Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

The essential falseness that runs through the film began for me with the three billboards themselves.

It says in the movie that they were last used in the 1980s for an advertisement for Huggies, or something like that.

But what we see on the old billboards are very fake examples of fake ads from the 1940s, and ads that don't even match up. Those obviously fake billboards let me know from the get go that the production designer was about as concerned with "reality" as the author of the screenplay—not very much.

Probably I'm getting too hung up on the title. If it didn't have Missouri in the title, I might like it a little better.

As it is, I'd rate the movie about a "C+"—but far from Best Picture quality from my pov.

But obviously it's all about point of view. Some people love this movie. That's obviously a valid pov. But some people don't. That's valid too.

 

Speaking of..... whatever happened to the dwarf that was in "In Bruges"?

 

Jordon Prentice? He's been working consistently, just not in any big films.

One of my favorite Peter Dinkledge moments (language NSFW):

 

I think the trailer was enough for me.

 

I get that you feel strongly but this is a work of fiction based on the human condition. It does not matter whether the film is a literally accurate recreation of life in any American state. It could not matter less. It does not matter where the author was raised.

The movie illustrates the foibles of a small town mentality beautifully. We all share in these foibles wherever we grew up.

 

We get that you feel strongly about this technicality. I have no idea if you are right or wrong about the ads being fake or not. I suspect you are guessing.

It does not matter. These were old disused billboards from the past that were revived by the heroine for the movie. The new message is the key.

As humans we can get hung up but please let it go. This is an excellent movie.

 

This! I expect you are too hung up on the title but only you can know for sure.

Open your heart and mind and enjoy.

 

I liked the movie. No mind blowing revelations, but I enjoyed it. Award worthy or whatnot, I wouldn't have an opinion. But I like real-world dramas (for lack of a better phrase) like this more than the regular movie pablum the public gets served up.

 

Perhaps you would be be better off watching only documentaries.

Any work of fiction, be it a work of literature or a movie, constructs a world that isn't quite the world we inhabit. It could be just a little bit off, but it's off nonetheless. The warped mirror, if it's created adroitly, can provide its creator a mechanism to craft and tune insights in a fashion that commonly perceived "reality" might only aspire to.

 

I also think the title is a bit "wordy". "Three Billboards" would have been what I would have liked. But the title chosen doesn't spoil or take-away anything from a movie for me. Just my opinion of course.

 

coming out on DVD/blu-ray later this month

 

Excellent movie. A bit Coen Bros and not just because of its star. I did think the sheriff's wife was miscast. Anyone else agree?

 

Yes, very well spoken,said,written. Thank you.

 

Enjoyed the film. The ending was a pleasant surprise. It had a quality that felt relate able in today's market.

Yes. She is a beautiful actress and I enjoyed her in Candy and Sucker Punch but totally seemed out of place in the movie. Her chemistry with Woody Harrelson wasnt convincing either.

 

Best movie I've seen in ages...

 

Agreed. It was pretty mediocre. Pretty lazy Unrealistic plot and action. Borderline lousy writing (oh the family heartache). I mean, has a town like this of cracker-barrel kinship ever really existed outside some plasticized “Gunsmoke” version of frontier life? AND Woody Harrelson playing Woody Harrelson. Francis McDormand playing. Francis McDormand. And Sam Rockwell playing… Well,… it was like the wax museum of aw-shuckers. A half notch higher and it could have been a modern Blazing Saddles.

Plus incomprehensibly unfunny dwarf jokes. WT-?

If Francis McDormand gets the Oscar I’m going to have to insist that Senior Wence’s fist also gets one because that’s basically what Francis McDormand looked like throughout the movie.


Heh. I think when Rex Reed kicks the bucket I’m going to apply for his job.

 

Ordered.

 

Certainly one of the better movies I've seen in a good while.

I've described it to a couple coworkers as: well, you know what a "screwball comedy" is? Well, this is more like a "screwball drama".

I especially enjoyed how most of the characters were flawed, with more 'cons' than 'pros' in a lot of cases. And yet each one managed 2 or 3 moments where they exceeded my expectations, and did something a little better than I might have expected of them. Not a whole LOT better, mind you -- but 'plausibly better'.

And the acting, particularly in those moments, could have easily gone off the rails -- but in nearly every case, the actors played things more subtly than I think most other actors might have.

I'm not so sure I'd say I "thoroughly enjoyed it", so much as I "rather enjoyed it". I'm not convinced it should actually get the Best Picture Oscar, but I'm glad it was nominated -- and I do hope it does get a few Oscars in some other categories.

 

Other than some token "cause" movies that are clearly inferior, I don't know what deserves an Oscar more...

 

very well put

 

Perhaps "Darkest Hour"? I guess my comments above were more about whether I thought "Three Billboards" was worthy of winning Best Picture in the abstract (without specifically considering it's specific competition). Which, I totally realize is not how it's done -- the winner is a the best out of a specific set of actual nominated movies.

I'm not pining for "Darkest Hour" to win, mind you. And I guess I might even be mildly rooting for "Three Billboards" to win. Meaning I *wasn't* so wowed by it that I think "by god, Three Billboards MUST win" -- but I'd be perfectly OK with it winning, and I do rather like the idea of a film LIKE "Three Billboards" winning, quirky as it is.

Does that make even the tiniest bit of sense?? Probably not, I realize.

 

The Writer's Guild awards were today and "Get Out" apparently won. If the Oscars are going to be all about "cause" and not the "craft" it's supposed to honor, then they are meaningless. If I want to watch a meaningless awards show, I'll watch the Grammys.

 

I think I'd (slightly) rather "Three Billboards" won a couple Oscars any of the following categories:

• Frances McDormand -- I'd LOVE to see her get a Oscar for a lead role in a movie sometime, and now's as good a time as any. She's such a badass, not just some of her characters, but her herself. Feisty, and strong headed. I haven't see everything she's been in, but I've loved everything I've ever seen her in.
• And I do certainly think Martin McDonagh ought to get Best Original Screenplay. (So if it doesn't get best picture, I really hope the director gets this screenplay award.)
• Maybe one of the best supporting actor nominations? (but I'd rather see Frances get hers). Sam over Woody, in my book, though Woody did a rather good job too (and I'm not always his biggest fan).

 

I like how the movie takes some surprising twists and turns. Some characters are not what they seem to be at first and when you think you have figured them out, they surprise you.

I think it is pretty absurd to say that all the actors play themselves. Woody Harrelson plays himself? Frances McDormand plays herself? Really? Just like Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski she probably wore her own personal clothes. Don't be absurd.

Some people seem to be offended, because they consider the movie an attack on small cities or towns. I think this is just incorrect. The town is populated by characters that feel real. They have their faults, but they are not one-dimensional brutes or ignorant idiots.

 

That was entirely what made the film for me. Absent those surprises (which, thankfully, weren't absurd surprises - but certainly a little out of character for each), I think the film would have fallen flat for me.

It was nice seeing everyone behaving just a little better than I was expecting as various key moments in the film. I said it before upthread, but that could have all been handled very badly, both from a writing perspective and an acting perspective too. Seemed to me they struck the right balance, between semi-absurdity and semi-believability.

The moment when Woody Harrelson's character is questioning Francis McDermott, and he coughs and is clearly not well. Her reaction there, very counter to the tone of the discussion they were having, was really well done. A dozen different ways that scene could have been handled that would have all been frankly silly, or rang false -- but somehow it rang mostly true for me; no small feat.

Another thing I'm remembering now is the economy (of words) with which those surprises are played out. Very little unnecessary emotive babbling, or exposition. Some were blink and you'll miss 'em (not quite, but sorta). Just a beat or two, and they didn't overly linger on those moments either for (cheap) effect.

Not a perfect film, but it tried to do a lot, and I think it mostly succeeded. And I got a real kick out it, and it kept me guessing, which is no small feat either.