Viudas

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.

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.

Standout acting, especially from Viola Davis, cannot save this movie from thematic incoherence. So many themes are touched here-heist movie, loss, race, power politics, sexism, domestic abuse, sex work, etc.-that none seem fully formed. This would be a great novel, miniseries or other long form, but loses cohesion in a standard movie length.

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.

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.