Les Veuves

'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

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.

It would be hard NOT to recommend this film simply based on the top of the line actors here. Seeing Viola Davis and Liam Neeson as passionate lovers might be worth the whole film. Michelle Rodriguez for once doesn't play the Michelle Rodriguez character (someone else does); you might almost mistake her for America Ferrara initially. Duval plays in a familiar register but he does it well; Farrell is workmanlike but in an unfamiliar role. Etc.

As for the story, it is wound tight for most of the film, including scenes of violence worthy of (and not always far from) Tarantino. There is also a theme - almost overdone these days - of women discovering themselves through transgression. And there are some very sexy scenes.

Strangely though, the film goes seriously off-track at the end, almost as if the screenwriters ended up in a hurry or just didn't care anymore. Except for one applause-worthy moment, the ending feels cursory and leaves some pretty obvious questions unanswered. Which is downright strange for such an otherwise tightly written film. To put it another way, for much of the film it's 8 or 9 star, then in the close it's 3 or 4.

I'm surprised honestly some of the high-powered talent here didn't demand some rewrites. As it is, you'll probably enjoy much of it (unless you can't stomach violence) and certainly if you're the kind of viewer who just lives for a few good moments between real pros, you've got them here. But it's an incomplete experience in the end.

Greetings again from the darkness. Woman power. Black power. Racist old white men. Corrupt politicians. Abusive husbands. Cheating white husbands. Racist cops. Men are bad. Women are strong and good. If a filmmaker were to blend all of these stereotypes into a single movie, then as movie goers we should expect an ultra-talented filmmaker like Steve McQueen to go beyond conventional genre. Unfortunately, a nice twist on the heist movie formula from Lynda La Plante's novel turns into predictability that whips us with societal clichés posing as societal insight.

I seem to be one of the few not raving about this movie. Hey it has the director behind Best Picture Oscar winner 12 YEARS A SLAVE (Mr. McQueen), a screenplay he co-wrote with Gillian Flynn (GONE GIRL) from the aforementioned novel by Lynda La Plante, and a deep and talented cast of popular actors. It ticks every box and it's likely to be a crowd-pleaser, despite my disappointment. Every spot where I expected intrigue, the film instead delivered yet another eye-roll and easy-to-spot twist with a cultural lesson. Each of the actors does tremendous work, it just happens to be with material they could perform in their sleep.

It's the kind of film where audience members talk to the screen - and it plays like that's the desired reaction. This is the 4th generation of the source material, including 3 previous TV mini-series (1983, 1985, 2002). It makes sense that this material would be better suited to multiple episodes, rather than hurried through 2 hours. There are too many characters who get short-changed, and so little time to let the personalities breathe and grow. But this is about delivering as many messages as possible.

A strong premise is based in Chicago, and finds a team of four burglars on a job gone wrong. This leaves a mobster/politician looking to the four widows (hence the title) for reparations. Since the women have no money, their only hope is to tackle the next job their men had planned. Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, and Carrie Coon play the widows, though only the first three are given much to do, as the talented Ms. Coon is short-changed. In fact, Ms. Davis is such a strong screen presence that she dominates every scene she is in - she's a true powerhouse. Even Liam Neeson can't hang with her. Colin Farrell appears as a smarmy politician and Robert Duvall is his f-word spouting former Alderman dad. Cynthia Erivo has a nice supporting turn in support of the women, and Bryan Tyree Henry, Daniel Kaluuya, Jacki Weaver, Garret Dillahunt, Kevin J O'Connor, Lukas Haas, and Jon Bernthal fill out the deep cast ... see what I mean about too many characters and too little time?

There is no single thing to point at as the cause for letdown. The story just needed to be smarter and stop trying so hard to comment on current societal ills. As an example, a quick-trigger cop shooting an innocent young African-American male seems thrown in for the sole purpose of ensuring white guilt and an emotional outburst from the audience. It's difficult to even term this film as manipulating since we see the turns coming far in advance. Two far superior message films released earlier this year are Spike Lee's BLACKKKLANSMAN and Boots Riley's SORRY TO BOTHER YOU. For those who need only emotion and little intellect in their movies, this not-so-thrilling heist might work. For the rest of you, it's good eye-roll practice.

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."