Not terrible, but not as good as hyped either

Rating: 7/10 (3 December 2017)

Reviews for Three Billboards are very polarized, with most loving it unequivocally and some utterly hating it. Those who hated it seem for the most part to be people who weren't familiar with Martin McDonough's other work, and were shocked/confused/repulsed by the black humor in this film. So, for the record, if you didn't like In Bruges or Seven Psychopaths, this film probably won't be to your taste. If you go into Three Billboards expecting a traditional drama (or comedy), you will be disappointed.
McDonaugh's stock in trade is quirky, flawed characters presented unapologetically; witty, sharp dialogue; and clever, unexpected plot turns. In these respects his work is very reminiscent of other playwright/filmmaker David Mamet. Like Mamet, McDonough's film's have a very theatrical feel to them - naturalism is not his thing. He also shares with Mamet a certain superficiality: what interests both is weaving witty, clever tales that surprise you at the end. While there are good character studies along the way, their films are by no means deep.
Some see McDonough's apparent indifference to the moral failures of his characters nihilistic. I did not find this to be the case in Three Billboards. Here I think there is sufficient complexity and nuance in the character arcs to preclude this. No one is "redeemed" certainly; but those who do bad things certainly pay a price (if indirectly). (By contrast, I would say that the black comedy "Killer Joe" was utterly nihilistic, and for that reason totally unpalatable.)
So at a minimum, you have to be open to McDonough's style. I am; but as the title of this review indicates, that wasn't enough to make me love this film. The positives, in brief, are Frances McDormand and especially Sam Rockwell's performances. Woody Harrelson is also good, as usual. In addition, there are some good "McDonough" moments of clever writing and witty dialogue. Unfortunately, and here come the negatives, those moments are interspersed with A LOT of dialogue that sounds very contrived and results in awkward performances and moments that just fail to hit their mark. Many things that are supposed to be funny just fall flat.
In addition, there are too many implausible elements that become huge distractions in the film: Woody Harrelson's prolific cursing in front of his small daughters (which doesn't seem to fit with his overall character); the fact that Rockwell's policeman throws a man out a window in front of the new sheriff and doesn't even get arrested for it, let alone charged with anything. While these problems have to do with bad writing, more frequent are things that just seem like poor direction. McDonough is good enough at setting up nicely composed shots, but isn't very expert at telling a story in film. When so many of the scenes involving top-notch actors like McDormand, Hawkes, Rockwell etc. come off as clunky and stiff, you have to assume it's the fault of poor direction. (Also some poor casting: e.g. sheriff Willoughby's bizarrely young and Australian wife!)
Indeed,I think McDonough would be much better off turning his scripts over to a seasoned director. In the hands of someone more skilled, Three Billboards could have been a 9/10. As things stand, it's worth about a 7 - and that mostly because the lead actors here elevate the material.
One last thing: this film is supposed to be set in Missouri, but is obviously shot in the Appalachian mountains (which look nothing like Missouri). That's just lazy. In Bruges was shot IN BRUGES - not in Ghent, or Oostende. How hard could it have been to shoot in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri IN MISSOURI - or just change the title?