Doc Safari
03-12-18, 13:14
** SPOILER ALERT: I STARTED THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, SO BY DEFINITION YOU SHOULD SEE THE MOVIE AND THEN JOIN US IN THIS THREAD. **
My take: throughout the movie we are treated to a parade of the endless ineptitude, indifference, corruption, cruelty, and general worthlessness of law enforcement. Indeed, the only time one of the cops becomes a "good guy" is when he is asked to turn in his badge and gun. The main character firebombs the police station with Molotov cocktails and doesn't even get arrested, even though it's clear in the movie that she is the likely suspect due to the events leading up to the event.
At the end we see the main character and the ex-cop embarking on a journey to possibly kill a man who wasn't responsible for the main character's daughter's murder as they believed, but they pursue their quest for violent retribution anyway because they "know the man raped somebody."
So, what are we to make of this?
I'm thinking the point of the movie is that law enforcement is worthless on a good day and downright borderline criminal itself on a bad day. The point the filmmakers seem to be making is that citizens are justified in meting out vigilante justice because law enforcement is so worthless and corrupt.
Just like "No Country for Old Men," the ending leaves the viewer somewhat taken aback by the utter futility of depending on the cops to solve anything or punish the guilty.
The ending of "Three Billboards" seems to suggest that we as citizens might as well take the law into our own hands because we sure can't depend on the "system."
What's your take?
My take: throughout the movie we are treated to a parade of the endless ineptitude, indifference, corruption, cruelty, and general worthlessness of law enforcement. Indeed, the only time one of the cops becomes a "good guy" is when he is asked to turn in his badge and gun. The main character firebombs the police station with Molotov cocktails and doesn't even get arrested, even though it's clear in the movie that she is the likely suspect due to the events leading up to the event.
At the end we see the main character and the ex-cop embarking on a journey to possibly kill a man who wasn't responsible for the main character's daughter's murder as they believed, but they pursue their quest for violent retribution anyway because they "know the man raped somebody."
So, what are we to make of this?
I'm thinking the point of the movie is that law enforcement is worthless on a good day and downright borderline criminal itself on a bad day. The point the filmmakers seem to be making is that citizens are justified in meting out vigilante justice because law enforcement is so worthless and corrupt.
Just like "No Country for Old Men," the ending leaves the viewer somewhat taken aback by the utter futility of depending on the cops to solve anything or punish the guilty.
The ending of "Three Billboards" seems to suggest that we as citizens might as well take the law into our own hands because we sure can't depend on the "system."
What's your take?