Viudas

Steve McQueen is known for icy detachment and pretension. Gillian Flynn is known for bombast and snarky genre reversals. It's an unlikely pairing, and it looks like everyone wants to come out to play. The film is packed with Grade-A actors. But what do any of them have to do? True to genre, the film uses bursts of violence to suggest stakes. This is, in theory, a heist movie. But "Widows" wants to be more, and the heist takes a backseat to nearly two hours of swamp. "Widows" wants to insist it's "about something", dragging the audience through empty melodrama and papery political nonsense to arrive a convoluted nothing. Its snail's-pace gaslighting; a beautifully photographed, laughably fragile farce of girl-power that for all if its portentous trappings reduces its characters down to neat tropes. After all, it's a heist movie. But the more these characters talk the more we realize we know nothing about them aside from their victimhood. "Widows" wants to imagine a handful of Carmela Sopranos as avenging ronin who light candles for the dead - virgin wh*res complicit in their husband's crimes and doomed to fulfill their dreadful mission, but the film seems to be all window-dressing. There's nothing behind the curtain to suggest this movie learned much from its obvious model - Mann's "Heat."

This film version is based on the ITV series from 1983 that was written by Lynda La Plante.

In Chicago, Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson) heist has gone wrong. His gang is killed and he is burned to a cinder when stealing two million dollars from a ruthless gangster Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry) who is also running for political office. He is running against smarmy upstart Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) who is corrupt just like his father Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall) who is stepping down from politics due to ill health.

Jamal and his brother Jatemme Manning (Daniel Kaluuya) put pressure on Harry's widow Veronica (Viola Davis) to liquidate all her assets and pay them back.

Harry has left behind a notebook with plans for his next job. Veronica teams up with the other widows from her late husband's gang to pull off the heist and pay off the Mannings. The Mannings are after the notebook as well.

Steve McQueen has gone for a muscular reworking set in Chicago but it also becomes flabby with too many right on messages ranging from political corruption, female exploitation to a racist cop needlessly killing a young black man. The political angle was overkill and got in the way of the main story, at times making the widows secondary characters in their own movie.

Having seen the original series of Widows when it was broadcast. It was a trailblazer, a heist film featuring women and written by a woman with a big plot twist. The remake maintains the twist but is nowhere as good as the original show.

The caliber of director and cast got this film a lot of attention, and the critical response was mostly positive. On the face of it, you can see why, because it takes a generally popular genre of twists and turns and 'one big jobs' and delivers it in a much less 'capery' way than is normal. The characters are people, they feel and fear, hurt and lose, and they carry a lot with them from previous events in life. So it is a genre film with weight, and it was engaging in the way it did that. However the parts that engage all produce the feeling that the film should be better as a whole than it actually is.

The performances and the quality of the casting is a big part of this. They all bring a lot to their roles, and they make the material feel better by virtue of what they do. This creates the problem that the material is actually not that strong; it is still a genre film and it plays like one when you get below the surface - which reminds us why this genre is popular while also exposing weakness in this film. The reason most of these type of things are played a bit over the top, or as a caper, is that the spectacle or fun of it means the viewer allows it silliness in the plot; here though the events of the film didn't get that forgiveness because it told me it was being more serious and real. Related to this a little is the feeling that the film tries to cram too much in regarding characters and threads - so most supporting elements feel rushed or crammed in.

It is still a good watch though, with McQueen's approach adding value in the same way as the heavyweight cast all do; however I'm not sure the quality links to the film as a whole, and I came away from it feeling that in any given moment the film was being better than it actually was. An interesting problem though.

Could have been a five star, but needed to fill some holes where things were left a bit inconclusive. Check out Erivo in "Bad Times at the El Royale" especially her singing. a. Not much background on where the money to be stolen was acquired; why small denomination cash; why the obvious wall safe behind a painting. How monies moved or disposed of. Especially after the heist how it was handled. b. Too many left hanging bits 'n pieces like disposing of a bunch of bodies. Also, a hospital should do what w/a gunshot victim - report to police who do forensics on bullet; ask questions; tie in w/recent crimes. c. Normally forensics by police should have looked into crime scenes which leave behind plenty of evidence. But maybe the writer/director wasn't interested in making that a realistic part of the story. d. Lots of contingencies like extra vehicles; cleaning up evidence at the end seemed glossed over which was disappointing. e. Not clear how the women finished their pact; how their lives were concluded.

'Widows' quickly became one of the my most anticipated films of the latter half of 2018. It is hard to go wrong with such a sterling cast, most with great performances under their belt. Having Steve McQueen, of '12 Years a Slave' (not everybody liked that film, highly appreciated it personally) fame, directing and 'Gone Girl' (love both book and film) author Gillian Flynn penning the script also promised a lot, as well as some great ideas.

On the most part, 'Widows' was a very good film and of the five films seen in the cinema in the past week (the others being 'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald', 'The Grinch', 'The Girl in the Spider's Web' and 'Robin Hood') it was by far the best of the five. Not for everybody, with a measured pace and a lot going on subplots and character--wise, but for me it kept me engrossed right from its violent and hard-hitting opening sequence. At the same time, 'Widows' disappointed slightly, because it was capable of greatness. Most of it actually was great and it very nearly became one of my favourite films of the year, even though not perfect it still is in the better half with that being said, just a few things brought it down.

Its biggest fault was the final 25-30 minutes, which actually strictly speaking should have been the most exciting part of the film. Instead this portion of the film felt very rushed, strained credibility, was reliant on too convenient coincidences and ended too patly with things left in the air. The resolution of the big twist, which won't be spoiled, was particularly underwhelming.

That to me was pretty much the only majorly wrong thing, though also thought the sparsely used (a good choice actually) music was pretty forgettable and the political subplot was not as compelling or as meaty as the others, somewhat undercooked.

However, it is remarkable that 'Widows' had as many characters, subplots and themes as it did and it still managed to be as engrossing as it was. Although others will disagree, with there being complaints of incoherence and trying to do too much (didn't find that personally, and the latter has been a recurring issue in some films seen recently), 'Widows' didn't feel over-stuffed and it wasn't confusing to me. While deliberate, the pace didn't feel that slow, because the meaty character writing in very much a character-driven film and how adeptly a vast majority of the subplots were done were so well done. Also the length did not bother me, at just over two hours, compared to quite a number of films that actually is not that long, so the overlong complaint is puzzling. There was some good suspense and a few nice unexpected twists. The dialogue is tight and really crackles in the best moments, also provoking much thought and having a lot to say about its heavy and relevant themes (like the connection between money and power) done insightfully and without preaching.

McQueen's direction is very much bravura in quality, not as brutal as in '12 Years a Slave' (which is a different film), though there are brutal moments, but it is every bit as honest and punchy. The production values, particularly the photography, are slick and stylish, with many audacious touches like the car-bonnet mounted shot.

As far as the acting goes, that is one of the areas where 'Widows' most excels, containing some of the best ensemble acting of the year. Viola Davis' powerhouse performance, intense yet soulful, is the one that dominates but there are particularly superb performances from Elizabeth Debicki, one to watch, and Daniel Kaluuya at his most chilling. Brian Tyree Henry also sports creepy moments. Colin Farrell gives one of his best performances since 'In Bruges', Liam Neeson is charismatic in his relatively short screen time and Robert Duvall is great value. The biggest surprise here was McQueen getting a good performance out of Michelle Rodriguez, shying away from her trademark tough girl image and who has never been better. Loved the dog too.

Summarising, very good and nearly great, it would have been the latter if the last half an hour or so was as good as the rest of the film and wasn't a let down. 8/10 Bethany Cox