Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
 

Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C_Missouri.png

Evidently "Three Billboards" has become the official "in" movie at this time. And because of the promise from this superb cast, anticipation built as the opening credits concluded. However a mild gnawing suspicion soon formed in the back of my mind when most of the dialogue was littered with "F" words. Hardly a sentence could be delivered without generous portions of the word in every conceivable grammatical usage: noun, adjective, adverb, other. It's as if at the script meetings, a line could not be approved unless it contained a minimum of three "F" usages. Is it that we are tasked with believing that this is common small town speech; or is it that the use of the word must be included in any modern progressive banter? Its prevalence gradually came to be like fingernails scraping on a blackboard. It was doubly annoying after just recently watching I, Tonya, which suffered under the same handicap.

The film has two strong attractions: 1. a heavenly alluring title, and, 2. a cast of heavyweight actors. Unfortunately the movie was basically a clever plot device searching for a believable story to go along with it. Reportedly writer/director Martin McDonagh saw similar billboards regarding a crime somewhere in the southeastern U.S., and decided to write a story using the incidence. But having introduced the billboards, the screenplay soon abandoned the title, the billboards, and their usefulness.

[spoilers] At about 30 minutes into the film, the Sheriff (Woody Harrelson) visits Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) to explain to her why the investigation into her daughter's murder had stalled: there was little evidence, no eye witnesses, and the DNA and fingerprints did not match anyone in the criminal databases. So unless someone were to finger the perpetrator, there was little else that could be done. This is totally plausible, and in reality brought the entire movie's premise to an end. So with Mildred's and the film's justification for the plot pulled out from under them, all that followed was groundless, muddled, or silly.

Hitchcock stated to Francois Truffaut that in film, "Whatever is said instead of being shown is lost upon the viewer." In this case we are not shown the crime, and there is minimal description of it. So on good faith alone we are supposed to understand why the McDormand character has turned into a miserable, monomaniacal, wretch, whose sole purpose in life has become to embarrass, then terrorize an entire town-- but without justification.

In order to continue the film's shaky plot, they simply switched the focus of Mildred's rage to a dumb, hackneyed racist (what else?) deputy sheriff. Despite the character's triteness, he at least provided a suitable living breathing foil on which to base most of the rest of the movie.

Credit must be given to the fine performances by McDormand, Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, and the inestimable John Hawkes, along with a first rate supporting cast.

But it was the screen play and dialogue that came up short. Several characters complete 2 or 3 major personality changes. Rockwell's deputy sheriff alone transformed from a moronic bigoted dufus to a sharp caring sleuth in the space of about 45 minute's screen time.

In the process many of the usual trite Hollywood cliches were featured: a mother enraged over her daughter's senseless killing (you go, girl!); the hick racist deputy; the crotch kick; a dwarf explaining that dwarfs are in fact real people; the new black replacement sheriff (who looked like he stepped off the appellate bench) to can the deputy and institute racial equality; the ogre ex-husband takes up with a younger woman; and the like. One looses count. And perhaps the writers did not know that pancreatic cancer does not cause coughing up blood.

In the end, the newly enlightened pairing of Mildred and the reformed deputy decide to go ahead and hunt to kill a man who they presume must have raped someone at some time. After all the daughter's killer had not yet been found, so someone deserves to die, right? But we're left with the question: will they really do it? Would this ending fit better on some other film?

Evidently this is all acceptable under the "black comedy" distinction. When the writers do not commit to credibility, anything goes. However in this case there was very little comedy, and the black tended more towards gray.

Doc's rating: 6 of 10, based on the acting.

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
 

This is my favorite of the year from what I've seen, but that's me

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
 

And me.

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
 

I don't know though. I liked The Shape of Water, Lady Bird and even probably Dunkirk more than this.

Of all the years for them to go for the safe pick, they probably will this year.

It only "brings the premise to an end" if you're expecting this to unfold like your standard procedural narrative where the perpetrator stands a good chance of being caught or found out by the time the credits roll. In outlining from the start that the chances of anyone being brought to justice are remote (if not nonexistent), the focus shifts away from wondering about the mystery being solved to seeing how the fallout influences the characters and their actions.

Seeing as how the film is focused on the people dealing with the aftermath of the crime, it makes sense to frame the crime as something that happens off-screen, and I think that having it be summed up as involving the victim being raped and set on fire (before or after being murdered) seems disturbing enough without having it be depicted on-screen lest it come across as needlessly sensationalised (and you're already taking the film to task for its excessive profanity anyway). More importantly, we get a flashback to the last moment that Mildred and Angela ever interact and it's just a heated argument - it even concludes with Angela storming out saying she might get raped and Mildred screaming back that she hopes Angela gets raped, which adds an extra layer to Mildred's relentless dedication to finding justice for Angela in a way that seeing yet another graphic murder unfolding on screen wouldn't.

A lot can happen in 45 minutes (such as losing his job and getting set on fire causing him being reason enough to affect at least a little change) and even his sleuthing is less sharp than both lucky (he happens to overhear someone bragging?) and also clumsy (he gets badly beaten up in a bar fight just to acquire a suspect's DNA for testing).

I figured the cancer had metastasized

It sounds about as appropriate an ending for this kind of film as any - as noted earlier, there never was going to be a neat and easy-to-expect conclusion.

How do I manage to defend this film and still end up giving it a lower rating than you do?

The entire basis of the film was that, because Mildred was resentful and enraged over her belief that the sheriff's department was not doing enough to catch her daughter's murderer, she leased three billboards on a main road designed to shame the department and the town into more action and to blame them for dropping the ball. But when it turns out that the department did everything that was possible to do, and that there were no leads or evidence, at that point Mildred's rage at the department effectively had no grounds.

Without a meaningful premise, a spine if you will, the movie became weak. That's why it was necessary to shift focus onto several side plots: the trite racist deputy, the kindly dwarf (who tells us that dwarfs are in fact real people), Mildred's vengeful acts, and so on.

But Mildred raged on, railing against the townspeople who were incredulous at her fury; and ultimately burning down the sheriff's department. Silliness.
Since they veered way off track in the last 2/3rds of the movie, there were any number of ways they could have ended it: They could have had the sheriff turn out to be the rapist murder; Mildred could have gone further off the deep end and started to kill someone else's daughter, but then realized how deep her monomania had become; the reformed deputy and Mildred could have entered into a romantic liaison, after they'd both "seen the light"; or they could have ended up laughing the whole thing off; and so on. Something could have fit the story better than what was used.

I should add that McDormand is one of my favorite actresses. But this film has "we're looking for an Oscar" written all over it.
Good one...:D Perhaps you're willing to give them more credit than I.

~Doc

The fact that it has no rational grounds is the point, though. Logically, we recognise that there's nothing more that can be done but human beings aren't 100% logical all the time (especially not those who are emotionally affected by something like having their own child brutally murdered). The same goes for the chaotic jumble of side-plots - I wouldn't count Mildred's further actions since those really are the continued development of the main plot, where the main narrative tension does come from how much further Mildred is willing to push things and where she and the other characters will end up because of it.

I'm surprised you didn't throw in ghosts or aliens while you were at it. Thinking about how a story "should've" gone isn't a good way to think about it because you risk becoming too wrapped up in imagining a version you find personally satisfying instead of trying to think about how the story as is was trying to be good.

Or you just overrate stuff. You're allowed to say that the performances are good but still think the film as a whole is bad.

I offered a few example of alternate endings in response to your comment about your belief that the ending was appropriate. It's hard to imagine any ending that would have saved this film, although ghosts or aliens might have done the trick.:)

Here is a reply to my interview from a friend of mine who is a veteran Hollywood film actor. He makes some insightful points: ~Doc

"You were too kind Doc. The worst kind of story telling. Contrived and every moment was made to spark a visceral response from the audience. As if it were the days when people on Acid would find everything amazing as long as it sounded or seen as a loud burst that would attack your senses.
Well I was stoned sober when I sat down to this film and felt like I was being conned by a half wit.
I guess this is what audiences like nowadays. At least Marvel and their super heroes make no pretense about art. They just give you bells and whistles for the fun of it. You know that when you get your ticket.
Now you know as well as I it doesn't take four letter words to make a person tough and mean. It resides in you. Read a Jim Thompson book to learn what mean is. Read David Goodis. These idiots would squeal under a Thompson character. Take for instance the whole concept about the sheriff being a racist. C'mon folks. That does not alleviate Hollywood from being the real asinine racists who put one arm around Oprah and having their maids, gardeners, and valets as their best friends.
The scene in the first 15 minutes where the young black billboard employee spits at the sheriff is highly unbelievable and only serves as a relief for those non racists Hollywood types. Feel better?
The first half hour was full of scenes not needed to convey anguish and hate. It has to come from real conflicts and not politically correct ones.
McDormand trapped herself in to play acting. She doesn't need to. She is good enough and has the power in the business to run the ship right. See her in Olive Kittridge. See her in Fargo. This director and writer conned her into silliness. Ive said enough."

"Penelope said 'begets'?" is still my favorite line of the year. :D

Uh....I hate reviews like this as the reviewers missed the entire point of the movie.

1. The movie is not a murder mystery, it's set up like a murder mystery but it is in fact a morality tale.

2. Sam Rockwell is not a genius investigator or even a good person. He is not redeemed at the end he is doomed at the end same as Mildred.

You missed the point of the flashbacks, Mildred didn't become this miserable person she was always miserable it was the death of her child that embolden her to terrorize the sheriff the same way she terrorized her family.

Once again...no you are completely wrong about Rockwell's character. He's not a great sleuth he was in a bar and he overheard a confession and he took a beating. The deputy is a martyr, he takes care of his mother, loses his job in a misguided attempt at saving his bosses honor and ends the film giving up his freedom and his life for Mildred. We're told he's a racist but do we ever see him act like a bigot?

The ending is perfect because it lines up with each characters nature. Mildred's rage has taken a new focus away from her abusive husband and dead daughter...she's not going to hunt this guy. Jason has a new cause to pay his penance by executing this rapist.

You can look at the ending as a positive, that they will walk the earth doing good deeds like Jules at the end of Pulp Fiction. Or they are doomed like Thelma and Louise driving off that cliff and ending their suffering.

All I'm saying is that "I thought this movie was stupid and here's how I think it should have been stupider" is not a particularly insightful means of criticising a work.

Your friend needs to work on his insights, though. Just about everyone in the movie is a foul-mouthed small-town denizen regardless of whether they're "tough and mean". Does Hollywood hypocrisy mean that films just straight-up shouldn't touch on racism ever? How exactly does he differentiate between "real" conflicts and "politically correct" conflicts anyway (and how does the conflict driving Three Billboards not count as real)? Making the deputy a racist doesn't let the audience off the hook, especially when his later actions make the audience question whether he deserves a standard redemption arc or if he's even getting one (especially when a common criticism is that he's too bad a guy to actually deserve redemption in the first place).

I have a soft spot for "Oh...my...God...the hammer pulled you off?" myself. This should be its own thread, actually.

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
 

All the words in bold type just makes me feel like the OP is shouting all of this. :lol:

Then I would ask you to recognise that the quote was intended as a generalised rhetorical device instead of a personal attack and outline exactly how that quote contradicts your post's actual premise. If you're attempting to point out flaws in my argument, try to be clearer about how I'm wrong.

It's especially weird since every paragraph is individually bolded even without quotes breaking them up.