Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6254
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:46 pm

I wouldn't say it has Slumdog potential -- that was a movie that had some pretty clear crowd-pleasing elements. (As soon as I read the reviews calling it Dickensian, I had the idea it could cruise to victory.) Three Billboards strikes me as more like No Country for Old Men -- a movie that becomes the front-runner almost in spite of itself. There are elements to the film that will surely put some people off; it's not a comforting sit, even though it does provide moments of grace. But the emotional pull of it, and the pleasurable narrative surprises it offers, should win a lot of people over -- much in the way the gripping thriller parts of No Country got it to the podium despite many people being baffled by its last 15 minutes.

Of course, I suppose you could argue No Country eased its way to best picture just as effortlessly Slumdog, sweeping through the Guilds. But it missed at the Globes and BAFTA, so it had a rockier route, and of course wasn't nearly the commercial juggernaut.

This is all getting ahead of ourselves, of course, as we have no idea yet of the commercial fate of Call Me by Your Name, Shape of Water, The Post or The Phantom Thread, any of which could swoop in and take the race by storm. It's even possible I'll have a different favorite six weeks from now.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby The Original BJ » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:38 am

I think it's a very possible winner -- it's a dark movie, but I imagine many people will just find it so cathartic right now, especially in Hollywood, where a vote for a film on this subject matter would essentially be seen as a vote for every aggrieved woman sick and tired of watching abusive men evade punishment.

(Of course, I do think other films on the slate speak to the moment as well -- we might well be underestimating Get Out, which speaks to the anger of the Trump era in a similar manner, and was a genuine cultural phenomenon. But there are also kinder films -- Lady Bird, Call Me By Your Name -- that I could also see really meaning a lot to people, and would also feel like a vote for progressive values even if they aren't as angry movies.)

My hope, of course, is that we have a real race between a lot of genuinely exciting movies, and I think that is definitely a possible scenario.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Sonic Youth » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:17 am

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the movie yet, and can't lay our eyes upon this spoiler-filled thread lest we turn to dust... would you, Original BJ and Mister Tee, say this may very well be far and away the Best Picture front-runner? It's seemed to me since Toronto that this might become the film to beat. Post-Weinstein, it feels undeniable right now.

Yeah I know, don't be hasty, wait and see, we're all still licking our wounds from La La Land, etc. Nonetheless this is, sight unseen, my premonition as of now, that 3 Billboards could achieve a Slumdog Millionaire trajectory. IOW, a movie that ordinary people (ie, people who are not us) simply didn't see coming all of a sudden being THE surprise sensation everyone is going to see. Nobody planned on seeing it, nobody knew this was something they'd be told they had to go see, but before long it's the conversation starter of the year, dominating both entertainment news and regular news. Is this at all feasible?

Or, people will "hot take" the film to death, and it could crash and burn. Who knows?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby The Original BJ » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:30 pm

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Mister Tee wrote:I think it's interestingly ambiguous why he picks up the file.


There's also another possibility -- Dixon could realize that solving an unsolved case causing the police department a lot of grief could be the ticket to getting his job back, and he frantically tries to save the file with that (consciously or even subconsciously) in mind.

I guess it isn't insane to think he might be contemplating suicide in that scene -- which, yes, directly follows him finding out the guy from Idaho doesn't match the DNA. He's lost his job, he's also been badly burned (which will leave physical and emotional scars), and he's stuck with his very challenging mother. Certainly compared to Willoughby's reason for killing himself, Dixon's scenario doesn't seem like it should make him as desperate, but he might well be having the thought.

Oh yeah, the DNA would probably be somewhere else as well, you're right.

One detail I forgot to add -- it's interesting that McDonagh gives the line "We aren't all bad" to the black police chief, given that the argument that not all cops are bad typically pops up in the conversation surrounding police officers' treatment of racial minorities.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6254
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Mister Tee » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:14 pm

AT THIS POINT, JUST ASSUME SPOILERS, AS THERE'S NO WAY TO RESPOND TO POINTS WITHOUT DOING SO. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PLOT SURPRISES IN THE FILM, SO DON'T DENY YOURSELF THE PLEASURE OF THESE BY READING SPOILER-FILLED POSTS

The Original BJ wrote:There's a great detail I didn't catch the first time that helps set up one of the movie's most carefully plotted sequences: after Willoughby's suicide, Dixon is listening to music on his headphones, as outside, officers are hugging one another in mourning, and even making noise inside the station. Later, Dixon has to go to the station to pick up Willoughby's letter, but can't until after hours because of his obnoxious behavior toward the new police chief. He then is listening on his headphones -- something that has been established as a habit of his, and one that will prevent him from hearing anything else going on, so he doesn't hear Mildred call the police station to make sure that it's empty. (And she does this TWICE, wanting to make absolutely certain she won't cause harm to any actual human being). Then, he still doesn't hear the the bottles breaking or flames growing, until he's impacted physically, at which point it's too late.


What's especially good about this element is, it doesn't just work as plot device, but also as metaphorical summation of Dixon's character. You have the sense he's listening to music all the time because it blocks out the voices in his head -- specifically, the voices of his mother telling him how useless he is. It gives him a certain level of peace, but it also causes him harm -- literal harm, in the fire-bomb scene you mention, but also just the harm of being totally out of it on important information. Recall, in the first Mildred/Willoughby scene, Willoughby confides about his cancer, and Mildred's reply is "Everybody knows that." But Dixon DIDN'T know -- when the cough-blood scene comes, it's the first Dixon knows about Willoughby's condition. And Willoughby is probably his closest colleague.

The Original BJ wrote:It's also really interesting that Dixon saves Mildred's daughter's file before rushing out through the fire. Presumably, there are a lot of important files in that police station, so why does he save this one? Is it just because it's the one on his desk? Or, for all his immaturity, does he genuinely care about solving that case (something which seems clearer and clearer as the film goes on)? OR... does the fact that he's reading Willoughby's letter at that moment, extolling him that he has the potential in him to be better, inspire him to grab that folder before he flees? (It's also, obviously, important plot-wise later on -- the DNA test from the crime scene would be in that file.)


I think it's interestingly ambiguous why he picks up the file. Since I then had a very negative slant on the character, it crossed my mind he might blame Mildred for his losing his job (indirectly -- it was her hiring the billboards that got him to throw the guy out the window) and be thinking there was some way he could get back at her if he looked deep enough into the file. Your interpretation is also possible. Or some combination of the two: he left thinking one, but Willoughby's words echoed in his head enough he moved on to another.

I'm not 100% sure the DNA would only be in the file. The testing lab would probably have it saved, if all else failed.

The Original BJ wrote:Both times I saw the film, the audience collectively gasped at the sight of Dixon leaning on his rifle before he calls Mildred in the penultimate scene. The suggestion seems to be that he's about to commit suicide. Honestly, it doesn't SEEM like the events leading up to this scene would drive him to suicide, but I guess the twisty nature of the film's plot by that point had us all thinking that wouldn't be a totally out-of-left-field curve ball.


I'm actually having trouble remembering exactly when this scene occurred. I'm thinking it was after the new chief had given him the bad news on the DNA test? That struck me as motive enough for an act of despair -- he'd thought he'd done something major enough to redeem himself (maybe enough to get his job back), and with that dashed, he saw no hope at all.

A few other things related to that:

In his scene with the new chief, I was certain the chief's "great work, but -- " was going to be "...but you can't have your job back". So, even in the momentary pause there, McDonagh slipped in a narrative surprise.

The way Dixon held the gun DID suggest suicide was a possibility, and the fact that he didn't echoed the earlier switcheroo, where we thought Willoughby was going to, as he told his wife, kill the horses, but did something different.

It seems significant that Dixon's decision to become confederates with Mildred occurs after a scene showing his mother asleep/silent. (I for a moment wondered if he'd killed her, or was about to.) As if only with her voice quieted can he make decisions for myself.

That there's so much to talk about narratively tells us something about McDonagh: while he comes from something of a hipster tradition in his subject matter/tone, structurally he's very much a classicist -- every moment is carefully chosen to fit into an overall scheme. I remember, as far back as Beauty Queen of Leenane, being surprised that a play that seemed to have kinship with Pinter or Shepard had, by the end, sneakily evolved into a well-made play. This film is very much in that tradition.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby The Original BJ » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:17 am

Saw the movie again today, so here are some additional thoughts:

HUGE SPOILERS FOLLOW ABSOLUTELY DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE

In my earlier post, I'd mentioned that Mildred butts up against systemic issues that prevent her from achieving justice for her daughter. This is true, but in a different, more complex way than you'd expect. A lesser film might have had the police actively sabotaging the investigation, or showing that the men at the police station -- and they are all men -- just don't care about this case as much as they should. But that isn't the case -- Willoughby has done his due diligence, there just are no more leads to follow. The systemic hurdle, then, is a social one: the reaction that the town as a whole has to Mildred, making her entire quest more difficult. There's a crucial line where Willoughby tells Mildred that the town is on her side with respect to the tragedy (i.e. sympathizing with her because her daughter was raped and murdered) but not on her side when it comes to the billboards (i.e. demanding that institutions of justice work for her and making a fuss when they don't). You can draw a direct line from this idea to arguments like, say, child rape is terrible, but how dare you feminists use that to try to stop our senate candidate from winning an election (or any other conflict where people ostensibly are on an aggrieved person/group's side until they start making too many waves.)

One thing that's also interesting is the contrast between the fact that everyone in Ebbing seems to be up on the local gossip -- kids at school bully Mildred's son over the billboards, the guy who puts up the billboard knows Dixon's history of racial prejudice, everyone is of course aware of the names of those involved in the recent rape/murder tragedy -- and the fact that people don't actually seem to know each other very much. For instance, Red Welby knows Mildred by name, but he doesn't know who she is when she first walks into his office. Mildred and Mrs. Willoughby don't seem to have met before their scene together. The young black guy who puts up the billboard has to introduce himself to Mildred when he comes to her house, even after doing a job for her earlier in the film. This dichotomy seems to shore up one of the movie's main ideas, that it's easy to develop preconceptions about people you don't know, and if everyone made more of an effort to actually connect with their neighbors, they might surprise one another, and they'd all be a lot better off.

There's a great detail I didn't catch the first time that helps set up one of the movie's most carefully plotted sequences: after Willoughby's suicide, Dixon is listening to music on his headphones, as outside, officers are hugging one another in mourning, and even making noise inside the station. Later, Dixon has to go to the station to pick up Willoughby's letter, but can't until after hours because of his obnoxious behavior toward the new police chief. He then is listening on his headphones -- something that has been established as a habit of his, and one that will prevent him from hearing anything else going on, so he doesn't hear Mildred call the police station to make sure that it's empty. (And she does this TWICE, wanting to make absolutely certain she won't cause harm to any actual human being). Then, he still doesn't hear the the bottles breaking or flames growing, until he's impacted physically, at which point it's too late. He is then saved by the one character in the movie who has been established as feeling generous toward Mildred, thus helping her get off the hook when she'd otherwise be caught red-handed. This is very careful, effective plotting.

It's also really interesting that Dixon saves Mildred's daughter's file before rushing out through the fire. Presumably, there are a lot of important files in that police station, so why does he save this one? Is it just because it's the one on his desk? Or, for all his immaturity, does he genuinely care about solving that case (something which seems clearer and clearer as the film goes on)? OR... does the fact that he's reading Willoughby's letter at that moment, extolling him that he has the potential in him to be better, inspire him to grab that folder before he flees? (It's also, obviously, important plot-wise later on -- the DNA test from the crime scene would be in that file.)

The bar fight is also really deftly set up. If it hadn't been, this would have come off REALLY convenient -- Dixon just happens to overhear some guy confessing to the rape/murder in a bar? But it doesn't come off that way for three reasons: 1) The guy has already been established as a complete creep, who flat tells Mildred he wishes he had raped her daughter. 2) Willoughby's letter set up the prospect that the case might be solved when someone bragged about the crime casually in a bar one night, so there's a dose of irony in the fact that he was right about that... 2a) and it's neat that these two things are set up in basically the same scene in Mildred's store. And 3) The guy doesn't end up being the killer -- when we all expect him to be -- and therefore he's not the easy solution for our characters he seemed he'd be.

I also can't believe I missed what Mister Tee pointed out -- that WE know this guy was the creep who threatened Mildred in her store, but that SHE has no idea as she's headed off to Idaho. Which, of course, makes it likely she'll have SOME reaction when she meets him again. Whether or not that makes her more likely to want to kill him seems totally up in the air, and dependent on however she and Dixon feel after they've made the (LONG) drive from Missouri to Idaho. But it certainly makes the ending feel more complicated than if the guy had been someone she'd never encountered.

And it's worth pointing out there's another contemporary hot-button issue that the movie weaves in -- the treatment of Middle Easterners by Americans in the military overseas -- as talked around in the scene between Dixon and the new chief near the end of the movie.

McDormand's reaction to Dinklage's "I'm going to go use the little boy's room" is a complete killer.

Both times I saw the film, the audience collectively gasped at the sight of Dixon leaning on his rifle before he calls Mildred in the penultimate scene. The suggestion seems to be that he's about to commit suicide. Honestly, it doesn't SEEM like the events leading up to this scene would drive him to suicide, but I guess the twisty nature of the film's plot by that point had us all thinking that wouldn't be a totally out-of-left-field curve ball.

Knowing that Willoughby's day with his wife and daughters will in fact be his last day alive makes that entire sequence play so differently -- I found myself quite overwhelmed by his death and the reading of his letter to his wife on a second-go-round.

And lastly, it was reported today that this movie will NOT be eligible for the WGA Award, which makes me seriously annoyed that I won't be able to give it my vote!

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6254
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:48 pm

I've found a lot of McDonagh's work, for stage and screen, exceedingly enjoyable, but too often within a narrow range -- a jokey, violence-heavy universe that felt similar to Tarantino's films. The Pillowman, a truly wonderful play, persuaded me he's capable of a good deal more, and Three Billboards vindicates my hopes. This is a dense, textured piece of work that covers a great deal of ground and works pretty much fully. An excellent film that I actually find a bit daunting to write about at the moment, because it deserves significant discussion and I may not have the energy right now to meet that standard. But, a few thoughts:

I have the same notion BJ expressed, that I'd like to see the film again, not just to re-experience its pleasures, but to better appreciate its totality -- to observe how its many many pieces fit together so beautifully. This is a film that directly covers many hot-button contemporary issues -- rape, crime, racism, police brutality, small-town small-mindedeness -- but also deals with issues like family, motherhood, friendship, grief. It also sometimes deals with issues in indirect, disguised ways (as when the billboards are aflame, in a way that for me quickly evoked a Klan cross-burning). And it does all this within the framework of an incredibly clever, beautifully structured and twist-filled narrative.

I'd gone in thinking the praise for the film's screenplay would be due to McDonagh's verbal facility -- and there's certainly plenty of that on display, whether in full-on speeches (like Mildred's dismissal of her butting-in pastor) or in throwaways (like the 19-year-old's "Which is the one with guys on horses?"). But the real writing achievement here is how he's put on-screen something that feels like it has the breadth of a novel -- a story that goes further and further, to unexpected places, and winds up in just the right place. And one shouldn't neglect McDonagh's work as director, either. For a guy who comes from the theatre, he doesn't feel proscenium-bound in the least; this works fully as a project conceived for film, not retro-fitted from a stage concept. The visuals may not be Scorsese-vivid, but the film feels fully confident in the medium -- right up to its closing shot, which echoes the opening one, except travelling with company rather than solo, and heading the opposite direction.

I'LL TRY NOT TO SPOIL, BUT MAY NOT BE SUCCESSFUL: There are just a multitude of moments that stick in the mind. The shocking turn in the scene of Willoughby's interview with Mildred. The touching/carnal exchange between Willoughby and his wife, and the sudden reversal. The heartbreaking flashback to Mildred's fight with her daughter. The humor and insight of Willoughby's letters. Peter Dinklage's sudden appearance as White Knight, and Mildred's subsequent lack of gratitude. The moment you realize what Dixon is up to in the bar scene. Mildred's encounters with her ex. Dixon's final line. All the moments when people turn out different from what you'd expect -- like Dixon and the billboard-renter in the hospital, or the newly-arrived police chief. And the moments where the plots doesn't go where you assume, like the results of the DNA test. McDonagh's inventiveness even carries into the film's aftermath -- the Mildred/Dixon dialogue suggests they may not finish out their mission...but we know Mildred is going to be surprised what she finds when she arrives, and she may change her mind again. I can't think of the last film I saw that had so many elements to which I reacted so strongly.

As BJ says, everybody in the cast is first-rate; this has to be a SAG Ensemble candidate, right? Lucas Hedges, John Hawkes and Peter Dinklage all have their moments (as do minor characters like Dixon's mom, or Mildred's employer, or Clarke Peters' chief). But, primarily, you have to focus on the triumvirate of Harrelson/Rockwell/McDormand. Harrelson's role made me think a bit of how I reacted to Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men -- that there was another supporting actor in the film who clearly had the stronger/larger role, but I wanted to somehow reward this man for being as good as I've ever seen him on film. Harrelson' Willoughby is, I'd say, the soul of the movie -- he's annoyed by Mildred and Dixon, and maybe by everybody, but at the same time appreciates their good sides, and is willing to wait for that good side to assert itself. He fills the role with humor and irony that lingers even after the character has disappeared. Rockwell's Dixon is also a terrific creation, and in the end a more central one. He's a kid, even at his advanced age, because is mother has browbeat him to remain one (you can catch a slight stammer whenever the subject of his mother arises). He's a loose cannon, one only vaguely aware of his limitations, and up to a point he can seem irredeemable. But he's got enough spark of good in him that the right kind of encouragement -- like Willoughby's letter -- can set him on a path of, if not righteousness, at least better-ness. His character really seems to travel a path.

Finally, McDormand. I'm not sure I'd agree with BJ that it's her finest creation -- I think Fargo will always be the thing she brought into being of which I couldn't have conceived without her. But let's say that this is a role that matches it in variety, in intensity, and is as close to being a perfect role for her existing persona as could be imagined. She flashes a Joan-of-Arc-like conviction throughout, judging the world harshly at every turn (though we ultimately find out the one she's judging most harshly is herself). She's on a crusade -- even in the moments she's wrong -- and doesn't crack a smile until the film's very last moment. And she has all kinds of wonderful moments, many of them profane, but some surprisingly tender -- none more than her broken-hearted colloquium with the deer, which I would bet will be her Oscar clip. This is as complex a portrait of a woman consumed by grief and guilt as I've ever seen.

Nominations all around. I think the film could be a surprisingly strong best picture contender -- as BJ says, in the vein of No Country for Old Men, or Birdman -- because, despite its tonal challenges, it connects to basic human emotions in a powerful way. Best movie so far this year. Maybe my favorite since Boyhood. A real knockout.

Kellens101
Temp
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:47 am

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Kellens101 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:37 pm

This sounds fantastic. I cannot wait to see it now. When you hear Frances McDormand gives her best work to date, that's really cause for excitement.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:14 pm

Sabin wrote:Do you think it could win Best Picture?


Watching it I had the thought -- this doesn't feel like a Best Picture winner; it's closer in spirit to No Country for Old Men. :D

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7224
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Sabin » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:05 pm

Very much looking forward to it. When I saw the trailer, i wrote it off as a possible winner for acting and writing, but likely not more. Do you think it could win Best Picture?
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:46 am

There's obviously no way the folks at Fox Searchlight -- or Martin McDonagh, way back when he was developing this script -- could have possibly known the environment in which this film would be released. But if you could have concocted in a lab a film that burrowed deep into the zeitgeist of this month in America, it would probably look a lot like Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. The story of a woman seeking justice for her daughter's rapist-murderer, in the face of consistently infuriating systemic and cultural hurdles that keep standing in her way, feels almost like the cathartic national narrative an angry country sick and tired of tolerating abusive men needs right now. And yet, in any context, I think this would be a terrific movie, a brutal (and brutally funny) piece of work, full of layers, and open to plenty of interpretations about its meaning and resonance.

Many folks expressed surprise when the film won the Audience Award at Toronto, believing that it was simply too dark for an award that has often gone to the likes of Slumdog Millionaire and The King's Speech. But as I watched this movie -- with an audience that just hollered and cheered repeatedly throughout the running time -- I realized the prize made quite a bit of sense after all. McDonagh has made a real rarity -- a bleak crowd-pleaser, where the horrors of the film's violence and tragedies only fuel the viewer's desire to watch justice be served.

And, as in much of McDonagh's work, he balances laugh-out-loud humor with brutal bursts of violence in a manner that strikes me as immensely difficult to pull off effectively. Of course, it's not that other filmmakers don't do this -- Tarantino, for instance, has made an entire career out of it. But it's one thing to play violence and comedy facetiously, and another to use humor as essentially the characters' only mechanism to cope with the nightmarish things they're experiencing. (Essentially "I laugh that I may not kill myself.") I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie that's this funny that also looks at the world with such an overwhelming sense of despair.

Plot-wise, this is a beautifully structured script. I've often expressed that one of my bigger disappointments with many movies these days (particularly American movies) is simply the fact that they don't tell stories that feel surprising in any way. Three Billboards had me constantly wondering where its plot was headed, and kept throwing interesting curve balls along the way; these narrative turns, I should add, were often carefully set up or foreshadowed in a manner that made them feel fully organic within the story as opposed to just random plot pivots. And the way various characters come in and out of one another's lives throughout the story made me feel like I was constantly watching new dynamics develop between the citizens of the town, frequently learning new things about the major players as the film went on. This is very rich writing, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this win the lion's share of the critics' prizes for Screenplay this year.

The cast is splendid, from the actors who basically get one notable showcase moment (Hedges, Cornish), to those who provide great texture throughout (Hawkes, Dinklage, Ivanek), to the guys with the meatiest supporting roles. Harrelson plays his sheriff in a manner that's somewhat unexpected -- you'd think he'd be a real antagonist to McDormand, but it's clear he's got a lot of respect for her. He's also the kind of guy who's always had a sense of humor, and isn't going to change that just because he's dealing with tragedy at the moment. And Rockwell effectively brings out the contradictions inherent in his character -- he's a racist, for sure, as well as immature and prone to violence. But he also believes sincerely in his work, and at heart takes seriously his role as a police officer in doling out justice.

But of course the movie belongs to McDormand, who relishes McDonagh's spitfire dialogue with force, anger, and a ton of wit. This might well be the best performance she's ever given -- and I've often been a big fan -- aided certainly by a great part, but also a part that's clearly enhanced by what she's bringing to it. I'm not sure there's another actress who could have portrayed the abrasive unlikability that turns so many of her neighbors against her while simultaneously making the audience sympathize so deeply with her even as she's doing some fairly terrible things.

I imagine that I will have more to say than this, but I feel like I'll want a second viewing of this movie to wrap my head around its ideas and manner of execution a bit better, just because I think it's such a complicated, morally thorny piece of work. (By that point, more people will have likely seen it, too, so I won't have to avoid spoilers as much).

I'm sure it's clear by now, but to sum up: highly recommended.

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1067
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby mlrg » Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:44 am

OscarGuy wrote:I'm not sure which trailers everyone is seeing for mother! For instance, last week when we went to the movies, it was that teaser where she's hearing voices and wandering through the house. The one we saw this week was the full trailer with Bardem doing a fair bit of gaslighting, Ed Harris creepy, exploding blood-filled lightbulbs and the works. I didn't care much for the teaser, but I like the follow-up quite a bit. It does give a very cultish Rosemary's Baby vibe. I think the reason for the wide release is that there might be a twist that could easily be spoiled and since it's a horror film, a wide release would be more appropriate than a platform release.

That said, anyone who's seen the second trailer: do you recognize the music used in that or is that piece from the film itself? I love it and if it's the score to the film, it's one I think should certainly be in competition for a win. Reminds me a bit of Herrmann's work on Hitchcock films.

I don't know the name of the music used but initial reports are saying that the film has almost no score whatsoever

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby OscarGuy » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:08 am

I'm not sure which trailers everyone is seeing for mother! For instance, last week when we went to the movies, it was that teaser where she's hearing voices and wandering through the house. The one we saw this week was the full trailer with Bardem doing a fair bit of gaslighting, Ed Harris creepy, exploding blood-filled lightbulbs and the works. I didn't care much for the teaser, but I like the follow-up quite a bit. It does give a very cultish Rosemary's Baby vibe. I think the reason for the wide release is that there might be a twist that could easily be spoiled and since it's a horror film, a wide release would be more appropriate than a platform release.

That said, anyone who's seen the second trailer: do you recognize the music used in that or is that piece from the film itself? I love it and if it's the score to the film, it's one I think should certainly be in competition for a win. Reminds me a bit of Herrmann's work on Hitchcock films.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
Precious Doll
Tenured
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Precious Doll » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:26 am

Big Magilla wrote:
Bening would be the first "mature" winner since Julianne Moore, her co-star in The Kids Are Alright for which she was last nominated. There's that, plus some residual guilt for her failure to be nominated last year for 20th Century Women. Then there's that swoon-worthy Gloria Grahame voice she perfects in Film Stars, too delicious to be ignored.

Hawkins, at 41, would be the fourth best actress nominee in a mute performance in a talkie. All three previous nominees - Jane Wyman, Marlee Matlin and Holly Hunter won, so there's history on her side.

This could be one of those years in which the suspense lasts until the envelope is opened, provided, of course, that the avalanche of precursors doesn't coalesce around one actress early on.


I actually watched the trailer today for Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool and think it looks wonderful. I was bowled over by Bennings accent and glad to be proven wrong the Jamie Banks was miscast - they both look perfect in the roles. Anyone who hasn't read the book should do themselves a favour and get hold of a copy. It's a very quick, easy and enjoyable read.

A would love to see Sally Hawkins win. She was also wonderful this year in Maudie but it will be The Weight of Water that she will be nominated. Despite my loathing of Sally Hopkins most acclaimed role in Happy Go Lucky I always look forward to her work and it always brings me back to the Mike Leigh film All or Nothing in which Sally Hawkins made her screen debut. She played a rather sluttish young woman hanging around the apartment building where the film unfolds and she may seem tough and abrasive at first but she posses a wonderful warm heart underneath and commits an unselfish act of charity. Hawkins or Benning would make very good winners - sight unseen of course.
"I have no interest in all of that. I find that all tabloid stupidity" Woody Allen, The Guardian, 2014, in response to his adopted daughter's allegations.

User avatar
Precious Doll
Tenured
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri reviews

Postby Precious Doll » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:19 am

OscarGuy wrote:Rosemary's Baby picked up nominations for Best Supporting Actress and Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars and those two plus Drama Actress and Original Score at the Globes.

Am I the only one who has seen the full trailer for mother! and not immediately thought that everything seems to be playing out like a more gory cousin of Rosemary's Baby?


People over on the Criterion forum posted some Mother posters which look very much like Rosemary Baby's advertising:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/vie ... 1&start=25

I'd only seen two. The one that's been up in cinema for months with Lawrence holding her heart and only just today a close-up of Lawrence's face on bus shelters. It's worth noting that Mother is getting a virtually worldwide release around the same date. I smell something rotten with that as it's usually only done with big budget studio template films like the latest Stars Wars note something like this. Feels very much like take the money and run.
"I have no interest in all of that. I find that all tabloid stupidity" Woody Allen, The Guardian, 2014, in response to his adopted daughter's allegations.


Return to “2017”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest