Runtime: 1 hour, 55 minutes
Rating: R
Director: Martin McDonagh
Quick Impressions:
I loved this movie so much. It’s my favorite film this year by a very wide margin. To my delight, my husband felt the same way. As the credits rolled, he leaned over to me and whispered, “I love going to movies!”
Three Billboards Outside Ebbings, Missouri is the kind of film that makes exorbitant ticket prices seem justified. (We’re not actually paying those prices, of course. We’ve started using MoviePass, and to make our annual subscription pay for itself, we need to see only three more films by the end of next November. If I have my way, I’ll see three more films by the end of next week, but I’m sure none of them will be as amazing as this one.)
(Full disclosure, I do NOT work for MoviePass. I just like to plug their fantastic service whenever possible because I want it to stick around so that I can continue going to the theater with wild abandon.)
Anyway, I’ve liked all of Martin McDonagh’s films (In Bruges more than Seven Psychopaths), but this one feels like an exponential improvement over his previous work. It’s just so good.
Often Oscar-baity fare displays some sort of commendable virtue, the kind of thing you can study in a film class or conspicuously laud at cocktail parties. But this movie is just good. This is not a case of, “The film does X well,” or, “It boldly reaches for Y,” or “It’s a tantalizing example of Z.” This is a film that works so well you forget all of that nonsense and just get sucked into the story.
Three Billboards is always engaging, usually engrossing, consistently surprising, shockingly funny, and satisfyingly sad. Even though it makes you laugh a lot, it really packs quite an emotional punch, and it’s the film’s more dramatic elements that make it something truly special. As you watch, you’re not sitting there analyzing and debating the strengths of the film because you’re too busy wrestling with the profound questions that the film is asking you. Also I found it extremely satisfying even in its real (and sometimes, perhaps, hyper-real) depiction of frustration and tragedy.
Tragedy is a word that legitimately applies here. I’m not just throwing it around. The crime driving the plot is horrific, but more than that, the characters respond to their predicaments in what’s almost Shakespearean fashion. (They’re all desperate men, and they’re constantly tempted. Some of the escalation near the end feels like Macbeth-meets-Wiley Coyote or something.) Also the characters grapple with the types of questions that have driven tragedies since Aeschylus. The plot turns on all sorts of elements that I remember exploring in a college course called Comedy and Tragedy.
Martin McDonagh deserves at least an Oscar nomination for his screenplay. It’s like a stage drama by Eugene O’Neill blended with a fast-paced comedy written specifically for the screen. (Imagine Bringing Up Baby if the leopard kept killing people. This film is not really like that, but imagining it will put you in the proper frame of mind for watching Three Billboards.) I have to admit, I’m a little bit fascinated by McDonagh. It’s hard to look at a photograph of him and not think, “This man is a cunning, paid assassin. Either that, or he directs music videos.” He looks like a cross between a Bond villain and Sting’s evil twin. In actuality, of course, he was a respected playwright before he transitioned into film, and his brother is John Michael McDonagh who wrote and directed Calvary, quite an excellent film, as well. What a talented family! I’m not sure what made Martin McDonagh want to start making films, but he’s getting better and better at it for sure. I think he deserves every Oscar nomination they give out for his work here. (Of course, I’m a tad enthusiastic, and it does seem to be a competitive year.)
The Good:
I really can’t praise the film highly enough, though. It surpassed my wildest expectations. There are few films I’ve liked better in recent years.
Part of that, I’m sure is the riveting star performance by Frances McDormand, such a talented actress. I think her Oscar-winning performance in Fargo is one of the best performances I’ve ever seen in any film. I assume that McDonagh had Fargo fresh in his mind when he wrote this since I’ve heard he wrote the part for McDormand. The character of Mildred Hayes feels like a dark complement to Marge Gunderson. (I kept remembering that about twenty years ago, Marge was pregnant, and just recently Mildred lost an almost twenty-year-old daughter. The math doesn’t work out perfectly, and I’m not suggesting there’s any kind of literal, narrative link between the characters. I just think the audience is meant to have the ethical, centered, pregnant Marge in mind as we watch the desperate, unhinged, grieving Mildred.)
The film has a lot of good elements (like a really strong, soulful screenplay) and excellent performances from the entire cast, but it honesty would not work as well as a movie without McDormand’s pivotal, central performance.
Also amazing is Sam Rockwell, an actor who seems like he exists only to get Oscar nominations, but who, bafflingly, has never yet received one. I don’t mean this as an insult. I’m just genuinely baffled. Rockwell is not the suave leading man. He’s not the crude comedian with broad appeal. He’s an actor who focuses on acting, and he’s usually in the types of films that seek and require critical praise (I mean that people only fund them because they expect prestige). Seemingly every other group in the entire world has nominated Rockwell for something, just not the Academy. Rockwell keeps getting better and better in every film I see him in. (Keep in mind, that’s fainter praise than it might seem because I began by strongly disliking him.) He benefits here from playing the most dynamic character in the film. His chances for an Oscar nod look pretty good to me (but I don’t make predictions. I just write reviews.)
Woody Harrelson is also great in this and may get a supporting nod, too. In the end, Rockwell has the showier part, but Harrelson has the more immediately likable character and remains a steady and stabilizing presence throughout the film.
The other performances are quite strong, too, which is usually what happens when you give good actors great material. (Many of the supporting characters are extremely well drawn, and even those who don’t seem overly fleshed out are given these really lovely moments. Almost everybody gets a showcased moment, even minor characters.)
Particular standouts among the supporting cast are Sandy Martin as Dixon’s mother, Peter Dinklage (because who doesn’t love Peter Dinklage?), Zeljko Ivanek (who was also in In Bruges), Clarke Peters, and, especially, John Hawkes as Mildred’s ex-husband. I also especially loved Samara Weaving as Penelope. (That character could have been so forgettable, but Weaving really sells it.) Caleb Landry Jones is quite good as Red Welby. I enjoyed his odd cadence and finally remembered that he was Banshee in X-Men: First Class. Probably my favorite is Lucas Hedges as Mildred’s son. Oddly not only he but also Kathryn Newton who played his deceased sister Angela also recently appeared in Lady Bird, Hedges very memorably. Newton (who I recognized from her brief stint on Dog With a Blog) plays her one scene very well, but Hedges gives a fantastic performance throughout the movie. What will he co-star in next? I’m interested.
I’m not sure that I liked Abbie Cornish as Mrs. Willoughby, but I think that may be more my problem than Cornish’s. I found her Australian accent distracting, which is a ridiculous complaint to have of any actor . I also liked her character the least of anyone in the movie, which makes me suspect that I am just a mean, heartless person. I did love a late moment she gets when she delivers a note to Mildred, though. (This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that everybody gets a showcased moment. Even Red Welby’s assistant gets a couple of fantastic moments.)
The film boasts a number of strong performances, but, as I said, the actors are given fantastic material. I hope McDonagh gets a nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Honestly what I liked best about the movie was all the pervasive moral ambiguity. This is the kind of film that has you on the edge of your seat, continually curious about what might happen next. The reason you do not know what will happen next is that almost every character is so unpredictable. What we assume about all the people involved in the story keeps shifting slightly. Characters are given the opportunity to make important discoveries, and most of them do actually learn and grow and change. I love nothing more than characters who are more than they initially appear. In this story, we get characters who turn out to be different from our expectations, and then those same characters actually change on top of that! It’s wonderful!
Best Scene:
The interrogation scene when Willoughby and Mildred engage in a verbal chess match about her recent trip to the dentist concludes so powerfully that, for me, it represents the of the unusual interpersonal dynamic of the entire film distilled down to its absolute essence. Another really strong scene is Mildred’s flashback, introduced with such elegance.
Best Scene Visually:
Honestly, something that happens near the end of that interrogation scene creates the most stark and indelible image for me. (Just the image divorced of context goes a long way in explaining Mildred’s motivations.)
Probably the most iconic image from the movie involves the titular three billboards and comes late in the film, but I actually prefer the moment when Sam Rockwell’s Dixon sits and reads a note from Woody Harrelson’s Willoughby. The dramatic irony is so intense that situational irony creeps in, too, and Willoughby’s earnest words also begin to seem ironic in a metadramatic way (though the character was not intending to use verbal irony). The scene could be titled, The Three Types of Irony in Ebbing, Missouri.
Best Action Sequence:
The family argument (to put it mildly) that is ended by an unsuspecting request to use the bathroom is so captivating. The physical element escalates so quickly, and the verbal element is just gutting in the end.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Frances McDormand:
I’d love to see Frances McDormand win another Oscar for this. She’s really good. Her sidelong glances alone deserve special recognition. But for me her most powerful moment comes late in the film. It’s the look on her face when Mildred has a run-in with her ex-husband while she’s out on a date. Her reaction to what her ex-husband tells her is so complex and profound and initially conveyed entirely non-verbally.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Sam Rockwell:
I’d also love to see Sam Rockwell win an Oscar. Early on, I liked Harrelson’s chances for a nomination way better, but by the time the film is over, you see that Rockwell is playing the more dynamic character with the showier part. Rockwell really shines in a bar fight late in the film, and his moment in the men’s room with Zeljko Ivanek is extremely well-played, too (and the Academy usually eats up stuff like that).
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Woody Harrelson:
For the past ten to fifteen years, I’ve loved Woody Harrelson in everything. I’m always glad when he shows up in a movie. I’d love to see him get an Oscar nomination for his work here, though after watching the entire film, I like Rockwell’s chances a bit better.
Instead of having one big, showy moment, Harrelson’s Willoughby is a steady presence throughout the film. Everyone likes him, and he seems to bring a quiet wisdom and stability with him everywhere he goes. It’s pretty hard to forget his scene with the horses, but I think I like his many interactions with McDormand’s Mildred the best. They play well off each other. The scene when Dixon reads Willoughby’s note would also not work as well without Harrelson’s voice over.
The Negatives:
A lot of people won’t like this. It is over-saturated with profanity (not to the point of a Quentin Tarantino movie) and doesn’t skimp on the violence (though again, there’s less gore than you sometimes get with Tarantino). Some people are bound to be put off by this. At moments the profane speech and violent behavior of the characters becomes so extreme that it feels more like a revenge fantasy than a realistic depiction of the ways people could actually get away with behaving in their daily interactions. From a critical perspective, that’s not a bad thing (indeed, Mildred’s behavior is completely consistent with her character’s backstory), but definitely some people out there are not the proper audience for this film. (If you notice every time someone says the F word and get taken out of the story, then this is not the movie for you.)
Also, this is the kind of movie that should come with a trigger warning. Though free from profanity, what the first billboard says is graphic enough to be disturbing to survivors of sexual violence. (I love the notion that it is not one of the things unacceptable to post on a billboard, though.) The plot of the film involves rape, murder, cancer, police brutality, suicide, racism, domestic violence, substance abuse—it isn’t a movie for anyone who will find these topics unbearably traumatic, and (it goes without saying) it is not for children. Members of the clergy might also take objection to elements of the story, though as a group, they are notoriously forgiving, so you never know.
At the same time, though, this is not a movie that glamorizes human suffering. While the most obscene (in the original sense) material occurs off screen, there are some moments of shocking graphic violence, but the movie isn’t trying to sell sadism. It just deals with dark material.
Obviously, these aren’t true criticisms of the film, just a note about its limitations. It can’t be enjoyed by people who are immediately put off by profanity or disturbing subjects.
Honestly so much in this movie works so well that I’d initially consider moments I don’t like as much to result from a failure of my own understanding after just one viewing of the film. In the past, I think McDonagh hasn’t always managed to blend what-works-on-stage with what-works-on-screen, but he gets it right here. (And I’m positive I’m just being unfair to Abbie Cornish.)
Overall:
I liked Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri way more than I thought I would. It deeply resonated with me, and it’s (by a huge margin) my favorite movie so far this year. I loved it.
I’ve heard McDonagh compared to Tarantino in the past, though they have never seemed all that similar to me. Three Billboards is tonally much more similar to a Coen Brothers movie (which is an easy comparison to make because of the presence of Frances McDormand), but it’s not exactly like that either. Honestly, except for its rather uplifting ending (from a certain point of view), Three Billboards reminds me more of a funny Shakespearean tragedy . (I’ve never laughed harder than when I saw Hamlet at the Globe.) This film is fast-paced with lots of laughs, and it’s also brooding and dark, but the comedy is ironic and incidental, not flippant and sadistic. This isn’t a “look how much fun it is to torture people” movie, but still, it manages to be both fun and satisfying even with its dark subject matter.
I loved it. I absolutely loved it.