Fun fact: Both directors have the same first name.
I remember
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri as the first R rated film I watched in the theaters. I loved it a lot back then and it was initially my favorite film of its respective year, but as the years went by and as I read some critiques of the film, I began to worry that it wouldn't hold up well if I were to rewatch it. Curious, I decided to give it another shot a year or two back and, while I wouldn't call it bad per se, it definitely didn't age well for me.
When I watched it in the theaters, I appreciated how the film twisted my expectations around a number of times. There were multiple scenes where I thought I knew where the film was going, only to be proven wrong time and time again. With later viewings of the film, however, I felt that the film occasionally sacrificed believable or compelling story elements to achieve this.
WARNING: spoilers below
The biggest offender here is Officer Dixon's redemptive arc. Throughout the first two thirds of the film, he was violent, racist, it was suggested that he tortured black people in the past, and he almost killed someone by throwing them out of a two story window. All of a sudden though, after he read the late deputy's letter to him where he asked him to be nicer, he was completely reformed of his past behavior and grew remorseful of his past actions right then and there. His arc was poorly fleshed out, rushed, and, quite frankly, I didn't find it believable at all. I'm also not sure what to make of the ending. Like, yeah, it's an unexpected way to end the film, but I'm also not sure I got much out of it in terms of finding the character arcs compelling. Of course, Officer Dixon not seeming to care about Mildred being responsible for burning him served to make his arc more unbelievable, but since I was left unsatisfied by their outcome and the ambiguity of their fates, this seemed to fall in the category of twisting audience expectations at the expense of compelling narrative elements. Like, I genuinely have no idea what the movie wants me to feel towards the ending.
The biggest offender here is Officer Dixon's redemptive arc. Throughout the first two thirds of the film, he was violent, racist, it was suggested that he tortured black people in the past, and he almost killed someone by throwing them out of a two story window. All of a sudden though, after he read the late deputy's letter to him where he asked him to be nicer, he was completely reformed of his past behavior and grew remorseful of his past actions right then and there. His arc was poorly fleshed out, rushed, and, quite frankly, I didn't find it believable at all. I'm also not sure what to make of the ending. Like, yeah, it's an unexpected way to end the film, but I'm also not sure I got much out of it in terms of finding the character arcs compelling. Of course, Officer Dixon not seeming to care about Mildred being responsible for burning him served to make his arc more unbelievable, but since I was left unsatisfied by their outcome and the ambiguity of their fates, this seemed to fall in the category of twisting audience expectations at the expense of compelling narrative elements. Like, I genuinely have no idea what the movie wants me to feel towards the ending.
On the other hand, McDormand, Harrelson, and Rockwell gave excellent trio performances, I loved the strong/badass characterization of Mildred and, despite what I said, there were some moments where I felt that the film twisting my expectations worked, but overall, I think this element was a very mixed bag and could've been handled way better.
Silence is really good, but I haven't thought much about it since the theaters.
The Irishman is definitely my favorite 2010's-era Scorsese.
Reply to Topic
Check out my podcast: 
