CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI - Pre-Release Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI - Pre-Release Thread - Page 2

post #51 of 68

I saw this on Tuesday. I am surprised at the Demby reading of this film. 

Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Part of the point is that the fire and the Chief's death gives Rockwell the opportunity to change for the better. I am not sure that he will, but that, too, is part of the point. The race conversation in the film is as topical as you could possibly be, and comparisons to Crash are just terrible. 

 

 

After the film, we had a quick ranking of McDonagh's films. I don't know that this is better than In Bruges or not, but I rank Billboards higher than Seven Pyschopaths. I was not as thrilled with Seven Pyschopaths, but I may need a rewatch. 


Edited by MrTyres - 12/4/17 at 10:27am
post #52 of 68

This was great but one thing really bugged me and my friend noticed it as well.

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Why the hell does the creep Sam Rockwell gets into the fight with at the bar confront Frances McDormand at her workplace? I get the ending and it would have worked fine had they just omitted the scene where he bugs her at work. If he truly was innocent, why do that at all? And if he wasn't innocent, why make the evidence so airtight? Why not just have the Chief say "Sorry, but the DNA sample you got was tainted and we couldn't make a positive ID. We don't have enough to go on." I don't think the ending would have been as effective had they gone that route but it would still bug me less than the guy harassing McDormand at work.

 

Otherwise, it was one of my favorite films of the year.

post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J View Post
 

This was great but one thing really bugged me and my friend noticed it as well.

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Why the hell does the creep Sam Rockwell gets into the fight with at the bar confront Frances McDormand at her workplace? I get the ending and it would have worked fine had they just omitted the scene where he bugs her at work. If he truly was innocent, why do that at all? And if he wasn't innocent, why make the evidence so airtight? Why not just have the Chief say "Sorry, but the DNA sample you got was tainted and we couldn't make a positive ID. We don't have enough to go on." I don't think the ending would have been as effective had they gone that route but it would still bug me less than the guy harassing McDormand at work.

 

 

 

I think...

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
...the guy is someone who gets his jollies assaulting and harassing women.
 
He's someone who sees a woman standing up for herself and feels the urge to torment her.
 
Also, since I believe his story about what he did to another girl, I suspect that any woman who gets people worked up about matters of rape and murder is someone he's going to feel the need to intimidate and silence in case any attention gets drawn to what he's done.
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

 

I think...

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
...the guy is someone who gets his jollies assaulting and harassing women.
 
He's someone who sees a woman standing up for herself and feels the urge to torment her.
 
Also, since I believe his story about what he did to another girl, I suspect that any woman who gets people worked up about matters of rape and murder is someone he's going to feel the need to intimidate and silence in case any attention gets drawn to what he's done.


Maybe. It's still kind of a stretch since he only gets two scenes and again, it would have worked just fine without his first scene but to quote Spinal Tap, "That's just nitpicking, isn't it?"

post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J View Post
 


Maybe. It's still kind of a stretch since he only gets two scenes and again, it would have worked just fine without his first scene but to quote Spinal Tap, "That's just nitpicking, isn't it?"

 

I am with Mike J on this. It seemed a bit jarring as well.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
If the only use of the scene is to make us believe that he is guilty, then it oddly warps the audience when it turns out he isn't. His home in Idaho is really far from Missouri, so then I was left with more questions. I get that one of the theories is an out of towner, but it still didn't explain his aggression to McDormand. I don't buy the explanation Nooj is selling. :D
post #56 of 68
The scene where the guy harassess Mildred at the store gives you another layer to chew on with regard to the ending. We leave the characters in a state of doubt about what they are going to do, but when they reach their destination, Mildred will recognize the guy. He won't just be a faceless somebody that Rockwell attested to being a scumbag. To me it adds to the uncertainty of what comes next.
post #57 of 68

Basically, even if the guy has never done anything he was bragging to his friend about... I can essentially see him as a troll.  It just so happens that this guy will go out into real life interactions and bully women who stand up for something instead of simply doing it online.

 

I don't think the guy's actions need much explanation.   Especially these days.

 

 

The scene of him harassing McDormand?  I didn't immediately jump to him being guilty, though I can see why someone else would think that.  I mostly saw him as some asshole who heard about the controversy that McDormand started and wanted to bully her into shutting up.   Had I gone into this movie assuming it was some standard revenge thriller, I might've thought otherwise.  But it was pretty clear to me that McDonagh wasn't making that kind of movie. 

 

In terms of McDonagh telling his story for a certain effect, the scene certainly establishes our desire to want that guy to be the murderer so that he can be punished.  And snatching that away from us and Rockwell's character is not an odd warping of the audience.  It's the intended effect.

 

 

YOU'LL PAY TYRES! 

 

YOU'LL BUY MY EXPLANATION.

 

50% OFF!!!

post #58 of 68

I assumed the guy wasn't the killer when he came into the shop, from a combination of thinking that a guy who would rape and burn a girl on the side of the road wouldn't bother with just trying to intimidate her mother into silence, and a more general sense of "oooh, Movie Misdirection, I'm on to your ruse!"   But I was wrapped up enough not to see the second turn of that screw coming, which kudos to McDonaugh for that.  But I totally buy that a guy who had committed such a sadistic crime would salivate at the chance to flaunt it in front of a victim while remaining secure in the knowledge that it couldn't actually tie you back to anything.

post #59 of 68
Can we talk about how Ebbing, MO isn’t even close to being large enough to have local tv news?

The movie might have a couple holes, but the performances more than make up for it.
post #60 of 68

Kudos to not resolving her daughter's killer. A lesser film would have gone in that direction.

post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
 

Kudos to not resolving her daughter's killer. A lesser film would have gone in that direction.


Going in, I assumed the film wasn't going to. So I was genuinely surprised that it looked to be going in that direction with Rockwell's confrontation and him scratching the guys face.

post #62 of 68

And holy shit, the creep was played by Brendan Sexton III, who we probably all remember from Empire Records, Welcome to the Dollhouse, and Session 9.

 

I thought he looked familiar!

post #63 of 68

Who was he in Empire Records?  Not nice-guy....what's his....Cory, maybe?

post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

Who was he in Empire Records?  Not nice-guy....what's his....Cory, maybe?


The shoplifter.

post #65 of 68

Oh, of course.

post #66 of 68

He has the best exchange of the movie with Rory Cochrane:

 

Warren (in regards to the CDs he's stolen): "Why don't you go shove 'em up your ass?"

Lucas: "Because it would hurt a lot, Warren."

post #67 of 68

I wonder if the actor is bitter about being typecast as a petty harrasser of small business owners.  

post #68 of 68

One thing about this movie that was really surprising:

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It made me hate John Hawkes, something I always thought was impossible. When he revealed he was the one who set fire to the billboards, I wanted to scream "HIT HIM! HIT HIM!" but I get why she didn't. Still, what an utter piece of shit. 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI - Pre-Release Thread