What midget jokes? The only situation in which I can recall even the possibility of that is when Rockwell was drunk in the bar and in the restaurant. In either case we're not rooting for either of the bullies.

Also Dinklage is a hot property who's pulling in a fortune from GoT. While there aren't tons of roles for short people in Hollywood, I'm confident he's not so desperate for work that he'd take this if he thought it was being disrespectful to people with dwarfism.

[gloria]

I'm a big fan of McDonagh. He writes excellent dialogue and I love the sea-sawing between laughs, shocks and pathos that he deals in. That's a deliberate artistic choice, not a case of him not knowing what he's doing, as some critics are implying. He does, however, enjoy winding people up and the use of the n-word, and the treatment of racial politics generally in the film feel very outdated. Like Jeremy Clarkson (now there's a comparison) he seems to think that the only people who get upset about the use of the n-word are white liberals.

[greenman]

I'v loved all his films thus far but this did definitely feel more mature with a very well judged balance of drama and comedy/character and ended up with a very Coenish result that I don't think suffers in comparison at all.

Didn't really have a problem with Rockwell's character personally, whilst racism is played up as something of a fault to the degree the criticism of him felt legitimate it didn't really feel like the central fault of the character that needed to automatically be addressed in any form of redemption.

[asids]

I thought it was excellent. All the conversations about Rockwell's character and McDormand's character and whether they're supposed to be "good" or "bad" seems simplistic, the whole thing is that the characters are all flawed in their own ways. McDormand is passionate about getting justice for her daughter, but her vigilantism ends up hurting people. Rockwell's character is a racist piece of shit, but becomes slightly less of a piece of shit because of his experiences by the end. Harrelson doesn't do enough, but in his suicide he begins to understand things better.

- I didn't understand why the police didn't just resort to good old fashioned vandalism earlier. I suppose Willoughby is supposed to be above all that. But even so, those billboards could so easily have been sabotaged on the first night they went up with zero prospect of any repercussions for the police. Willoughby even says 'this is war' at one point. Aye, a war you could win with a packet of water balloons and a tin of emulsion.

Because he knows McDormand's character is determined enough that she'd just try to put them up again (like she did when they were set on fire), and he emphasises "civil rights" quite a bit throughout the film - the police vandalising somebody's legal billboards just because he doesn't like them would be against what he stands for (and his character isn't a prick like Rockwell's who would just have an outburst), and I think he believes he can bring McDormand's character around somehow.

Apologies at being terrible at remembering the names of characters in films I've just watched.

[greenman]

I thought it was excellent. All the conversations about Rockwell's character and McDormand's character and whether they're supposed to be "good" or "bad" seems simplistic, the whole thing is that the characters are all flawed in their own ways. McDormand is passionate about getting justice for her daughter, but her vigilantism ends up hurting people. Rockwell's character is a racist piece of shit, but becomes slightly less of a piece of shit because of his experiences by the end. Harrelson doesn't do enough, but in his suicide he begins to understand things better.

Because he knows McDormand's character is determined enough that she'd just try to put them up again (like she did when they were set on fire), and he emphasises "civil rights" quite a bit throughout the film - the police vandalising somebody's legal billboards just because he doesn't like them would be against what he stands for (and his character isn't a prick like Rockwell's who would just have an outburst), and I think he believes he can bring McDormand's character around somehow.

Apologies at being terrible at remembering the names of characters in films I've just watched.

Honestly I'm supprised the former is such an issue on places like CaB that otherwise seem to have no problem with morally ambiguous characters in cinema, maybe the specific politics around Rockwell is a bit harder to look past for some? Honestly I felt it was a film very relevant to its era in deconstructing the partisan politics that seem to be becoming increasingly dominant in much of the media whilst still keeping a generally moral viewpoint.

Indeed, the character(its really not a film you remember names for is it?) is shown as clearly looking to work within the letter if not the spirit of the law otherwise.

[Endicott]

Saw it, loved it and agree with most of the things said already by those defending it.

Regarding Dixon, even though he did good trying to nail the soldier, he is not sympathetic. At no point was I thinking, Yeah Dixon you're an ok guy now. Also it's pretty obvious they didn't pursue the objective of their day trip. It's a toss up between him ending up eating his own gun or maybe that moment passed, who knows. He's at the start of a very long road, the end uncertain.

One more thing, I don't think Clarke Peters character was wasted at all. He comes in, and reforms the police dept. This is shown very subtly, with very few scenes. Shown but not told. It's almost perfect casting. But this is not a police procedural, and the film isn't about him. More scenes with him would have detracted from the rest of the film.

And another thing, the bit where the soldier goes into the shop and trashes a 7 dollar bauble is in the film to wrong foot the audience, so that when we find out it wasn't him, it's a real gut punch. Loved it.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I saw it tonight, I thought it was 'alright', I enjoyed McDormand and Rockwell but it's certainly not flawless.

There are few directors that can handle an ensemble cast.

[zomgmouse]

And another thing, the bit where the soldier goes into the shop and trashes a 7 dollar bauble is in the film to wrong foot the audience, so that when we find out it wasn't him, it's a real gut punch. Loved it.

One bit I didn't get was... who was he? Why did he come in and trash the shop? Was he actually just coincidentally a friend of the Woody Harrelson character? Also I feel like the fact that he's a soldier is a spoiler.

[Endicott]

One bit I didn't get was... who was he? Why did he come in and trash the shop? Was he actually just coincidentally a friend of the Woody Harrelson character? Also I feel like the fact that he's a soldier is a spoiler.

Well, I can't edit it now. Anyway, I don't think he knew Willoughby (Harrelson). It would have been indicated in the film if that was the case. Most likely, he came into the shop because he'd seen her on TV and felt like throwing his weight around. You can perhaps infer it was crappy actions brought on by PTSD, given what was in the film. He did say that he'd been feeling a bit mad a few months before while on his tour of duty (in the sandy country). PTSD is known to make people behave weirdly and sometimes aggressively. That's what's there in the film, I don't think you can take it any further. As I said, I think that scene was a device to make us think he did it. IMO.

[Endicott]

Also I've just worked out people on phones/tablets can't even see color=transparent unless they hit quote, which is a bit of a pain in the arse. But you're right, I should have hidden that bit.

[zomgmouse]

Well, I can't edit it now. Anyway, I don't think he knew Willoughby (Harrelson). It would have been indicated in the film if that was the case. Most likely, he came into the shop because he'd seen her on TV and felt like throwing his weight around. You can perhaps infer it was crappy actions brought on by PTSD, given what was in the film. He did say that he'd been feeling a bit mad a few months before while on his tour of duty (in the sandy country). PTSD is known to make people behave weirdly and sometimes aggressively. That's what's there in the film, I don't think you can take it any further. As I said, I think that scene was a device to make us think he did it. IMO.

Yeah, I can get behind that assessment.

[Vitalstatistix]

I'm astonished this film has garnered so many good reviews. It's so bad!

McDonagh's style is laughably unsuited to the themes of the film, obviously, but that's all been covered much more eruditely than I ever could.

This (admittedly rather overlong) piece from NYT is a good take down of its numerous issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/movies/three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri.html

For a movie that asks you to behold so much violence [...] "Three Billboards" feels weirdly benign. Its black comedy doesn't leave a bruise. The violence curdles into the cartoonish. The movie could be about grace and vengeance, but they're presented as hoary lessons and hokey contrivances

I don't particularly care if a racist character in a film does or doesn't find "redemption", or if a film seeks to make that character sympathetic. Tony Soprano is a perfect example of a repugnant racist who the audience is (by and large) drawn to root for and understand. Fine. But that was done with nuance and grit.

This film, on the other hand, wants to be dark and edgy and provocative without having the sophistication to follow through. Too often it resorts to cheap laughs or melodrama.

What I also found particularly cloying was the music, so eager to imbue its sentimental scenes with a pathos wholly undeserved.

One bag of popcorn, Jeff.

[neveragain]

I enjoyed it and I love McDonagh's writing but ultimately it's not believable because, as you say, it lacks nuance and grit. If, for example as someone posted above, Willoughby had defaced the signs that would take us down a much more realistic route about the to and fro of forget-her-name's futile quest for justice. But if it did that would be a different world to the one in which incriminating barroom chat is conveniently overheard due to foreshadowing and Dixon takes ages to realise a building is on fire because he has headphones in, and I loved those moments too.

So, I did think this was a very good film, found the three main performances brilliant (everyone was good except for the camp son and Woody's wife, though his note to her was very touching despite comments I've read that it apparently wasn't in character). The whole thing was a lot more focused and less meta than 7 Psychos, which is a major plus.

Edit:

"In Bruges" featured two hit men on a chatty stroll in Belgium, and certain people's passion for it is fit for Valentine's Day. But it was Tupperware Tarantino to me.

That graceless dismissal of a fine film alone puts me off the review, and the author calling the ending of Billboards a 'cop-out' also shows a lack of dramatic comprehension.

[zomgmouse]

incriminating barroom chat is conveniently overheard due to foreshadowing

This is literally turned on its head in the next few scenes when it turns out not to be the same guy...

[Endicott]

And, it's already been addressed in this thread, that Willoughby doesn't deface the signs because, he's not a cunt. It's consistent with his character as it is depicted in the film. If he had defaced them, it would be inconsistent characterisation. Compare with Dixon, who burns them, because he is a cunt.

I prefer to assess the story that I've actually been told, and rather than suggesting how it could be improved, I want to decide if what was shown to me worked. Was it a consistent narrative, or was it shit? Are the characters consistent, or are they all over the shop? To me, this film worked fine.

[popcorn]

Like In Bruges, I thought this was all right. And like In Bruges, I find it difficult to figure out exactly what's wrong with it. It's somehow too cartoonish, but I don't know why that would bother me when, for example, I still think Tarantino has yet to make a movie that isn't great.

Spoilers
I thought the characterisation was a bit patchy at times. There were scenes where the characters' behaviours didn't ring true. For example when her ex-husband flips the table and pins her against the wall, the son then to puts a knife to his throat. Then they almost instantly settle back down and resume their frosty conversation. People don't do that.

Yes, this was a low point for me. The son putting the knife to his throat was melodramatic and unbelievable enough - like, that's a fucking pro move  - and then it's played for laughs, so odd.

[neveragain]

Zongmouse and Endicott (Solicitors), my apologies. I had read a lot of reviews claiming the writing was unrealistic and what I was trying to say - but not very well - was that it's better not to view the film like that and just see it as it was. I generally hate "This should have happened" criticism so regret going into that. Yes, Willoughby's not a cunt but I was just trying to think of something that would have went differently if McDonagh's style of writing was more... whatever those reviews wanted it to be.

And also yes, the barroom thing is turned on its head but.. yeah, doesn't matter.

[TrenterPercenter]

Saw it tonight and I thought it was brilliant.  Not sure what people criticising were expecting.  I think he has got a great way of painting scenes with human emotion, it's all clearly deliberate.  You are not going to enjoy it if you are looking for it to be a realistic crime drama with a set narrative nicely wrapped up for you, that is a different film.

Top film IMO and some great performances from most of the cast.

Ps harlesons wife does appear a little young but she isn't meant to be American, I literally think he put her in so people think why is his wife so young and why is she not from around there?...and the answer is because that's life innit.

[greenman]

I'm astonished this film has garnered so many good reviews. It's so bad!

McDonagh's style is laughably unsuited to the themes of the film, obviously, but that's all been covered much more eruditely than I ever could.

This (admittedly rather overlong) piece from NYT is a good take down of its numerous issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/movies/three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri.html

I don't particularly care if a racist character in a film does or doesn't find "redemption", or if a film seeks to make that character sympathetic. Tony Soprano is a perfect example of a repugnant racist who the audience is (by and large) drawn to root for and understand. Fine. But that was done with nuance and grit.

This film, on the other hand, wants to be dark and edgy and provocative without having the sophistication to follow through. Too often it resorts to cheap laughs or melodrama.

What I also found particularly cloying was the music, so eager to imbue its sentimental scenes with a pathos wholly undeserved.

One bag of popcorn, Jeff.

Honestly that article to me seems to(deliberately?) miss the point trying to view the film as some exact reflection of reality. Perhaps the issue is that the films aim is actually not castigation of racists or incompenant policemen or indeed victims of crime with questionable motives but rather the partisan nature of such issues in much of the media and wider culture? That Binoche film Elles from a few years ago comes to mind as something that didn't go down well with the Guardianish classes because it was taking aim at them.

As far as comparison with Taratino I would say that McDonagh lacks the same visual imagination but arguably has more depth/intelligence to his work. I mean theres obviously more to Taratino than merely giving pulp cinema a slicker finish but still I think McDonagh is more inline with the Coen brothers more serious efforts.

[Twit 2]

Saw it tonight and I thought it was brilliant.  Not sure what people criticising were expecting.  I think he has got a great way of painting scenes with human emotion, it's all clearly deliberate.  You are not going to enjoy it if you are looking for it to be a realistic crime drama with a set narrative nicely wrapped up for you, that is a different film.

Top film IMO and some great performances from most of the cast.

Ps harlesons wife does appear a little young but she isn't meant to be American, I literally think he put her in so people think why is his wife so young and why is she not from around there?...and the answer is because that's life innit.

Agree with this. It's a very good film.

[MoonDust]

Saw it the other night and thought it was ace. Surprised at the amount of criticism.

I loved the soundtrack as well. Does anyone know the song at the end and also the song where there's that tracking shot with Dixon?

As far as McDonagh's films go, it was miles better than Seven Psychopaths. Not sure if I prefer this to In Bruges though.

[Talulah, really!]

Nick Cave was amazing in this, truly taking method acting to the next level by sawing most of his legs off to play a midget, and they talk of giving Gary Oldman an Oscar, for what, putting on a fat suit.

Liked it, but it really felt like a stage play.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

And, it's already been addressed in this thread, that Willoughby doesn't deface the signs because, he's not a cunt. It's consistent with his character as it is depicted in the film. If he had defaced them, it would be inconsistent characterisation. Compare with Dixon, who burns them, because he is a cunt.

Dixon is the Sam Rockwell character. He didn't burn the billboards, the ex-husband did, which he admits to in the restaurant.