I agree. It’s not a painful movie even though the topic makes it seem like it is going to be painful.
It’s painful when they get to
The last exchange she had with her daughter. 
Exciting to see Sam Rockwell get some mainstream attention! He was on The Tonight Show last night and will be hosting SNL on Saturday. He’s such as intense brilliant guy who’s usually in independent films; I never thought I’d hear “I’m Sam Rockwell and I’ll be hosting Saturday Night Live”!
Hmmmmm. I found it painful in parts, but not so much so that I couldn’t watch it. There’s enough heart and redemption to balance out the nasty bits.
Boy, talk about pain and guilt. [spoiler] No one ever expects insult arguments to actually come true.
When you tell someone to drop dead, for example, you don’t think they’ll actually oblige! :eek: [/spoiler]
When I say painful, I literally mean the violence, not necessarily the emotional stuff. I can watch Uma Thurman mow down the Crazy 88 without batting an eye, but realistic violence is harder for me, especially if it’s sexualized violence.
But honestly, I’m a ninny who’s been actively trying to get tougher. It will be good for me to endure it.
If that’s your concern, then I don’t think you will have any problem seeing this movie. I don’t want to say any more so as not to give anything away.
Screen Actors Guild Awards
Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri – Abbie Cornish, Peter Dinklage, Woody Harrelson, John Hawkes, Lucas Hedges, Željko Ivanek, Caleb Landry Jones, Frances McDormand, Clarke Peters, Sam Rockwell and Samara Weaving
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role
Frances McDormand – Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri as Mildred Hayes
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
Sam Rockwell – Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri as Jason Dixon
This piece in today’s New York Times takes a critical view of this movie, talking mostly about whether it has anything to say about America.
This plus the Golden Globe! PLEASEpleaseplease let him win an Oscar!
Reading it more closely (like with the eye of editors The New York Times no longer employs) the article doesn’t directly say that Three Billboards… says nothing about America, rather it longwindedly attempts to paint a picture in the mind’s eye of an image of a world where Americans leave the theater arguing about whether the movie is convincingly about America. The crux of all these eristics and irrelevant bon mots is where Morris correctly points out that writer/director and the foreign press that votes for the Golden Globes are not, in fact, American, but falls far short of actually using the word “Un-American.” (Morris defers that judgement to the SAG who have a long and storied expertise.) Of course we now know that any controversy fomented here is now already dead in the water, as voters, both foreign and domestic, have agreed. It’s all about selling Alka-Seltzer now at the NYT, so on to the next controversy.
In his opening paragraph Morris does accurately describe the frequent WTF? phenomenon of movie awards season, a phenomenon which could include a list much, much longer than his few cited examples. This year alone it could apply to at least four utterly forgettable potential Oscar candidates, but nobody is including Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri. (As the NYT should have spelled it if, again, they still employed editors.)
Well, again, I’m not so sure what to think now because The New York Times is claiming people are also arguing about that as well. The same Morris (generously described as a “critic-at-large” ) is quoted here too again admitting being confused: "Yes, everybody, I’m a Sam Rockwell fan who despises the moral and emotional and metaphorical confusion that is ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.’ "
I think the real story here is that more and more, across America, people are arguing The New York Times no longer has anything to say about America.
What do you think? 
Oscar nominations out this morning:
Best Picture
Actress in a Leading Role
Frances McDormand
Actor in a Supporting Role
Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell
Film Editing
John Gregory
Music Original Score
Carter Burwell
Writing Original Screenplay
Martin McDonagh
Martin McDonagh wasn’t nominated for best director, which was strange given some who were. The overall effect of the film is an extremely unique and difficult thing to pull off and is a credit as much to the direction as to the many talented collaborators. He did mention after being nominated for best director and winning for original screenplay at the Golden Globes: “I’d have been happy with just Sam and Fran winning tonight.”
I have to say I’m also surprised at the overwhelming recognition, but it’s still preferable to elevating clever student films or honoring tortured 300 million dollar exercises in suspension of disbelief.
Yes, I’m surprised a mainstream movie is garnering this acclaim. I think all the actors are excellent but the movie as a whole I’m not sure.
I do believe it’s about time for Zeljko Ivanek to get a lifetime award from the Academy. He’s in every other movie and did a fine job in TBoE,M. 
I agree, except I’m not sure they ever did. New Yorkers famously don’t understand anything west of the Hudson. 
Cliche aside, I truly don’t think they ever understood middle America. I don’t mean news, but culture.
Combine that with critics natural tendency to write more about them than the movie these days (Roger Ebert and a few others excepted) and you get that article. I actually gave up trying to understand what his point actually was.
And I applaud your continuing to use the proper uncapitalized “outside”. Someone has to care about these things.
I liked the acting and actors in this movie but I didin’t enjoy the movie all that much. Everyone was just so shitty to everyone else.
Mother: “I hope you get raped and murdered (or something similar)”.
Daughter “Me, too.”
James (Peter Dinklage) “I didn’t have to hold your ladder.”
“I’ll go shoot those two horses because they bother you.” (or something similar)
The creepy guy who visited the shop and suggested he had committed the crime, and who also was overheard discussing it with two companions. How did his DNA not match?
Then Officer Dixon considering shooting his mother.
And the unlikely team of Mildred and Officer Dixon teaming up to go get the bad guy.
I dunno. Everybody was just so broken and unresolved.
The exchange between her and her daughter is pivotal.
“I hope I get raped and murdered [because you won’t let me use the car]!”
“I hope you do too!”
And then she is. It lends a complication to the mom’s mourning. She’s sad but she also crippingly guilty. I remember being a sullen teenager and being mean to my Mom and then thinking “What if that’s the last time I see her?”
ETA And I don’t think they will kill anyone. They are healing and moving on.
I agree about the guy who probably killed someone else. Why did he feel like he should come threaten her at the store? It wasn’t established why he would care so much. Or I missed it
I am a fan of Martin McDonagh and I think In Bruges is in my top 10 of the past decade, easily.
However, I found that flashback moment in the script for Billboards to be very weak. It felt like “screenwriter 101” type scripting and I didn’t think the directing of the actors made it much better.
I cringed at how it seemed…cliche? Obvious?
I do think the movie is fine and it would be acceptable as a Best Picture winner, but it sticks in me that this is the director’s worst movie.
The flashback moment is an obvious tearjerker moment, but like the other moments that could test the audience’s suspension of disbelief, there’s a lot more about them that’s much less obvious, impeccably reasoned, and key to this film. I think this movie will bear a lot of contemplation and repeat viewings, and (strange to say about a film that could win a Best Picture Oscar) will probably grow in the general esteem as it is better understood beyond the attention-grabbing billboards.
A bit of faith in McDonagh is helpful and mine is stronger than ever. If he’s using facile tropes, he’s pulling something and saying much more that’s under the surface. Like, say… Shakespeare. David Byrne says about music: “music is very physical and often the body understands it before the head.” In the case of film, it’s sensed before it’s fully understood.
Huh. It seemed real to me, like the kind of thing you bark at someone, feel kind of bad about and then move on from when nothing bad happens. If the worst happens, this mundane crap takes on a greater significance and just adds to the horrible feelings she’s having.
Et cetera, et cetera. Wikipedia calls this a ''black comedy" and Google calls it “Crime film/Comedy.” ‘Comedy’ isn’t the word that would come to my mind — but the film is sort of unfunny slapstick.
I did enjoy the movie … a little, with its excellent acting and unpredictable plot developments. But I’m rather stunned that it was well-received enough to get so many awards. Some people liked the movie; some people hated it for its racism and other misanthropy. Could it be that some of those who liked it, liked it because it fit their own misanthropy? :eek:
If that’s the case I’d say those people missed the point. Sam Rockwell’s character is a blatant bad guy( for 3/4 of the film) and his racism is played almost for laughs. Then again, I suppose misanthropes *would *relate to a buffoon:)
I agree, this was no comedy, and I think the mismarketing does a disservice to the audience and the film itself. When people walk in with the wrong expectations the movie already has a strike against it.