I found it rather disappointing, and borderline "bad", in the lack of a better word.

The script felt contrived, confused, anachronistic, all over the place with the tone, unconvincing, the pacing was off, humor awkward, the music distracting, and ultimately unrewarding.

So many weird/clunky ideas, with a Missouri Sheriff and his Australian/British wife, his early suicide in the film and follow-up insipid letters to various characters in the film, the lonely town midget, the smelly girlfriend of Mildred's ex-husband, Mildred burning the police station exactly the night Dixon is there to return the keys, the weird ex-army guy that threatens Mildred and then is accidentally overheard by Dixon talking about raping and killing someone, all black characters in the film appearing above average intelligent, poised and composed. Nothing of this feels organic.

It's seem to be a movie that scores on small, superficially poignant moments that happen 2 or 3 times in the film, but ultimately are manipulative. Moments that for some reason elevate the value of the rest of the film for the most of the audience and sadly professional critics, the remainder that is in essence very weak.

I feel the same way to some extent...I think the reason it's getting such praise is there is so little quality work out there that critics and audiences get a bit over-exuberant. 7/10 for me

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.

@mitsuko_soma said:

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

I can't believe you gave it a 3/10 after reading your thoughts! :)

While I can see the validity of your points about this film, it didn't seem like it took anyone's position seriously. It was more of a caricature piece than a character piece. I would argue that every character is flawed, including the lead. No position is to be taken at face value. For me, in the end, the film seemed to get to a deeper, human, flawed connection that we all have rather than portraying who is "right" and who is "wrong." This is illustrated when even the main conflict (spoiler alert!-->) is left unresolved.

The film is marketed as "dark comedy" and in that genre, delivers in a pretty substantial way.

@Daddie0 said:

@mitsuko_soma said:

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

I can't believe you gave it a 3/10 after reading your thoughts! :)

While I can see the validity of your points about this film, it didn't seem like it took anyone's position seriously. It was more of a caricature piece than a character piece. I would argue that every character is flawed, including the lead. No position is to be taken at face value. For me, in the end, the film seemed to get to a deeper, human, flawed connection that we all have rather than portraying who is "right" and who is "wrong." This is illustrated when even the main conflict (spoiler alert!-->) is left unresolved.

The film is marketed as "dark comedy" and in that genre, delivers in a pretty substantial way.

Honestly I probably would rate it 4/10 or 4.5/10, but I felt it is incredibly overrated with it's current rating of 82% so I bumped it down a point. I think this movie takes itself more seriously than you think it does. It is dripping with the same anti-conservative propaganda that is so prevalent in most Hollywood movies these days, and I feel the director is so ignorant of small town American life that he is not even qualified to set a movie there. The only reason I watched this movie is because I really enjoyed both In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, which are proper dark comedies by the same director as Three Billboards. I've re-watched both of those movies within the past year and still enjoyed them both a lot, they are really good movies. Three Billboards is an extreme divergence and much lower quality than Martin McDonagh's previous work and I did not enjoy it in any way, other than the cast which is a very talented group. The cast would have done even better if they had a better script to work with, and this movie could have been something special if not for the complete failure of McDonagh. I had no problem with them winning acting Oscars, although I don't feel like Woody Harrelson should have been nominated because he was just good and not great in his role.

@mitsuko_soma said:

I think this movie takes itself more seriously than you think it does. It is dripping with the same anti-conservative propaganda that is so prevalent in most Hollywood movies these days, and I feel the director is so ignorant of small town American life that he is not even qualified to set a movie there.

I appreciate the clarification. A couple more thoughts came to mind: first, I think art--especially when it's good art--gets more of it's definition from the experience and response of a person viewing the art that it provides in and of itself. Many times artists hate this reality as someone will believe it is expressing something that the art was "never intended to portray." That is to say that we all bring ourselves to the art, so that could be part of what is happening here. I totally get what you are saying, and I see it in the piece, but I see the opposite too. Second, as a dark comedy the film had a strong "Fargo-esque" vibe to it, and not just the female lead. I mention that because I can't imagine lamenting Fargo because it didn't really "get" northern rural living right. I actually think that part of the aim of dark comedy is to not get it right...or to exaggerate it to the point that it is unrecognizable.

Lastly, I'm not trying to change your mind, I've just enjoyed your reflections...and reflecting on them myself. Good stuff!

@mitsuko_soma said:

The only reason I watched this movie is because I really enjoyed both In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, which are proper dark comedies by the same director as Three Billboards.

One more thought: by my nature I don't really follow this actor or that director so I usually come into each film without many preconceived ideas (probably less true with well known actors of course), so I am encouraged by your experience and will check out these two as solid recommendations. :)

@Daddie0 said:

@mitsuko_soma said:

I think this movie takes itself more seriously than you think it does. It is dripping with the same anti-conservative propaganda that is so prevalent in most Hollywood movies these days, and I feel the director is so ignorant of small town American life that he is not even qualified to set a movie there.

I appreciate the clarification. A couple more thoughts came to mind: first, I think art--especially when it's good art--gets more of it's definition from the experience and response of a person viewing the art that it provides in and of itself. Many times artists hate this reality as someone will believe it is expressing something that the art was "never intended to portray." That is to say that we all bring ourselves to the art, so that could be part of what is happening here. I totally get what you are saying, and I see it in the piece, but I see the opposite too. Second, as a dark comedy the film had a strong "Fargo-esque" vibe to it, and not just the female lead. I mention that because I can't imagine lamenting Fargo because it didn't really "get" northern rural living right. I actually think that part of the aim of dark comedy is to not get it right...or to exaggerate it to the point that it is unrecognizable.

Lastly, I'm not trying to change your mind, I've just enjoyed your reflections...and reflecting on them myself. Good stuff!

Fargo is a really bad example to support your point, as the Coen brothers (writers and directors of Fargo) are from Minnesota. They got so many things right in that movie and there are so many hilarious little details that only people who are familiar with the Upper Midwest would notice. Fargo does exaggerate a lot, but it does it from a foundation of authenticity. Three Billboards felt completely fake and rung hollow for me.

@Daddie0 said:

@mitsuko_soma said:

The only reason I watched this movie is because I really enjoyed both In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, which are proper dark comedies by the same director as Three Billboards.

One more thought: by my nature I don't really follow this actor or that director so I usually come into each film without many preconceived ideas (probably less true with well known actors of course), so I am encouraged by your experience and will check out these two as solid recommendations. :)

You should definitely watch those movies if you haven't seen them, they are both excellent! In Bruges is one of my alltime favorites and Seven Psychopaths is really good as well.

@mitsuko_soma said:

You should definitely watch those movies if you haven't seen them, they are both excellent! In Bruges is one of my alltime favorites and Seven Psychopaths is really good as well.

So, turns out I had seen In Bruges (I could tell because I had already rated it on TMDB), but I couldn't remember the story even as I vaguely remembered the characters. So I watched it again. It was equally entertaining, although the fact that I forgot it doesn't bode well for it leaving a lasting impression for me. As far as SP, I haven't seen it, and plan to check it out. Thx!

@LachieD said:

I found it rather disappointing, and borderline "bad", in the lack of a better word.

The script felt contrived, confused, anachronistic, all over the place with the tone, unconvincing, the pacing was off, humor awkward, the music distracting, and ultimately unrewarding.

So many weird/clunky ideas, with a Missouri Sheriff and his Australian/British wife, his early suicide in the film and follow-up insipid letters to various characters in the film, the lonely town midget, the smelly girlfriend of Mildred's ex-husband, Mildred burning the police station exactly the night Dixon is there to return the keys, the weird ex-army guy that threatens Mildred and then is accidentally overheard by Dixon talking about raping and killing someone, all black characters in the film appearing above average intelligent, poised and composed. Nothing of this feels organic.

It's seem to be a movie that scores on small, superficially poignant moments that happen 2 or 3 times in the film, but ultimately are manipulative. Moments that for some reason elevate the value of the rest of the film for the most of the audience and sadly professional critics, the remainder that is in essence very weak.

I agree. I don't understand how did this tripe won so many awards. Mind boggles.

@Daddie0 said:

@mitsuko_soma said:

You should definitely watch those movies if you haven't seen them, they are both excellent! In Bruges is one of my alltime favorites and Seven Psychopaths is really good as well.

So, turns out I had seen In Bruges (I could tell because I had already rated it on TMDB), but I couldn't remember the story even as I vaguely remembered the characters. So I watched it again. It was equally entertaining, although the fact that I forgot it doesn't bode well for it leaving a lasting impression for me. As far as SP, I haven't seen it, and plan to check it out. Thx!

Just wanted to follow up on this convo: I watched Seven Psychopaths and it was a solid film. Thoroughly entertaining and quirky. The third acts seemed to struggle as things wrapped up, but all in all a really fun film. All that being said, if I had to rank them based on my experience, they'd go like this:

• 3 Billboards
• Seven Pscyhos
• Burges

Of course, that hardly seems fair as they are quite different films, and all have their place. Anyway, thanks for the connection!

This was a refreshingly unpredictable meditation on wrath, incompetence and the morally ambiguous. The movie heavily shifts in tone but that makes it more interesting. The ending is brilliant and/or a let down however you see it.

Other then the performances, which were outstanding, the movie was just "meh"...the story, the situation, just....not one I'd rewatch. Why do movies like this get nominated for Best Picture is BEYOND me...quite unmemorable! A Best Picture should be engrossing, timeless, a potential classic...no one is gonna care about this movie in a short 5 years.

Watching Darkest Hour now...the fact that its a period peace based on true events should help.

Yet another Oscar winner from the past 40 years that I found particularly ordinary. It was okayish when viewed as a dark comedy. As an attempt at an engaging tale, less so.

6/10