All signs point to it winning the Oscar, but does it really deserve it? The story of a nearly-crazed protagonist who does terrible things to people who are not even the perpetrators?
Isn't there a film with a better message than this?
This film plenty of violence. It's a lot easier to show people in pain to get attention than to make them laugh or feel uplifted.
Isn't there a film that does this?
I think what makes this movie successful is that it accomplishes to invoke different emotions from its audience.
There's humour in it, but it also portrays a character's sincere pain of having to deal with the rape/death of a child, but not only that, but the lack of justice that was served, causing the mother character to lash out at people who may not necessarily be responsible for the crime, but it was their responsibility to serve justice.
There's also a sense of triumph and redemption. The Dixon character is despicable in the first half of the movie, but by the second half, you root for him, you want him to be redeemed, you want him to finally bring closure to the mother. It gives you a momentary sense of hope but it gets taken away when the guy's DNA doesn't match.
This movie actually has a sense of realism to it, in the sense that cases like this don't have closure, the people affected by it, don't get closure and because of that, they look for someone to blame and lash out.
Like it or not, pain is part of our day to day lives, yeah, I understand films can be a form of escapism, but sometimes, you want a film that is powerful enough to provoke a reaction out of your audience. Whether it is negative or positive, it still provoked emotion from its audience, which deserves a lot of credit.
I appreciate your thoughts, but looking at the long term I believe it's a cynical film for a cynical time and if it gets chosen best picture, it will be in the column of those winners that are later pretty much forgotten. Later on anyone who does look over the list of winners will be saying "what were they thinking?".
shareI agree that the nomination is completely undeserved. Aside from the problems you mentioned I personally also felt like the story was just wandering aimlessly, it didn't seem to have any particular direction.
Agreed. I liked this movie better when it was called No Country for Old Men. Or Fargo. Or Badlands. Or True Detective.
shareSure I enjoyed the movie but it was predictably filled with the usual anti-Trump, anti-conservative propaganda beyond ridicolous (and I am not even American)
share[deleted]
Hey, thanks for your post!
I'm on record about my own doubts about this movie, but somehow want to play devil's advocate a bit:
- the movie isn't realistic, agreed, but then neither is Fantasia. The requirement to be realistic is something you are putting on it, but the general public does not require that for a movie to be good. I'd say instead that this is a fantasy of how life could be.
- Same thing about evolution. In some films nobody changes. Having only one person change is quite common also.
- It's not required to wrap up the story of every minor character either. These questions are outside the movie's main stream and focus.
- What you say about Mildred is all true, but that's what makes her an interesting character. She's so extreme.
- I didn't find the performances bad. You don't state what you think is bad about them so it's hard to discuss.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So there ya go. I only wish this movie was longer and better put together, I swear. Because the idea, setting and some characters are good.[/quote]
Found it quite long enough! :)
[quote] P.S.: The more I look at it, the more I realise the creators had a lot of good ideas. They just lost themselves in the frenzy and that's why everything seems so frazzled and all over the place. My opinion, anyhow.
[deleted]
- The realism point is not about me wanting the movie to be realistic. I just saw A LOT of people arguing that that's how real life works and that the movie depicts loss and retribution as real life would have it.[/quote]
OK, I haven't seen that. Wonder where you saw it?
[quote] Also, the bigger point there was about how although there are seemingly no consequences up to that point, Dixon and Mildred still have a talk about what they are about to do. And they both proved they don't give a rat's ass about hurting people as long as it suits their needs so it's just... Not good writing there.[/quote]
They're both messed up people. That's how the movie gets away with that.
[quote]- I agree - wholeheartedly. But this movie is about going through the motions, reacting and possibly learning to and from situations and... ALL the things that Mildred is going through and nothing changes?...
In the letter it's said the sheriff knows it has been hard for Dixon since his dad's death. HOWEVER If we knew this from the beginning, this would just come as part of the character and he's a troubled asshole. But we don't... [/quote]
Yes, agreed. Most plays and many movies have this structure where the exposition is one thing, but by the end we see that the reality is quite otherwise. When this is done well the viewer feels fairly treated, but here we just feel cheated. It's dirty pool in this case. Trouble is, people are so used to this sort of thing that many don't notice the difference
[quote] BUT when you make me feel like a character is important and I should care about them or give them a pivotal role in the story (Red and James), then don't pretend like they didn't exist in the last act of the freaking movie... [/quote]
For a while I too decided Dinklage was important - probably because he's too good an actor for that small part - but by the end I could agree that he doesn't matter *that* much.
[quote] - Well... You see that as extreme, I see that as not very complex... Maybe it's the acting at fault here? [/quote]
Not sure if it's the acting. Suspect she's accurately reflecting the writing.
[quote] - The main cast did an alright job, but the supporting cast annoyed me. When Anna (sheriff's wife) visits the shop Mildred works in is one of the worst ones, in my opinion. It's stiff. And awkward at times. It's like I'm watching people trying their hardest to convey emotions, at some points.
[/quote]
Saw this back in December and don't remember that scene well. Any chance that "awkward" was what they were going for? Sometimes that's the case.
[quote]There are brilliant moments - when Bill is in hospital and then his wife goes away from him and he breaks down. That's a beautiful scene. Or when Mildred sees the burning billboards - I can feel the desperation in her voice. It's not BAD acting, it's not the best.
[deleted]
Yes, *feels* longish is the right way to put it. But actually, have you seen Call Me By Your Name? That feels much longer.
I don't mind a sprawling movie taking chances. I want Hollywood to innovate and take chances on new forms. The old forms have been done to death and make things too predictable now. So I think that part is good. Have you seen Ladybird? It has about five of what I call "false starts", i.e. scenes that you think are going to lead to something major, but end up really not mattering. But they contribute to the overall feeling of the setting, so it all works. They were more successful doing it in Ladybird than here though.
Awkward is a cousin of funny though. Seems like that show Frasier went on for years on awkward. ;)
I guess I have a like/lukewarm feeling about the movie. Like most of it, dislike some of it.
[deleted]
Yes, but I wouldn't want Three Billboards to be any longer. So how do you feel about War & Peace? ;)
Not really unresolved conflicts, but all these little stories such as the first boyfriends, the drama teacher, etc. that by the end are not really important by the end. I wrote more about it over at the Lady Bird forum: https://moviechat.org/tt4925292/Lady-Bird/5a132aea69b24100127fa9c3/What-I-liked-and-didnt
:) Probably what they were going for was "quirky". :)
[deleted]
OK, fair enough. :) The more one likes a thing the more one wants it to continue.
It's true, but maybe there were more reasons to include that scene. Maybe they just wanted to vary the tone. Maybe they just wanted to throw an interesting different dimension in there. Maybe the film was feeling short to them and they just wanted more interesting scenes. Perhaps they're even planning a sequel. :)
[deleted]
Since a good story always leaves one wanting more, seems they've succeeded with you! :)
Haha, maybe they would. :) I'm not that invested; you would have a better handle on that than me. :)
Here the writer-director explains why things are left so open-ended:
https://www.metro.us/entertainment/movies/three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri-ending-spoilers
bump
shareI am hoping it wins! I really enjoyed it. My second choice to win would be Call Me By Your Name.
share