|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Equating laughing at a dark comedy scene with laughing at a racial slur is really loving weird of you, ngl. To be fair, it happens right after a scene where you're supposed to laugh at a racial slur.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
The ending was the weakest part for me..it just felt..random. Though a lot of that film takes a kind of random rear end curveball, the ending just feels off. I don't see those characters heading off to kill some random rapist..maybe? Maybe not? Let's play it by ear. Ehhh. Otherwise solid though. That whole steadicam/one shot tossing out of the window sequence is brutal as gently caress and I actually winced...That feels like the most savage the film ever gets and it's almost played in an exploitive way..he just keeps going. So frances mcdormand is 100% getting this oscar tho right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
It's really not what I was expecting based on the trailer but I ended up liking it a lot. My audience was fairly quiet for most of it but gasped audibly at the suicide. I think this is going to get some Oscar attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I don't think McDonagh is trying to trick the audience at all. I do think that he is pointedly denying the audience the catharsis they want or expect not just from the mystery, which isn't solved, but from the revenge, which not only do we not get to see and take part in, we don't even know if it occurs at all - clearly neither Dixon or Mildred really have their hearts in it at the end, and it seems equally likely they'll turn around and call it off as go out in a Rolling Thunder style blaze of glory. If I had to pin it down to one thesis or statement (which I don't really wanna do, because I like the ambiguity of it), it's that if someone is dealing with a loss so great, you really can't say for them what's the right way or the wrong way to deal with it I mean, again, I think this is just a case where something about the movie failed to function for me. Part of it is that I'm just kinda sick of movies where the ending is "man, life doesn't have endings", but also I just wish it had done a better job of elucidating and elaborating on its own thesis. In McDonagh's desperation to shock the audience with reversals and twists, he loses cohesiveness - and it's not like McDonagh can't write a cohesive story with a strong centerpoint, Beauty Queen and Pillowman both cut with a precision that makes their impact greater. McDonagh either made a choice to be ambiguous or accidentally made an ambiguous film, and I think the former is a bad decision and I bemoan the latter. It fluctuates awkwardly and I found that to be offputting (even though, and I guess this probably worth re-stating, overall I loved this movie and can't wait to slap it in my 2017 top five list), particularly because the Coen brothers have made a career of tonal ambiguity, so there's something murderously concrete to compare it to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Ending was a bit of a wet noodle but the rest of the movie was so loving good that I’m going to let it slide. One of the best manipulations was when Willoughby shoots himself ; prior to that moment I was softening a bit on the film because it seemed to be meandering and unsure of where it was going or what it’s focus was and then BAM, we were thrust back into it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
I was honestly surprised that the film didn’t end with the long pan of the car driving past the billboards. I felt that the ambiguity of if they were actually going to kill the suspect was already implied, so having it explicitly revealed felt extraneous. I suppose he also wanted to address the fact that Mildred almost killed Dixon but again I assumed that Dixon knew and didn’t care so, again, the fact that it was spelled out felt extraneous. Overall I liked the film, though I was laughing a lot more than the rest of the crowd in my theatre, which was mostly 60 year old couples. Kinda killed the vibe for me a bit. It’s a good companion piece to In Bruges. My only other major complaint—and I know this is petty—is that the casting took me out of the film a bit. Even though Mildred couldn’t possibly be more different than Marge, the location, subject matter, and tone of the film constantly reminded me of Fargo. Also, Sandy Martin playing an nearly-identical role to Mac’s mom from Always Sunny kept making me think about what the movie would be like as an Always Sunny episode (“Three Billboards on Top of Paddy’s Bar”?). Like I said, a petty complaint, but as someone that can’t help but analyze media within the context of other media it ruined immersion for me. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Just saw this today with my wife and we really enjoyed it. There were only about a dozen of us in a regular sized theater, so pretty sparse, but the blood cough got a pretty visceral reaction from pretty much everybody. Most of us gasped, but there was a very loud "NO!" from a little ways down as well. I really appreciate McDonagh's ability to weave comedy into stories like this. Even in the midst of feeling like everybody (especially Mildred) is an rear end in a top hat we still get to laugh at absurdities. I think for me it resonates a lot because I personally laugh a lot at random things every day and it's occasionally surprised people when I tell them I've had a poo poo day. It's ok to have a lovely day, week, month, or year and still recognize humor when you see it. Some things are just loving funny and I think he does a really good job of making you see it and feel it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
I don't think the ending was quite as ambiguous as people are making it out to be. The guy they're driving to Idaho to possibly murder was the same guy that came into the store to threaten Mildred and make a suspicious remark to her, and he really had no reason for even being in town other than being triggered by the billboards. Sure, the DNA didn't match that guy, but Angela was lit on fire so it could just mean his DNA was destroyed. Also, his CO could just be covering for him or even in on it too. Dixon is also known to use violence to get his answers; thematically I think it makes sense for their trip to Idaho to be correct - I think it's implied that Dixon is going to beat a confession out of the guy. Great movie all around. I loved Penelope: "I read it.... on a bookmark...? About polio.... That's the one they play on horses, right?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Tumble posted:I don't think the ending was quite as ambiguous as people are making it out to be. The guy they're driving to Idaho to possibly murder was the same guy that came into the store to threaten Mildred and make a suspicious remark to her, and he really had no reason for even being in town other than being triggered by the billboards. Sure, the DNA didn't match that guy, but Angela was lit on fire so it could just mean his DNA was destroyed. Also, his CO could just be covering for him or even in on it too. Dixon is also known to use violence to get his answers; thematically I think it makes sense for their trip to Idaho to be correct - I think it's implied that Dixon is going to beat a confession out of the guy. The implication is that he raped, tortured and murdered someone in Iraq or Afghanistan and the military covered it up (or, like a lot of crimes during wartime, it went uninvestigated) Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The implication is that he raped, tortured and murdered someone in Iraq or Afghanistan and the military covered it up (or, like a lot of crimes during wartime, it went uninvestigated) I'd loving love a McDonagh movie about Lynndie England.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The implication is that he raped, tortured and murdered someone in Iraq or Afghanistan and the military covered it up (or, like a lot of crimes during wartime, it went uninvestigated) Sure, but why was he in town to threaten Mildred at all? Dude lived in Idaho. Also, during the bar scene, I'm pretty sure he mentions that he committed his crimes with a group of friends. Anyways, I'm not necessarily trying to say that this guy 100% raped Angela, I just think that there is more ambiguity there than there is as to whether or not the alleged rapist guy is in trouble. I think there is a pretty decent implication that Mr. Idaho is a whole heap of trouble from those two. Also, does Mildred actually know that the guy they are going to see is the same one that threatened her in the store? I don't recall her learning it's the same guy but I may have missed that. If she finds out it's the same guy when she gets there I think thematically it makes her and Dixon killing him/ruining him almost certain. Tumble fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Tumble posted:Sure, but why was he in town to threaten Mildred at all? Dude lived in Idaho. Also, during the bar scene, I'm pretty sure he mentions that he committed his crimes with a group of friends. Anyways, I'm not necessarily trying to say that this guy 100% raped Angela, I just think that there is more ambiguity there than there is as to whether or not the alleged rapist guy is in trouble. I think there is a pretty decent implication that Mr. Idaho is a whole heap of trouble from those two. Why would his friends being there rule it out? Also, and this part is hard to catch on a first viewing, but they foreshadow the war crime reveal in the scene where Rockwell overhears them in the bar. When he comes back from checking the license plate, you overhear the guy saying something like "I'm not going down for that, not when I'm so close to coming home."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Why would his friends being there rule it out? I'm saying that if he did it with his friends, just because his DNA wasn't on/in Angela doesn't mean he wasn't involved with her rape and murder. Her corpse was badly burned, that erases all sorts of stuff. (Which, incidentally, I thought was a great detail - when Mildred was burning down the police station out of anger, she almost burned down her daughters case file too. Plus, the billboards were destroyed by fire as well. Fire is nasty to Mildred in this movie.) I missed him saying "coming home" but still, why would the movie have that particular guy go into the store and threaten Mildred? Willoughby even foreshadows the bar scene by saying (in his letter, I believe) that cases are often broken by people blabbing and being overheard at bars. I dunno, to me at least, I think there is a bit more ambiguity as to whether or not this guy could have been involved in Angela's death than just one DNA test. I'll have to watch it again, it'll probably seem more concrete on a second viewing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
For me at least, the idea that they were able to get confirmation that he wasn't in the country at the time is something I think we're supposed to take at face value, and coupled with the overheard bit in the bar, the "unrelated war crime" conclusion is the only conclusion that really makes sense to me. You are of course entitled to your reading, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:For me at least, the idea that they were able to get confirmation that he wasn't in the country at the time is something I think we're supposed to take at face value, and coupled with the overheard bit in the bar, the "unrelated war crime" conclusion is the only conclusion that really makes sense to me. You are of course entitled to your reading, though. No, I do get that and I do kind of agree with you, I just don't get why they have the guy actually visit Mildred at work and taunt her. Why would he be in town and what would possibly motivate him to do that? That seems like a bit too complex of an interaction for them to have and then just hand-wave away like that. I feel like I'm supposed to question his initial alibi a lot more. Especially if Mildred doesn't know the guy that threatened her is the guy that they're going to go see. Tumble fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Tumble posted:No, I do get that and I do kind of agree with you, I just don't get why they have the guy actually visit Mildred at work and taunt her. Why would he be in town and what would possibly motivate him to do that? That seems like a bit too complex of an interaction for them to have and then just hand-wave away like that. I feel like I'm supposed to question his initial alibi a lot more. my take: he does it because he's a gross rapist that likes scaring and hurting women
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
I thought it a little odd because the dude obviously had spent enough time in town to know and care about Mildred's daughter, but he's also painted as just a dude from Idaho passing through. I get that some people are assholes, but this guy actually knew the story, knew who Mildred was, and knew where he could find her. I mean maybe he just asked somebody since it seems like just about everybody was willing to talk poo poo about Mildred, but it seems a little cartoonish for this drifter to make a point of finding her just to taunt her if he was only in town for a day or two. Not sure what my point is really other than it just being a kind of odd bit of storytelling to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Inspector 34 posted:I thought it a little odd because the dude obviously had spent enough time in town to know and care about Mildred's daughter, but he's also painted as just a dude from Idaho passing through. I get that some people are assholes, but this guy actually knew the story, knew who Mildred was, and knew where he could find her. Bear in mind that within the movie, this story was a big news item and is now back in the news in a big way. For all intents and purposes, the guy could've been in a bar where the news story was playing on TV. This is something the movie was driving at that a lot of police procedurals do too (I'm thinking in particular of the Homicide episode "Three Men and Adena"). Just because someone is a huge piece of poo poo, and they fit the profile for the case, and you might really want them to be the guy you're looking for, it doesn't make it so. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Good call, I hadn't really thought of that. I think one of those broadcasts might have actually mentioned that she works at the gift shop too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Those were such disparate moments that I didn't even connect them as being the same person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:For me at least, the idea that they were able to get confirmation that he wasn't in the country at the time is something I think we're supposed to take at face value, and coupled with the overheard bit in the bar, the "unrelated war crime" conclusion is the only conclusion that really makes sense to me. You are of course entitled to your reading, though. I totally missed the "coming home" thing that you mentioned, but leaving the theater I thought they were mirroring false alibis with Dixon's "Well, who the hell else would it be?" re: Mildred firebombing the station even with her cover story + the viewer fairly sure that the guy from Idaho (between his confrontation with Mildred, especially knowing he was passing through and wouldn't have a strong connection to Willoughby + what Dixon overheard at the bar) was the guy even though he's clear on paper. I still lean towards him being the culprit (although I don't believe for a second they're actually going to kill him at the end), but maybe it's a serial thing and he was talking about an unrelated case on deployment? idk Magic Hate Ball posted:Those were such disparate moments that I didn't even connect them as being the same person. I was pretty sure of it, but I had to check the credits later to confirm. I didn't connect until now that Mildred has no way of knowing that it was the same guy (and wouldn't unless they went through with the plan at the end
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:I totally missed the "coming home" thing that you mentioned, but leaving the theater I thought they were mirroring false alibis with Dixon's "Well, who the hell else would it be?" re: Mildred firebombing the station even with her cover story + the viewer fairly sure that the guy from Idaho (between his confrontation with Mildred, especially knowing he was passing through and wouldn't have a strong connection to Willoughby + what Dixon overheard at the bar) was the guy even though he's clear on paper. I still lean towards him being the culprit (although I don't believe for a second they're actually going to kill him at the end), but maybe it's a serial thing and he was talking about an unrelated case on deployment? idk He's "pretty clearly the guy" if you're going by like, Ebert's Law of the Conservation of Characters, but beyond that, what evidence do we have to go by? He behaves threateningly towards Mildred, and is overheard obliquely describing a crime that sounds like the one in question but is then given an alibi and an alternate explanation for. That's about it. There's not really all that much pointing to him except that we - and the characters - want him to be the guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
I'd add that the the crime that sounds like the one in question has a pretty distinctive MO with the use of gasoline, and wasn't there a pretty sizable pause after Mildred asks the guy if he's the one who did it? I really thought he'd be a bigger part of the story after that scene, but if he is totally uninvolved then the military background does let you fill in the blanks pretty effectively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:He's "pretty clearly the guy" if you're going by like, Ebert's Law of the Conservation of Characters, but beyond that, what evidence do we have to go by? He behaves threateningly towards Mildred, and is overheard obliquely describing a crime that sounds like the one in question but is then given an alibi and an alternate explanation for. That's about it. There's not really all that much pointing to him except that we - and the characters - want him to be the guy. well his first interaction with Mildred is him kind of hinting that maybe he was the one that did it, but then he backtracks and says he's a fan of the chief except he's from Idaho and is in the military so that kind of seems like bullshit as well - i mean why would he actually give a poo poo about the lawman in the first place? especially when more of his character is revealed later on... i mean yea of course we want him to be the guy, and the movie WANTS you to want him to be the guy, but we aren't talking about a guy describing how he steals cars here, this guy is overheard in a bar bragging about raping somebody also can somebody else confirm that Mildred doesn't know that she's about to pay a visit to the same guy that came into her store? to me, that's the biggest twist in the movie but i want to make sure i'm reading into it properly. Also i don't think the fact that they're going to pay a visit to the guy is up for debate, i think we're supposed to kind of wonder if they're actually going to kill him, and i'd say that if Mildred doesn't know it's the same guy, then her and Dixon are probably going to mess him up badly at the very least because boy is she going to be suspicious he came back into her life that way Tumble fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Tumble posted:well his first interaction with Mildred is him kind of hinting that maybe he was the one that did it, but then he backtracks and says he's a fan of the chief except he's from Idaho and is in the military so that kind of seems like bullshit as well - i mean why would he actually give a poo poo about the lawman in the first place? especially when more of his character is revealed later on... The "maybe I'm a friend of Willoughby's" thing is clearly bullshit, yeah. Of course that brings up the thornier issue: if this guy is a bullshit artist, how do we know he really did anything other than act like a creepy weirdo? His whole story in the bar could've been bullshit too. I don't think that's necessarily the conclusion that the movie wants us to draw, but I do think it's noteworthy that Mildred & Dixon have no real evidence of any kind. This is part of why the criticisms of the movie saying that we're supposed to see it as a racist cop's redemption story ring false to me. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Yea I do not consider Dixon redeemed at the end of this movie at all. He begins to move in a more positive direction when he scratches the guy to get some police work done, but he regresses into his violent, baser self. At best his interactions with his mom make you realize this guy never stood a chance at being a saner, more well-put together person, but I don't think he's ever actually "redeemed". Same goes for Mildred, too. You're made to think that she was going to beat her husbands head in with the wine bottle, so she does appear to have herself a glimmer of hope when she instead just tells her husband to be nice to Penelope. When she does that, it kind of gives the appearance of beginning to move on away from her anger and pain, but she's pretty quick to agree to a trip to Idaho to possibly murder a possible rapist a short while later, so even she doesn't really move past her baser, raw-er emotions after all. Maybe Idaho man is just a twisted liar. But boy did he pick the wrong woman to gently caress with - I think the movie makes it somewhat clear that both Mildred and Dixon are comfortable manifesting their own versions of justice, and she's going to recognize him when they get there. And I do think the movies logic allows for the ambiguity of his alibi being bullshit too: in the bar, Idaho has a friend lapping up every word of detail regarding the (possibly other) rape, so he's got willing participants and probably people willing to lie for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
I mean, the point of the film is that there's no current appropriate cultural response to overwhelming grief, trauma, and personal conflict, and that both sides of the equation (e.g. Tracy Martin and George Zimmerman) are equally redeemable, but it's more likely that they will simply be driven into a useless and counterproductive bloodthirst by our double-pronged social attitude of selfish forgetfulness and spiteful failure of forgiveness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
He’s pretty clearly not the guy but just a sick gently caress who revels in threatening and assaulting women. Ask Dixon is not redeemed and reformed but merely taking steps in the right direction. I think the idea is that he’s thinking differently but he’s not changed yet. Also as UB said the ending shows that he still lusts for violence without evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
bows1 posted:He’s pretty clearly not the guy but just a sick gently caress who revels in threatening and assaulting women. Dixon is off the deep end in the movie. The note that Willoughby left him was "wrong" anyways - it talked about how Dixon was a kind and decent man underneath it all, and that in order to grow as a person and as a cop Dixon need to start doing the right things for the right reasons. Except by the time Dixon had read that note (in the burning police station) he had already been fired for throwing Red out of a window and mouthing off to New Chief. So while Dixon does appear to learn something from the note, he's never going to be a police officer again. The best outcome the movie can give him is to bring Mildred along to kill/maybe not kill the suspected rapist, which is kind of what Willoughby said: "Do things out of love", but twisted to fit Dixon's messed up logic. (Except Mildred doesn't know she's about to come face-to-face with the guy who throw a trinket nearly at her head and alluded to raping her daughter so it seems to me like they're going to kill that guy.) So I don't know if you can even say he's taking steps in the right direction. In his mind he is, but the movie makes it pretty clear that he's messed up just like his momma is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Tumble posted:Dixon is off the deep end in the movie. The note that Willoughby left him was "wrong" anyways - it talked about how Dixon was a kind and decent man underneath it all, and that in order to grow as a person and as a cop Dixon need to start doing the right things for the right reasons. Except by the time Dixon had read that note (in the burning police station) he had already been fired for throwing Red out of a window and mouthing off to New Chief. So while Dixon does appear to learn something from the note, he's never going to be a police officer again. The best outcome the movie can give him is to bring Mildred along to kill/maybe not kill the suspected rapist, which is kind of what Willoughby said: "Do things out of love", but twisted to fit Dixon's messed up logic. (Except Mildred doesn't know she's about to come face-to-face with the guy who throw a trinket nearly at her head and alluded to raping her daughter so it seems to me like they're going to kill that guy.) I think it's important to mention that Dixon threw Red out of the window because he thought it was what Willoughby would have wanted. It is only in reading the letter that he starts to realize, no, it's not what Willoughby would have wanted--though he never actually finds out Willoughby paid for the signs himself. A lot of Dixon's actions seem to be in service of making Willoughby proud--since he's his surrogate father (in Dixon's mind). His almost-suicide later is because he has fully failed in every way to make Willoughby proud (he didn't solve the murder, he wasn't able to "do good", and he won't ever be a cop again; he fully expects to be given his badge back at the end), and doesn't have any identity for himself. His appeal towards Mildred seems to be him trying to replace Willoughby as his authority figure while also trying to find out how he fits in this world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
I saw this opening weekend, like a month ago now, so sorry if I remember anything wrong. Strange movie - Mildred's dialogue in the first half was way too on-the-nose. She doesn't sound like any human speaking, like it's righteous indignation that's been revised into a final draft by a team of editors and thus doesn't feel raw the way I wanted it to. I get that that could be a stylistic choice but I don't think it worked well here if it was. Also my audience and especially the dude next to me laughed at the strangest things. I liked the ending though she didn't need to say "I burned the police station" nor spell out the already-implied ambiguity. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Also my audience and especially the dude next to me laughed at the strangest things. I liked the ending though she didn't need to say "I burned the police station" nor spell out the already-implied ambiguity. My take: This is partially her confessing to and relating to Dixon, while also expressing her guilt, and maybe even acknowledging that the fire was impulsive and wrong; but it's also an ironic parallel to Willoughby telling her that he has pancreatic cancer and she saying everyone already knew. I also thought that the over-explaining was kinda funny in a socially awkward situation kind of way, with Mildred maybe a little confused if Dixon and her are on the same page and I think that without that moment the ending would have felt flat; for them to discuss whether or not they should actually go through the assault/murder, it shows at least some growth and self-awareness, and I enjoy the off-hand chance that they might call it off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The "maybe I'm a friend of Willoughby's" thing is clearly bullshit, yeah. Of course that brings up the thornier issue: if this guy is a bullshit artist, how do we know he really did anything other than act like a creepy weirdo? His whole story in the bar could've been bullshit too. I don't think that's necessarily the conclusion that the movie wants us to draw, but I do think it's noteworthy that Mildred & Dixon have no real evidence of any kind. When I first saw him I thought he was a friend of Willoughby's, but it's entirely possible that he's basically just a Blue Lives Matter motherfucker who thinks that the woman (that he thinks is) responsible for the death of a police chief deserves to be harassed and reminded of her worst fears by some rear end in a top hat, and he decided that today, he was gonna be that "some rear end in a top hat". Also, Willoughby's letter to his wife in the aftermath of his suicide was heartbreaking, but also a little hopeful. He knew that he didn't have long to live, and instead of watching his wife and kids suffer as his quality of life declined, he decided that he would give his family the best day of his life and then call it quits. It's definitely a selfish act and can be taken in ways that he didn't intend (obviously) but it's a remarkable decision in a world where you see so many families torn up watching their loved ones slowly deteriorate. I'm at the point with my dad where his mental wellbeing is clearly going downhill very rapidly, and I love him very dearly but every so often i can't help but wonder if, when the time comes for me, that I end it far before I get to that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:When I first saw him I thought he was a friend of Willoughby's, but it's entirely possible that he's basically just a Blue Lives Matter motherfucker who thinks that the woman (that he thinks is) responsible for the death of a police chief deserves to be harassed and reminded of her worst fears by some rear end in a top hat, and he decided that today, he was gonna be that "some rear end in a top hat". It's possible that the billboards and the story surrounding them triggered him because he himself had coincidentally done something very similar which was covered up by the military. He likely projected his own guilt and paranoia onto the billboards and the implication that Willoughby is complicit in the crime through inaction. Somebody fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
I really loved this movie. Just about cried at several points. I need to see the rest of this director's films, I guess I have some watching to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
I quite liked this. The end was oddly sweet in the same way the guy blowing up the drugstore at the end of Four Lions was sweet. A few people mentioned the end seemed unnecessary, but I disagree, just because something left unsaid is known, doesn't mean that saying it pointless. (kinda the whole point of the billboards) And more importantly it's the first time you see Mildred smile, if not just genuinely, at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
wyoming posted:I quite liked this. I love her laugh there
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Ending discussion: Am I the only one who though it was pretty apparent that they weren't going to go through with it in the end? The act of getting together and starting the drive was catharsis in and of itself, something that seemed pretty obvious both of them realized shortly after starting. I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
The white trash dropping slurs every other line made me kind of uncomfortable. Like, it worked, it wasn't like Tarantino bad, but it did feel kind of edgy and only affirmed the fact that I found basically every character repugnant and deserving of suffering. I wasn't really laughing much and neither was my audience, which felt appropriate. Except the billboard company guy I guess A lot of it felt kind of forced and fugazi, like the deer scene and (at least for me) a lot of the Woody Harrelson stuff. Also rolled my eyes at the third act black police chief but hey, good cast, good movie. Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
TheManWithNoName posted:I really loved this movie. Just about cried at several points. I need to see the rest of this director's films, I guess I have some watching to do. In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths are much more comedic than this one. There's still some pathos (like the reason why they're hiding out in Bruges is bleak) but things are more often than not played for jokes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 12:41
|
|
