Discuss Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Pretty cool cast, and interesting premise muddied by oddities, implausibilities, and a juvenile sense of story. Is this a film set in a world where crazy stuff happens as a matter of course, or a normal every day world where crazy stuff happens every now and then? In this film, I see pretty normal people doing normal things and having normal things happen to them, so why is it the writer/director chose to litter what could have been a very good film with SO much bizarro bs? And with literally ZERO character development?

Three giant billboards THAT close to the road and THAT close together - I've driven all over the country and never saw that. Billboards in rural areas tend to be smaller and definitely not that close together for obvious reasons.

WHO is this woman, Mildred? We know literally nothing about her beside the fact that her daughter was murdered. Eventually we find out she's divorced and has a son who lives with her, but if one is to care about the protagonist, character development is crucial. As it is, it's interesting to watch her do and say crazy stuff, but I couldn't care less about her.

WHY is it, two male characters directly related to the protagonist have a girlfriend & wife 20+ years their junior? Do they live in a part of the country where such a thing is commonplace? What are the odds of that? Probably about the same as if your dentist won the lottery but then your mailman did also. Yes, possible, but very, very odd and distracting.

Why does Willoughby's wife have an English accent? Was he in the military and met her while overseas? Is it common for a small town in Missouri to have British accented residents? If there was ANY character development, maybe we'd know these things. As it is, it's distracting and elicits questions that shouldn't have to be asked.

$5000/month for three previously forgotten about, decrepit billboards on a road people don't use anymore? LOL. For someone who is supposed to be a savvy, tough, non-nonsense older lady with the wisdom of the Buddha, that's pretty dumb.

A cop smashes office windows, assaults a man and throws him out a 2nd story window with no jail time. Really?!

Why does Willoughby have fatal cancer? Seems as no more than a cheap device used to heap more disdain on Mildred. Yawn.

Dixon ends up in the same hospital room as the man he assaulted? Is that supposed to be ironic? And again, what are the odds?

Mildred firebombs the police station, nearly kills a cop, and then just says "I didn't do it" and that's the end of it?! Really?

Some creepy stranger visits Mildred in her store and harasses her, THEN is overheard in a bar talking about committing a crime, maybe the crime in question, but alas even after Dixon cleverly retrieves dna from the guy, it turns out he's not even a local, and wasn't around when the crime occurred. Why then does the creepy guy know so much about the crime in question and WHY is he harassing Mildred!?!?!?! WHY?

Then to top off ALL that nonsense, Dixon and Mildred decide to go murder the creepy guy anyway, LOL, how profound.

25 replies (on page 2 of 2)

Jump to last post

Previous page

Finally, a critic calls out Three Billboards for what it is. And in that bastion of the liberalocracy, The New Yorker no less.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-feel-good-fallacies-of-three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri

@Jacinto Cupboard

Thanks for that NewYorker article, it's very interesting and I think he is onto something with his Brexit angle, especially the anger at the result as it is very real and echos Mildreds anger in the movie...

I think the context of this being a top Oscar contender is what the article is really about, as Hollywood championing this film says a lot about it's attitude to non-coastal America... And it's blinding rage at the election result... Placing the movie in it's cultural context is interesting...

However, if the movie wasn't such a big Oscar contender and if the movie is watched with some detachment from the main characters rather than treating Mildred as our avatar, then it does become an interesting portrayal of myopic anger and a lack of empathy, rather than an endorsement of it... Similar to In Bruge and Seven Psychopaths, his earlier movies, as Mildred doesn't come off smelling of roses... I think the ambigeious ending and the fact that Chief Willoughby ends up as one of the more reasonable and empathetic characters, makes it more than a blind revenge movie... But, the cultural context matters and the moment the movie exists in and how it has been elevated by the industry changes the perception of the movie and it's meaning to an audience...

I think it is worth quoting his final sentences:

Watching such films, we become them. What makes this version sicker is its claim to moral superiority at the expense of a community that it has taken no time to examine. We live in brutal, self-righteous, entertaining times.

It is one thing to people a story with grotesques. I think the commercial and critical success of this movie is built on the presumption that communities like the fictional Ebbing actually look like that in RL. This is breathtakingly ignorant and more than a little bit frightening given its authors and praisers are also the creators and curators of most of modern Western popular culture. Hollywood has always been accused of being out of touch with ordinary people but when artists, I use that term loosely, not only fail to examine the culture they are depicting, but insert some horrendous caricature, and people we are supposed to believe are discerning actually endorse this, then we are indeed in brutal times.

You suggest that in the coolness of time we might see Three Billboards as a portrayal rather than an endorsement of anger and violence. But there is no redemptive power to this story. The only character who accepts his fate, kills himself. Not a single other character has to deal with the consequences of their own violence. You can rape and murder a young woman. You can burn down a police station. You can throw a man from the second floor of a building. You can destroy private property. You can beat a cop to within an inch of his life. You can make death threats against people. Not a single vile act is punished. What is being said here is clear, and it reduces to 'these people are animals and they live in an almost post apocalyptic lawless wasteland'.

I can't take that sort of thing seriously. This is little more than a cinematic equivalent of a hit job on a middle /rural America that has offended liberal elites by lurching to the right. By all means take a strong political stance in movies; that is what a vibrant culture in a democracy does. But we should reserve praise for honest, considered representations.

Yeah... it's more nihilistic than his other movies and doesn't seek to tell a tale of redemption nor to edify...

But that's not inherently a bad thing in an of itself... The thing is, I don't come to this movie as an American, nor as an Oscar movie about America since I know the director's work and thus I am able to look at it with a detachment from it's political context, even though I can understand that as well...

I think the movie works apart from it's political context in a way similar to the Argentinian movie Wild Tales, which is a series of short stories about violence and anger, some with irony, some comical others tragic, some with revenge, some moralistic and others nihilistic... It's more stylish and thrilling and doesn't have the political dimension.. On this level Three Billboards works in a similar way, but it certainly isn't Oscar material, although McDormand's performance is stellar as usual...

The thing is the political context changes the movie... So instead of it being a town of idiosyncratically angry people, it becomes a superficial caricature of rural America...And that changes the meaning of the movie, which I can appreciate and do agree with your and that article's take...

Amazing cast, bad movie. I gave it 3/10.

The director/writer is completely clueless as to what small town life in the Midwest is like. He wasn't even remotely close on anything, the only knowledge he has of small town America in the Midwest and South is probably what he reads on Huffington Post or CNN. It fell totally flat and was really contrived.

Like every movie made by Hollywood these days, they went way overboard with the SJW virtue signaling and liberal propaganda.

All the bad people in the movie are white men, they are all shown to be racist, violent people:

the entire police force, the dentist, ex-husband who is a violent wife beater, US army vet rapist, guy that comes in to her workplace and threatens her, Dixon before the fire

The only white men who are allowed to be good are the "flawed" characters:

Police chief who has incurable cancer, midget, gay advertising guy, Dixon after he becomes burned and disfigured

All black characters are intelligent, virtuous, caring people. Once again Hollywood chooses to completely ignore crime statistics in the US, IQ science, and reality.

In addition to the racist fantastical writing, they also took time to paint all Catholic priests as pedophiles and make a case for a national DNA database, which is both unconstitutional and tyrannical. Not to mention the myriad other liberal regressive agenda points.

Hollywood and the media are waging a war against straight, white men and conservative values and it couldn't be more blatantly obvious. It's a running theme in nearly every single movie in about the past 5 years. I'm so glad I don't pay to see this crap anymore.

god,it wasn't that bad! I personally would have voted Dunkirk best picture, but as for best actress I was cool with McDormand only for the fact that there was literally nobody else. Did you see ladybird? it was pretty shit. Streep is nominated every year so we automatically know to ignore that film. McDormand was pretty damn good even though I somewhat agree with you that this film is overrated. A 7/10 for me so I was I was happy to see her win since I didn't think anybody else was worthy. She knocked it out. Can you honestly say her performance was terrible even though the movie was not that good? As for your social justice issues I really didn't read to be honest. I am already burned out by hollywood pulling race cars. Sorry bitch, so 201!

J. Who are you replying to?

I am replying to whoever. Before someone rips me apart I absoluteley love Mcdonough and I in bruges is probably one of my all time top films. I didn t dislike 3 billboards by any means and I think Rockwell, harrelson, and Mcdormand all killed their roles I just don't understand the hype of best film of all time. It was GOOD no doubt. I can't say I was bored as I watched it. I just thought people freaked out over her win but who desevered it more? nobody

J. Oscars, like all the other awards and like the 'best of' lists that people make, are meaningless beauty contests or marketing opportunities. Cage and Stallone both have Oscars. There are plenty of seriously talented people who do not.

I think it's ironic that if one notices an acting performance then that probably means the actor hasn't entirely suspended your disbelief or allowed the character to inhabit the stage or screen.

I enjoyed Rockwell in Moon, where basically he is the entire movie. But honestly, that character in Three Billboards is such an outrageous trope and is so badly written it wouldn't have mattered how he handled it in my view. The imbecilic/man child, deputy/sidekick, is a stock character in both westerns and in the so called 'rural' comedies of the 50s and 60s. And more than a few of them have violent sides. Rockwell could have prepared for this role just by watching show reels of Don Knotts as Barney Fife, or just about anything with Walter Brennan in it. Maybe even some Yosemite Sam cartoons.

Harrelson does Harrelson. Again, I like the actor, but he has two characters. Goofy, lovable idiot. He has been doing this since Cheers in the 80s. And quiet, but seething with explosive rage, a character he turns out here but we have seen in Natural Born Killers, True Detective etc etc etc. He is a character actor who just seems to slide the dial as to what mix of each of his two stock characters he brings to a role.

Quite honestly I cannot tell you anything about the Mildred character outside of the exposition in the dialogue. I don't blame McDormand for that. I think McDonagh assumes our prejudices will do this for us. I have no idea whatsoever why she blames Willoughby personally. I have no idea why she would tell her daughter she hopes she gets raped and murdered. To be clear, McDormand does nothing wrong here and she makes a good fist of what is handed her, but this is hardly a brilliant presentation of a character.

What is the 'pulling race cars' reference?

@mitsuko_soma said:

Hollywood and the media are waging a war against straight, white men and conservative values and it couldn't be more blatantly obvious. It's a running theme in nearly every single movie in about the past 5 years. I'm so glad I don't pay to see this crap anymore.

Nothing demonstrates this more than the CBS series "The Good Fight" where EVERY single white character is depicted as deficient, defective, immoral, unethical, or criminal. Even the black criminals are somehow passed off as victims.

Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page

Settings

Want to rate or add this item to a list?

Login