Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh)

TerrorFirmer

Thought it was excellent, the performances were absolutely stellar across the board!

Seemed a lot longer than it's modest run time, it's an incredibly dense film but moves at a great pace and really is almost a film of three distinct acts.

Outside McDormands leading performance - and while Woody Harrelson never disappoints and this is up there with his best - Rockwell seriously impressed me. The entire supporting cast though is really just faultless.

I can see why people think some aspects of it were a tad ludicrous (Rockwell and the advertising agent springs to mind) but I didn't dwell on any of it at all, within the context of the film and what it's really about it all works and flows perfectly fine for me.

Wonderful film. Funny, bleak, dark all at once. While I was hugely fond of In Bruge, I felt quite lukewarm towards Seven Psychopaths but this is on another level.

My only regret is having previously seen a trailer for at in the cinema - these days I try my best to never watch trailers for films I already have an interest in seeing.

HONKEY TONK

Thought it was a great movie and very captivating.

murpho999

I saw this yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it and I think it’s the best McDonagh film I have seen. It goes a lot deeper than “In Bruges” that many posters here are comparing it to.

Find some of the reviews here quite bizarre, one even describing it as a murder thriller, which it clearly isn’t.

I thought the ending was just right, films don’t have to be wrapped up and provide all the answers.

This film was not about who killed the girl and how it happened. It was about its impact on the people left behind.

I also think the title of the fictional town it is set in is significant as the film shows how the characters emotions of grief, hate and anger ebb away from them.

The Black Oil

Better on character than it is on storytelling. Overall, quite a mixed bag, I felt. I had time to notice a few continuity glitches too.

I heard talk of a piece in the NY Times piece with the suggestion that this might have impacted its Oscar chances i.e. even getting a nom, more so for the directing side.

Nekarsulm

Saw it last week and found it powerful and thought provoking.
One point that I may have missed, when asking the price to rent the 3 billboards, Mildred asks Red how much, and he hasn't a clue. Then she takes out 5000 and says " that's for the first month".
That would never happen. especially with someone as savvy as Mildred.

I'd expect 5000 to get you 12 months, especially in that location!

De Bhál

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Saw it last week and found it powerful and thought provoking.
One point that I may have missed, when asking the price to rent the 3 billboards, Mildred asks Red how much, and he hasn't a clue. Then she takes out 5000 and says " that's for the first month".
That would never happen. especially with someone as savvy as Mildred.

I'd expect 5000 to get you 12 months, especially in that location!

yeah I couldn't understand that either, just handing over 5 grand and saying that will cover the first month.

I went to see it Saturday night and knew nothing about it. I loved it. I really enjoyed the scenes in the police station. The ending just annoyed me, when the screen went black I was saying to myself
"please don't end...please don't end". I then asked my wife is this movie a two parter nope...aaagh

anyway overall i enjoyed it

Nekarsulm

Some films drag, but this one felt like it was only 60 minutes long!

Hector Savage

Fantastic film !, Went to see it the other night and was really surprised how good it was.
Great cast too!

Tony EH

None of these issues are plot holes.

dulux99 wrote: »

So many plot holes and stupid scenes in a film I was really excited for. spoilers below

1.) what's the story with the guy visiting the gift shop and turns out he's completely innocent with regards to the main crime

Maybe he knows the guy(s) [Army buddies] that did it and was trying to put McDormand off.

2.) oh no there's a huge fire - luckily I inexplicably have this massive fire extinguisher in my passenger seat

People actually do this.

3.) the guy in the bar also has committed an almost literally identical crime to the crime being investigated, what are the chances

War is hell. There are stories of what people have done in war that would curl your toes. Perhaps he and his buddies have form in Iraq of raping dying girls and setting them on fire? It's possible he knows the guy(s) that did it and was proxy boasting. He seemed like a right tit anyway.

4.) the dentist scene - ridiculous and absurd

Not that absurd really. He likes Willoughby. Dislikes Mildred and was intent on causing her a little discomfort. He got what was coming to him. Stranger things have happened in real life.

5.) the dad with the weirdly smoking hot young one for a girlfriend - unrealistic. The scene where she goes to use her current boyfriends ex-wifes bathroom - give me a break

You've never seen something like that? In any case, she's a kid, not too bright and more than likely has daddy issues.

6.) the cgi deer - what the hell

The CGI was obvious when the real deer had to occupy the same space as McDormand. Who cares? The scene is about her coming to terms with her daughter being dead. Not in heaven. "Dead and gone forever".

7.) woody harrelsons wife's accent - what?

She's Australian.

8.) a cop pretty much almost kills a guy in plain view with lots of witnesses - the only ramification is he loses his job, no charges pressed or further action taken

Perhaps Red was so afraid of Dixon that he refused to press charges. But, yeh, more than just his badge and gun would be taken. In the background, perhaps IA are on the case. It's not essential for the story anyway.

Tell me how

Nekarsulm wrote:

I'd expect 5000 to get you 12 months, especially in that location!

Why would Willoughby take 5,000 from whatever he was leaving his wife and children after his death and spend it on a billboard?

I enjoyed the film, but felt there were a lot of inconsistencies.

sporina

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would Willoughby take 5,000 from whatever he was leaving his wife and children after his death and spend it on a billboard?

I enjoyed the film, but felt there were a lot of inconsistencies.

i think that people are missing the point of the movie - stuff like this is not to be taken literally - the point is, that he supported her in her mission

this movie is all about human nature past present and future

dulux99

sporina wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would Willoughby take 5,000 from whatever he was leaving his wife and children after his death and spend it on a billboard?

I enjoyed the film, but felt there were a lot of inconsistencies.

i think that people are missing the point of the movie - stuff like this is not to be taken literally - the point is, that he supported her in her mission

this movie is all about human nature past present and future

I understand that. I've just never seen a film before that had so many head scratching, poorly thought out, illogical moments in it. You'd get away with one or two but there was just so many in this film that it detracted from the overall story. Maybe I'm just a crank but it was my own personal takeaway from the film.

Tell me how

sporina wrote:

i think that people are missing the point of the movie - stuff like this is not to be taken literally - the point is, that he supported her in her mission

I understand the sentiment. (I do also recognize not everything makes sense in movies).

But in a movie where human behavior is a significant framework, I'm not sure about accepting things just because they support the intended narrative. I'd prefer a stronger sense of realism. In this case, that act could still have been done but slightly differently. Say if his letter suggested the 5k had "missed the evidence box" in a drug case or something.

Peregrinus

Tell me how wrote: »

I understand the sentiment. (I do also recognize not everything makes sense in movies).

But in a movie where human behavior is a significant framework, I'm not sure about accepting things just because they support the intended narrative. I'd prefer a stronger sense of realism. In this case, that act could still have been done but slightly differently. Say if his letter suggested the 5k had "missed the evidence box" in a drug case or something.

That would create other problems. Willoughby is supposed to become noble in death, having initially been presented (through Mildred's eyes) as weak, or ineffective, or worse. Presenting him as stealing money, corrupting evidence, etc wouldn't work.

Besides, I don't think it is a puzzle as to why Willoughby would have done this. He writes a letter explaining why he has done it, which we hear read. He has two reasons; he himself feels that he has let Mildred down in failing to solve her daughter's murder and wants to make some gesture acknowledging that. Plus, he feels that Mildred should have to live with the consequences of her own decision to attack him publicly.

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote:

Besides, I don't think it is a puzzle as to why Willoughby would have done this. He writes a letter explaining why he has done it, which we hear read. He has two reasons; he himself feels that he has let Mildred down in failing to solve her daughter's murder and wants to make some gesture acknowledging that. Plus, he feels that Mildred should have to live with the consequences of her own decision to attack him publicly.

I understand what it conveyed. I don't find either reason could reasonably outweigh a loving husband and father leaving funds for his family.

Also, I thought the way he explained the absence of DNA, witnesses and evidence would have been enough to remove any guilt that he should have done more.

I'm not trying to suggest this was a bad film just that I felt a number of things like this weaken it by a small amount.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

I understand the sentiment. (I do also recognize not everything makes sense in movies).

But in a movie where human behavior is a significant framework, I'm not sure about accepting things just because they support the intended narrative. I'd prefer a stronger sense of realism. In this case, that act could still have been done but slightly differently. Say if his letter suggested the 5k had "missed the evidence box" in a drug case or something.

You are 100% right. Going to the movies you have to suspend your belief and get lost in the film. Unfortunately, if there are too many far fetched plot lines, it is eventually going to be too far for you to suspend your belief and it takes you out of the film.

one armed dwarf

For fiction films like this I try to just look at it like it's a parable. The logical sequence of events and plausibility don't matter so much as the thing it is trying to convey.

Conversely something like Darkest Hour has got to be plausible because it's trying to be a historical drama. It's a completely different thing.

Tony EH

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would Willoughby take 5,000 from whatever he was leaving his wife and children after his death and spend it on a billboard?

I enjoyed the film, but felt there were a lot of inconsistencies.

That's probably near enought to a month's paycheck for a chief of police and they look relatively well off.

Besides, there's probably a big ass insurance policy pay out coming to the wife.

Tony EH

Peregrinus wrote: »

Besides, I don't think it is a puzzle as to why Willoughby would have done this. He writes a letter explaining why he has done it, which we hear read. He has two reasons; he himself feels that he has let Mildred down in failing to solve her daughter's murder and wants to make some gesture acknowledging that. Plus, he feels that Mildred should have to live with the consequences of her own decision to attack him publicly.

The main point of the film that I took away was that people aren't who you think they are, even when they're acting like you think they would. Our heroine is a shrill one, nor is she a particularly nice person. She's vulgar, but her cause is relatively just, even if her aiming point (Willoughby) isn't.

Willoughby is presented, as you say, "as weak, or ineffective, or worse" initially. But convinces the audience that he's not the character you think him to be later on.

The biggest "switch" of character comes from Dixon, who puts himself at extreme risk in order to do the right thing for a woman who was his antagonist for the majority of the running time. He remains a stupid man, prone to extremities that will be his downfall. But, he has an epiphany of sorts, due to understanding Willoughby's words that were written for him.

Are there "inconsistencies" in the film? Yes. But, there are inconsistencies is real life too. I just didn't find the inconsistencies drag the story off into truely silly territory.

pumpkin4life

Tony EH wrote: »

The main point of the film that I took away was that people aren't who you think they are, even when they're acting like you think they would. Our heroine is a shrill one, nor is she a particularly nice person. She's vulgar, but her cause is relatively just, even if her aiming point (Willoughby) isn't.

Willoughby is presented, as you say, "as weak, or ineffective, or worse" initially. But convinces the audience that he's not the character you think him to be later on.

The biggest "switch" of character comes from Dixon, who puts himself at extreme risk in order to do the right thing for a woman who was his antagonist for the majority of the running time. He remains a stupid man, prone to extremities that will be his downfall. But, he has an epiphany of sorts, due to understanding Willoughby's words that were written for him.

Are there "inconsistencies" in the film? Yes. But, there are inconsistencies is real life too. I just didn't find the inconsistencies drag the story off into truely silly territory.

I think a lot of the inconsistencies/happy coincidences can be explained away by the idea of

the guy in the shop being the killer and the ending being a military coverup.

Tony EH

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think a lot of the inconsistencies/happy coincidences can be explained away by the idea of

the guy in the shop being the killer and the ending being a military coverup.

Agreed.

When the military aspect came out in the story, I was reminded of the Mahmudiyah incident in 2006. I also think that the story is set around then too (early to mid 2000's). There's flip phones and CRT's all over the place. Nobody has a flat screen TV?

There's suggestion that this guy has insider knowledge of Mildred's daughter's murder (as overheard in the bar by Dixon), so it's possible that he and other members of his squad/unit had a certain form back in Iraq. He may have been "in country" when Angela was killed, but other members of his unit might not have and when he returns, he feels that he needs to put presure on Mildred to back off.


It's not clear, but it gives the audience just enough to construct something themselves.

pumpkin4life

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed.

When the military aspect came out in the story, I was reminded of the Mahmudiyah incident in 2006. I also think that the story is set around then too (early to mid 2000's). There's flip phones and CRT's all over the place. Nobody has a flat screen TV?

There's suggestion that this guy has insider knowledge of Mildred's daughter's murder (as overheard in the bar by Dixon), so it's possible that he and other members of his squad/unit had a certain form back in Iraq. He may have been "in country" when Angela was killed, but other members of his unit might not have and when he returns, he feels that he needs to put presure on Mildred to back off.


It's not clear, but it gives the audience just enough to construct something themselves.

I'm more leaning towards the he did it for a couple of reasons.

First is the letter. The fact that Willoughby has that bit about boasting about it in a bar and then Rockwell's character overhears your man in a bar. That bit is either a massive coincidence and really bad writing (look how Willoughby is so wise) or a really clever "I know the killer. He talks shìt when drunk. I can't tell you explicitly because my family would be in danger so I'm telling you this way. Go to the bar.". I think Willoughby knew.

Second is the petrol station bombing. The fact that Rockwell's character is right there when the station is bombed (told to let himself in later which is interesting), and the fact that Mildred, despite stinking of petrol, is completely let go because Peter D just happens to be there. Don't buy that one at all. And the fact that Sam's character ends up in the exact same hospital room as the guy he fùcked out of the window. Also, the way the movie puts emphasis on the guy being a giant racist lad, and then a black cop takes charge?

Hmm.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but so much of the movie makes sense in terms of a military coverup thinking "ok, we have to shut down this case as quickly as possible. We need to shut this down and make sure there is no publicity in relation to this. What do we do?"

Weird movie. Came out not liking it, then when I thought about it being a coverup, a lot of the movie just made way more sense to me.

Tell me how

pumpkin4life wrote:

First is the letter. The fact that Willoughby has that bit about boasting about it in a bar and then Rockwell's character overhears your man in a bar. That bit is either a massive coincidence and really bad writing (look how Willoughby is so wise) or a really clever "I know the killer. He talks shìt when drunk. I can't tell you explicitly because my family would be in danger so I'm telling you this way. Go to the bar.". I think Willoughby knew.

I really don't think Willoughby knew. If so, he'd have pointed Mildred in that direction instead of paying for a billboard.

I think the letter to Dixon told him to keep his ears peeled in general, which did lead to his behavior in the bar.

Nekarsulm

Tell me how wrote: »

I really don't think Willoughby knew. If so, he'd have pointed Mildred in that direction instead of paying for a billboard.

I think the letter to Dixon told him to keep his ears peeled in general, which did lead to his behavior in the bar.

Was it in the letter to Mildred where Willoughby states " most of these kind of killings are solved by someone being picked up for something else or by been overheard talking in a bar"?

Tell me how

I understood the film to be a dark comedy but pretty much from the time of Willoughby's death, there were much fewer comedic scenes if any (maybe the dinner in restaurant) and particularly with Dixon, his idiosyncrasies which were kinda of quirky, disappeared.

Is that a fair view on it?

Also, I don't think I've seen an actor play the exact same character in 2 different productions as much as Dixon's mother who was identical to the role she plays as Mac's mother in It's Always Funny in Philadelphia.

Tell me how

Nekarsulm wrote:

Was it in the letter to Mildred where Willoughby states " most of these kind of killings are solved by someone being picked up for something else or by been overheard talking in a bar"?

Yes. you're right actually. My mistake.

Still, letter to Dixon suggested he could be a successful cop. Gave him belief.

Tony EH

Tell me how wrote: »

I understood the film to be a dark comedy but pretty much from the time of Willoughby's death, there were much fewer comedic scenes if any (maybe the dinner in restaurant) and particularly with Dixon, his idiosyncrasies which were kinda of quirky, disappeared.

Is that a fair view on it?

It's been described as such, but I'm finding it difficult to find any real "comedy" in it, to be honest.

Which, frankly, I find to be a good thing.

TBH, it was quite difficult viewing at times.

sporina

well i lovvved it - it blew my mind... the exaggeration in some of the scenes but yet it totally conveyed the vulnerability and intricacies of human nature.. the contrast of that which is unbelievable with that which is possible.. and the unpredictability - ingenious.. was refreshing - magical.. can't wait for his next piece of work - either on screen or stage ... hmm...

applehunter

Cartoonish characters, an ugly view of humanity, cringe dialogue and it drags.

It's a dark comedy that is not funny enough.

5/10

branie2

I saw it this evening, and I thought it was very good