Widows (2018) User Reviews

Capable of greatness, left as very good

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 26 November 2018]

'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

Too many themes, too little time

[spidaman-05614 · 7/10 · 21 October 2018]

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.

Could Have Used Better Closure

[westsideschl · 7/10 · 19 February 2019]

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.

Top-notch talent, often violent, taut until... it isn't

[jimcheva · 6/10 · 7 October 2018]

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.

Could have been better with the pacing and its tedious direction.

[cruise01 · 6/10 · 3 December 2018]

Widows (3 out of 5 stars).

Widows is a heist film filled with twists and turns, great cast ensemble, and too long of a dull direction. Steve McQueen direction tries to be a little raw with its tension of racist police, corrupt politicians, abusive husbands, and mob bosses. The plot is layered with a thick story that tries to cover it all. His direction can be a little boring at times were nothing happens for a long stretch of a running time.

The plot follows Harry (Liam Neeson) a thief and his group of men Florek and Jimmy robbing from a crime boss. When the robbery falls apart and nothing works out. Leaving their wives behind as widows, Veronica (Viola Davis), Linda (Michelle Rodriguez), and Alice (Elizabeth Debicki) are struggling to live on their own. And are being taunted by Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) to recover the money their husbands stole. Meanwhile, a rising politican Jack (Colin Farrell) is trying to win the election with his competitor Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) getting mixed up with the affair after the robbery sets everything in motion. I can not say much more about the story without giving away spoilers. There are a few twists and turns. It is surprisingly better than I expected with the story.

Viola Davis was great. Same with the rest of the cast ensemble who all did great. Michelle Rodriguez and Elizabeth Debicki both playing widows and struggling to live on their own. Colin Farrell was good as a politician that is always being looked down on by his father played by Robert Duvall. Daniel Kaluuya plays a good psychopath that is harassing three leading ladies about the stolen money.

Sadly, the film does struggle with its long running time which felt too long than it should have been. It does get slow and boring with the pacing. Long stretches of nothing. Once the three leading ladies are planning on the heist job things starts picking up which is almost after an hour of its long running time. Veronica, Linda, and Alice are plotting the heist by finding the location, vehicle, weapons, and these inexperienced ladies are learning to get the job done.

The second thing I was disappointed was the music score is underwhelming. Especially, by Hans Zimmer. His score was forgettable.

Overall, Widows is a fair heist movie. Great cast. Good plot with its twists and turns. The direction is dull and slow moving and a tedious music score.

A genre film with weight - good but feels better than it actually is

[bob the moo · 9 March 2019]

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.

Looks amazing, but tries to cover too many issues, and the plot is laughable

[Bertaut · 6/10 · 26 November 2018]

Arguably the most ambitious heist movie since Heat (1995), just as did Michael Mann's genre (re)defining epic, Widows has aspirations far beyond the limits of its generic template. Written by Steve McQueen and Gillian Flynn, and directed by McQueen, the film is based on the 12-episode ITV series, Widows (1983), written by Lynda La Plante. McQueen's first two films, Hunger (2008) and Shame (2011), were two of the finest films of 2008 and 2011, respectively, but I didn't like his third, 12 Years a Slave (2013), and likewise, Widows has left me distinctly underwhelmed. Operating firmly within a genre framework, the film essentially tries to filter the basic heist template through a feminist pseudo-MeToo prism, taking in such side-issues as political corruption, police homicide, Black Lives Matter, institutional racism, American gun culture, hegemonic masculinity, and the importance of wealth. McQueen approaches genre much like Michael Mann, as opposed to, say, Quentin Tarantino, using the generic template as a launch-pad to examine various socio-political issues, as opposed to using it as a destination in and of itself. The problem, however, is that he tries to pack far too much into too short a space of time. Whilst I can certainly appreciate and celebrate how progressive the narrative is, placing a black woman at the centre of a genre traditionally dominated by white men, the film still needs to work as a genre piece, or no amount of moralising, didacticism, polemics, or political grandstanding can save it. And this is where Widows fails most egregiously - the core genre elements are as far-fetched and ridiculous as anything you're likely to see out of mainstream Hollywood, which serves to undermine and dilute the serious topicality for which McQueen is obviously striving.

Telling the story of a team of women (Veronica (Viola Davis), Linda (Michelle Rodriguez, Alice (Elizabeth Debicki) , and Belle (Cynthia Erivo)) who attempt to pull off a heist originally planned by their now deceased husbands, set against the backdrop of an election for the alderman of Chicago's 18th Ward, contested by Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) and Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry), Widows is pure pulp.

McQueen's first genre film, he approaches it with the same seriousness with which he approached political protest, sexual addiction, and slavery. Obviously not interested in making a generic crime thriller, he and Flynn use the material as a vehicle for a racially-tinted critique of both powerful men (who are mainly, but not exclusively, white) and the corrupt systems that enable them. By creating a canvas depicting life at various social strata in Chicago - from the inherited white privilege of Jack to the materialistic social trappings so important to Veronica, from the poor black neighbourhoods of Jamal to the "everything is a transaction" philosophy of high-powered real-estate - the film attempts to address a plethora of racial, political, and gender issues.

And herein lies one of the film's biggest problems. Rather than trying to deal with one or two core issues with something resembling thoroughness, it instead tries to deal with upwards of about seven, and ends up saying little of relevance about any. There's gender, economics, politics, racism, police corruption, prostitution, gun culture, materialism, and because of this proliferation, several themes receive so little attention, you wonder why they're there at all. Gun culture, for example, is really only addressed when Alice is assigned the task of buying the team's weapons. Asking where she is supposed to go to get guns, she is told simply and unironically, "this is America", a wink-and-a-nod point which relies almost entirely on the audience's left-leaning political affiliations. Another example is racially-motivated police homicide. Several years prior to the film, Veronica and Harry's (Liam Neeson) teenage son, Marcus (Josiah Sheffie), was shot and killed by a white police officer at a routine traffic stop. And that's about it. Marcus does factor into the film's big twist (kind of), but the racial overtones of his killing are never brought up again, and it remains unclear what McQueen is trying to say with this underdeveloped subplot.

Which is not to say, of course, that none of the film's themes are foregrounded. Gender, for example, is built into the plot, especially in relation to notions of subverting the patriarchal status quo ante. As they prepare the heist, Veronica tells the team that their greatest strength is the element of surprise, because "no one thinks we have the b---s to pull this off". Later, she reminds them they have "to look and move like a team of men". Whilst on the heist itself, they have to disguise their voices so no one realises they are women. Similarly front-and-centre is the theme of race relations, something introduced in the opening frames - an above-the-bed shot of Harry and Veronica engaged in some very heavy petting. Whilst promoting the film, Viola Davis has spoken a lot about how unusual it is to open a film with an interracial pseudo-sex scene, and she's right about that; interracial couples are still relatively rare on-screen, especially sexually active older couples.

Another excellent shot that carries huge thematic importance, this time in relation to city-wide macroeconomics, can be seen when Jack and his assistant, Siobhan (Molly Kunz), travel from a poor black neighbourhood to the affluent white suburb in which his campaign headquarters is situated. Filmed in one of McQueen's patented single-takes, what's especially interesting here is that after Farrell and Kunz get into the car, we can hear them, but we can't see them - Sean Bobbitt's camera remains fixed on the bonnet, with only a portion of the windshield and one of the side-mirrors visible. Meanwhile, we see the city rapidly change in real-time in the background, taking only a couple of minutes to go from skid row to millionaire's row. McQueen's unusual camera placement forces the audience to acknowledge just how thin the line is, geographically speaking, between rich and poor. At the same time, of course, the ideological divide is massive.

Of vital importance to this particular theme (the vast differences between the haves and have-nots) are the Mulligans. Robert Duvall plays former alderman Tom Mulligan as a closet racist (and sometimes he doesn't bother with the closet); an old-school politician who believes that whoever can grease the most palms and line the most pockets should become the most powerful. An angry vestige of a dying era, Tom resents the fact that a Mulligan must slum it to win black votes.

A less signposted, but equally as important theme is the corruption, dishonesty, and mercenary-like behaviour endemic to all levels of society. Really, the only man who isn't corrupt in some way is Bash (Garret Dillahunt), Harry's loyal-to-a-fault working-stiff chauffeur, but even he (like Veronica and the rest of the widows) lives off the proceeds of crime. The system may be built on a foundation of toxic patriarchy (a very different thing to toxic masculinity), but the women are no angels in this milieu; no one is immune to the corrupting influence of socio-political norms.

For me though, the whole thing was underwhelming and predictable, with a twist that's as ridiculous as they come, and a narrative that relies far too much on coincidence and movie-logic. The widows need to disguise their voices on the job? Good thing that Belle's daughter has a gizmo that does exactly that! A highly successful modern-day thief who writes everything down longhand? A team of people (irrespective of gender and race) who become experts in something as complex as pulling off a major heist in a matter of weeks? For all its real-world social and political concerns, I never once bought into the central premise, that these four women could actually pull this off, and that undermines everything else. Additionally, unlike the Baltimore of The Wire (2002) or the LA of Heat, McQueen's Chicago doesn't feel lived in; it feels like someone's idea of a city rather than an actual depiction of that city.

Just because a film addresses certain themes doesn't mean it earns a free pass ("look, Hollywood cares about poor people; we better not criticise the ridiculous plot"), and from a narrative standpoint, Widows is pretty ludicrous. With the plot often feeling contorted to support the themes, rather than the themes arising from the plot, McQueen's didactic and polemic concerns seem to have overridden his abilities as a storyteller. More a vehicle for protestation than anything else, that it tries to cover so many topics makes the whole experience emotionless, as if the filmmakers were dispassionately working off a checklist of issues on which to touch, rather than allowing the plot to organically lead into those issues. Because the central heist narrative can't stand on its own, the very real criticisms that the film is so concerned with enunciating are flattened and neutered. The socio-political commentary, for the most part, is never really integrated into the narrative - so you end up with a film that feels like its preaching at you rather than talking to you. If it had embraced its genre a bit more, and eased back on the homiletics, it would have worked much better, not just as a genre exercise, but, perhaps more importantly, as political commentary. As it is, it's a very good-looking but unoriginal, and at times, downright dumb movie, that seems to always assume its intellectual superiority to the audience.

An Easy To Watch, Well Rounded Movie

[fredgfinklemeyer · 8/10 · 25 January 2019]

01/24/2019 Immediate viewer immersion is guaranteed. A couple of slow spots, building the storylines foundation, but once that's done, your hooked. I really enjoyed this easy to watch movie, a pleasant change from the standard fare we're forced to watch. Bon Appetit

Feel Bad Movie of 2018

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 7 March 2019]

Good grief, say "hello" to the feel-bad movie of 2018.

Come to think of it, this film's director, Steve McQueen, also brought us the feel-bad movie of 2013, "12 Years a Slave." Does he need to get laid? It's rather ironic that someone named Steve McQueen should have trouble getting laid.

Anyway, "12 Years a Slave" felt necessary, so at least there was a point to making us all feel bad. We SHOULD all feel bad about something like slavery. But "Widows" could have been a slick, entertaining little genre exercise, which is what it's crying out to be, had McQueen and his writers not decided to strive for the Woketopia seal of approval. As it is, they throw in every conceivable issue even remotely related to the treatment of either minorities or women in America, whether or not they organically spring from the material. You name an unfair societal ill perpetuated by white men, and you'll find it in this movie. Though to be fair, African American men don't come off looking much better. This is a movie where all white men are corrupt politicians and all black men are gangster thugs. Meanwhile, all women are victims in some form or other -- cheated on, beaten up, exploited. I knew we were in trouble when, in an early scene, a mom, played by Jacki Weaver as a caricature of a New York mafia moll (despite the fact that we're in Chicago), encourages her daughter to prostitute herself because "women should be taken care of by men." And in the tackiest and most exploitative nod to "wokeness," the film throws in a shooting of an unarmed black youth by police. This plot isn't developed in any way, mind you. It's just a footnote tossed in to check off a politically aware box and a cheap tactic to reap the reward of our outrage without having to earn it the hard way.

And the movie is just. so. ANGRY. I get that these characters are desperate and that cracking jokes might not be their top priority. But it is possible to make a movie about desperate, humorless people without the movie itself being humorless and surly. The catch is that It takes creativity and a deft touch, which McQueen as a film maker has not yet shown evidence of having.

So why did I rate this even as high as I did? Because for all of my complaints, there is quite a bit to like about this movie. Get past its preposterous need to feel relevant and progressive, and the film making itself isn't half bad. McQueen knows how to direct action scenes, and he also knows how to build tension. And the acting throughout is very good, especially from Colin Farrell, Brian Tyree Henry, and Elizabeth Debicki. Viola Davis, who anchors the film, is fine but her character is so one note -- and such a dour one note at that -- that she's not given much opportunity to shine. The only misfire in the acting department comes from, of all people, Robert Duvall, who does his best Uncle Leo from "Seinfeld" impression.

A wildly uneven movie at best, but not a total wash.

Grade: B

terrific

[blanche-2 · 10/10 · 23 October 2023]

Wonderful film with a great casted headed by Viola Davis.

Of course, you can't go wrong with Davis, Steve McQueen directing, and a story by Lydia La Plante, one of the best.

Widows (Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, and Elizabeth Debicki) take it upon themselves to not get mad, but get even for the deaths of their criminal husbands, deciding to steal millions. Not that they have much choice. There is money stolen from a political campaign of a Chicago back politician, a man supported by a gang. Viola Davis has to return that money or eventually be killed.

Davis' ex-husband, played by Liam Neeson, has left behind plans to locate $5 million - however, she doesn't know the address.

Though she herself has no experience as a criminal (unlike her husband), she as well as the other widows have to learn, and learn quickly, the art of the steal.

The cast also includes Colin Farrell, Robert Duvall, and Daniel Kaluuya, all of whom are excellent, as well as Brian Tyree Henry, Cynthia Erivo, Lukas Haas, Carrie Coon, and Jackie Weaver.

Great special effects and story - Widows makes for exciting drama. You can really feel the tension throughout.

Good crime/thriller with a superb ensemble cast

[Holt344 · 7/10 · 2 April 2019]

Right from the opening sequence, a car chase which is post robbery and the women doing their daily stuff and then grieves. It sets the mood and tone of the movie, strong women making big life changing decisions. The message the movie makes regarding various of topics was needed and it didn't feel out of place. Steve McQueen did a great job at directing the movie, it's a solid crime/thriller but it isn't perfect but still a good movie, it could have been much better than it was but this is what we got.

The ensemble cast is superb, with famous actors and actresses makes this a must see movie just for the cast. There is so many well known and familiar actors, it's great. Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Colin Farrell and Brian Tyree Henry stood in the most, bringing most in terms of performance and to the screen.

Death becomes her

[bob-the-movie-man · 9/10 · 10 November 2018]

If you are considering "inheritence planning" there are probably a number of things you might be toying with: what happens to your house; how to best transfer your investments; who gets the dog; etc. But probably "a grudge" is not on the list. But that's the problem faced by teacher's union rep Veronica (Viola Davis). As you might presume from the film's title Veronica, together with fellow widows Linda (Michelle Rodriquez), Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), Amanda (Carrie Coon), are left in a tight spot when a gang's robbery of a local black hoodlum's stack of cash goes badly wrong. The leader of the gang, and Veronica's husband, is Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson), and his certain set of skills are not enough to save him.

The victim of the robbery, Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry), is running for local office in the upcoming elections against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), trying to take over the role as part of a long dynasty from his grouchy father Tom (Robert Duvall). Where Jamal might be better with words, Jamal's brother Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya, "Get Out") has a more physical approach to resolving issues.

What Harry has left behind for Veronica is a notebook containing the details of their next job, and Veronica gathers the female group together to carry out the raid to help save them from a "bullet in the head".

I really enjoyed this film. It's the ying to the yang of the disappointing "Ocean's 8" from earlier in the year. Yes, it's YET another film that focuses on female empowerment and with a strong black presence within the cast. But what for me made it stand out above the crowd was the quality of the writing and the assuredness of the directing.

Although based on the ancient UK TV series by Lynda La Plante, the script is written by "Gone Girl" screenwriter Gillian Flynn, and is excellent. It really doesn't EXPLAIN what is going on, but shows you a series of interconnected scenes and lets you mentally fill in the blanks. While you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the overall story arc, I must admit that even now I'm not 100% sure of some of the nuances of the story. Harry, for example, seems to be a hardened career criminal, and yet he seems to be revered by the political leaders on both sides, even though he seemed to have loyalty to noone. The script cleverly uses flashbacks and has enough twists and turns to keep you on your mental toes.

The characters also worked well for me, with each having a back story and motivations that were distinctly different from each other. Alice (helped by Debecki's standout performance) is particularly intriguing coming out of an 'interesting' relationship. Is she just following the path of her unpleasant mother (Jacki Weaver)? Some of the actions might suggest so.

As for the direction, Steve McQueen (he of "12 Years a Slave"), delivers some scenes that could justly be described as "bold". A highpoint for me was a short drive by Jack Mulligan and his PA Siobhan (an excellently underplayed Molly Kunz) from a housing project, in a neighbourhood you might worry about walking through at night, to the Mulligan mansion in a leafy and pleasant street. McQueen mounts the camera on the bonnet (hood) of the car, but you can't see the interior other than occasional glimpses of the chauffeur. All you can hear is Mulligan's rant to his Siobhan. I thought this worked just brilliantly well. The heist itself well done and suitably tense with an outcome that continues to surprise.

If there's a criticism then the ending rather fizzles out, leaving a few loose ends flapping in the breeze.

As for the performances, it's only been a couple of weeks since my review of the excellent "Bad Times at the El Royale" and I named as my second film of the year for my (private) "Ensemble Cast" award. And here hot on its tail is the third. There are such strong performances across the cast that it's difficult to pull out specifics: as you start looking at the list you pull out more and more and more names...

• As referenced above, I loved Elizabeth Debecki's performance. Both vulnerable and strong all in one package.
• Colin Farrell, for me, gives his best performance in years as the son caught within the shadow of his overpowering father. A confrontational scene between Farrell and Robert Duvall is particularly powerful.
• Daniel Kaluuya is truly threatening (possibly slightly OTT) as the psycho fixer.
• For the second time in a month Cynthia Erivo stands out as a major acting force, as the hairstylist cum gang member Belle.
• Jon Michael Hill, excellent as a fire-breathing reverend with flexible political views.

It would not surprise me to see Best Supporting Actor nods for any combinations of Debecki, Farrell, Kaluuya and Erivo for this.

I must admit that I'm not the greatest fan of Viola Davis: I find her performances quite mannered. But there's no doubting here the depth of her passion and with this lead performance she carries this film.

Final Thoughts: I loved this as an intelligent action movie that's a cut above the rest. Which is a surprise, since from the trailer I thought it looked good but not THAT good! It comes with my recommendation for an exciting and gripping two hours at the cinema.

(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on Facebook. Thanks).

"It was good, but I wanted it to be great." -ANTM

[jaeavilez · 6/10 · 24 February 2023]

I watched this movie because Viola Davis was in it and was excited to find out the cast was 10/10 all together. The plot and the twists were fantastic. However, I felt the film and story had so much potential and the follow through of the movie did not match that. At times it felt melodramatic and not enough was given to really heighten the moments of betrayal that were exposed throughout the film. My favorite character was Jack, and I thought the way the characters were written expediently, overall. I didn't understand what happened with Alice at the end, either. Overall, shout out to the actors but the execution of the writing fell short and missed a lot of opportunities.

McQueen's latest film Widows is a lesson in bad storytelling

[CineParaTodos · 4/10 · 17 November 2018]

First What worked... 1) The representation of diverse female characters on screen in leading roles. 2) The acting was great despite the bad script. 3) Directorial choices: Two moments that stood out were: 1) the intro to the characters, a well executed and well edited and sound designed sequence that cut back and forth between snipits of the women prior to becoming widows, juxtaposed with the violent heist gone wrong that eventually turned them into widows. 2) Another standout directorial moment is when Mcqueen chooses to show the journey from an impoverished predominantly black neighborhood to the wealthier part of town, all while two characters talk but are never seen. This was smart because it showcased the environment as a player in the story, and because the dialogue was mediocre at best, and actually showing the characters speaking would have felt melodramatic, expository, and uninteresting, but by shooting it in this way, it forced the viewer to listen less to the dialogue and focus more on the environment in which the event was taking place.

Now for what DIDN'T work...... 1) The Story: is not only formulaic and filled with predictable tropes, but everything that happens from beginning to end is at the expense of believability and truth. While Widows pitches itself as a heist movie, there's no set-up, build up, or pay off for the heist. There is simply no struggle. Because the script never gives us a plan of the heist, we don't follow the protagonists through the process of preparing to execute a plan that may/may not go as expected, instead we just see the widows running around and buying guns and vans but with no explanation of why and how they will carry out the deed; and thus, the viewer is unable to emotionally connect to the potential exciting/scary trials and tensions of a planned heist gone awry. One of my favorite things about heist movies is that the planning involved builds the viewer's expectations for the undertaking, so by experiencing the process with the protagonists we'd immediately feel for them and want them to succeed. However, in Widows there is no mention of a plan, or a near-impossible undertaking that will keep the viewer at the edge of his/her seat rooting for the characters, instead it's just a given that there is some sort of plan in place that already exists and that is never really talked about or explained, so when the heist is in full swing, it becomes a missed opportunity to have manipulated audience expectations and to take viewers on an emotional, tense filled and action packed journey. This also eliminates any sense of real/potential danger in the film which makes for two hours and nine minutes of very slow and uneventful boredom. There is no payoff at ALL. I attended the WGA screening of this movie (followed by Q&A with Steve McQueen and Gillian Flynn) and the screenwriters made sure to mention that they wanted the heist to be more "small time," they didn't want the characters to steal $20 million dollars, but rather a smaller amount that would be divided among all of them. This comment felt more like an excuse for why Widows' stakes were so low, and less of a commentary on how wonderfully effective "small time" crime movies can be. In a good "small-time crime" film, the circumstances and stakes are so dire that stealing $10 could have really significant consequences, and the build up could make it very compelling (and sad) to watch someone risk everything for a small reward. Widows fails to deliver on any substantial set-up that could lead to either a great pay off, or sad/violent/disturbing disappointment. A missed opportunity for the writers to manipulate audience emotional connection to the story and its characters. Another big issue with the film is that entire storylines are built up in Act I and then just dropped and unexplored by Acts II and III. An example of this is the story of Jamal Manning (played by Tyree Henry), who is painted as a crooked politician who serves as the catalyst/threat in the story that leads Veronica (Davis) to pursue this heist. However, while he does threaten her in Act I, Jamal's pursuit of this money falls by the wayside sometime in Act II, and Veronica's intention and reason for "going on this heist journey" (to pay back Jamal the money her husband stole, and to split the rest among the widows) never gets a resolution. She never has to face Jamal about the money, Jamal never comes back to claim the money, Jamal's entire storyline and intentions which seem to take center stage in Act I are barely mentioned or addressed by Act III. So the script sets up the audience expectations for really high stakes: If Veronica doesn't pay Jamal back the $2M then terrible things will happen to her (and to her dog?!?!) but then Jamal never comes back to collect on his threat, he never again inquire about the money that is owed to him, this storyline never really goes anywhere except on tangents and weak socio-political commentary.

2) Character choices are unbelievable, relationships are poorly developed and intentions are weak and misleading. Secondary characters like that of Jatemme Manning (Daniel Kaluuya) are given center stage and built up in Act I, only to conveniently be killed off in easy and uninspired ways without struggle. Another major issue is the character of Harry Rawlins (Neeson). After his death, Harry leaves his wife a key, and a lock box combination, that sets Veronica on her journey. It is the set up that leads the viewers to believe that Harry loved his wife; so much so that after he's gone he wants her to have his most important possession - a special "notebook" that she can sell to the Mannings for a significant amount of money. So while in Act I, the story leads us to be believe Harry's intentions are to "help his grieving wife," by Act III the story wants us to believe that now he's all of a sudden willing to kill Veronica for money (If Harry was willing to fake his own death and leave Veronica his most prized possession, then why all of a sudden is he willing to kill her for this money? Wouldn't it have been easier if he never would have left her the notebook to begin with? His intentions are so muddled and all over the place that it's difficult to take anything that happens seriously). Harry's actions feel imposed onto the story to create a false sense of drama, and to add shock value, all the while compromising the believability of the characters. A ridiculous twist happens in Act III that makes Veronica's relationship to her husband feel like it was a joke all along, one with zero history, and zero emotional depth which is a contradiction to how the writers set up their relationship in Act I. When we first learn of the love story between Veronica and Harry, we are led to believe the couple shared a profound, deep connection, a complicated romantic history, they even raised a child together, and experienced the shared trauma of losing that child, but nothing in the set up of their love story would lead any smart audience member to believe that these characters would so quickly try to kill each other without a second thought. Nothing up until this point in the story leads the viewer to believe that these to people don't care enough about one another to think twice before pulling the trigger. What's shocking is not that they are willing to kill each other, but that it's even happening in the first place. The motivations, intentions and actions are confusing and completely unbelievable.

3) The film is filled with convenient plot points that account for missed opportunities for dramatic tension and struggle. For example, during the heist, the women's van is taken from them (it's not stolen, it's taken because stolen would imply a struggle, and there is no struggle). This could have been a fantastic opportunity for action. The protagonists had a plan, the plan went wrong, and now they have to fix it and get their van back? Watching them have to figure out a plan B would've been interesting, they would've had to struggle to figure out a solution, but instead the film cuts to them in another car chasing the van, and magically and conveniently Kaluuya's character hits a curb/wall, and dies instantly, allowing the women to simply just take their money back. There is no confrontation with Manning. So while the script attempted to give us a shocking twist (with Kaluuya taking the van from the widows immediately post heist) the women didn't have to fight very hard to win their van back. They're also never chased by cops (at any point), even though there are gunshots during the heist, even though they are robbing an affluent neighborhood that likely has surveillance cameras and security guards, even though they leave loose ends at the Mulligan house (Nurse could call the cops when her patient Tom Mulligan is killed) but no, there is no one after the widows. Any potential complications that could make the story more interesting are never explored. There is never a sense of fear, or urgency. During the heist, another obstacle presents itself that is quickly dismissed. This happens when the nurse (Robert Duvall's caretaker) comes out of the bedroom mid robbery, at which point the widows decide to let her go back to her bedroom. In a film more grounded in reality, when the stakes are supposedly so high, and these women are supposedly so desperate and reckless, when prison or death are at risk, and their children could be left without mothers, WHY would these women let the nurse go right back to bed after being discovered? Are they not afraid she will call the police? Are they not worried she'll wake everyone up and they'll be caught? Apparently NOT. And in an attempt to make this feel like a believable choice, one of the widows says "do you think she'll call the police?" and another widow says "No that would be stupid" what is so stupid about calling the police if you're being robbed? It's just a terrible story.

Disappointing

[brianljohns7 · 28 November 2018]

With a cast including Liam Neeson, Viola Davis, Robert Duvall,Michelle Rodriguez, and Colin Farrell, and a story written by Lynda La Plante, one is entitled to be disappointed in this film. Too long, too slow to develop, and too many side stories (like Alice's escort client, the recruitment of Belle, for example ; and did the Amanda character add anything?) When we finally got to the robbery, the exciting music was good and the action good, but the denouement with Veronica and Harry was a bit limp and cliche-ish I thought. The best parts by far were when Robert Duvall was on screen.

My most disappointing film at TIFF 2018...

[michaeljohnson-27597 · 6/10 · 1 October 2018]

I'm reminded of an interesting experience four years ago, at TIFF 2014. Over-hearing what some people were saying online on film forums, and in line waiting for Antoine Fuqua's The Equalizer, many were discussing "Is this a Festival film?".

It was arguably the most elitist thing I've heard about a film (and I've been to film school, where elitists thrive) because I always thought of film as something that engages everyone, and festivals are an amazing way to create awareness and engagement from the casual film-goer to those aforementioned elitists.

Why Director Steve McQueen's Widows reminded me of this experience is because the two films, on the surface, have much in common. Both Fuqua and McQueen enjoyed tremendous critical success with some of their previous films, even directing actors to Oscar-winning roles. Both men are a strong proponent of this generations' growing diversification in terms of directors; mentors to help young minority filmmakers find their own voice. Both men, when releasing these respected films in the Equalizer and Widows, based the films off an older television show, and created films that have much more of an action or thriller atmosphere than their previous resume.

And both, in my opinion, played it safe.

When I reviewed The Equalizer, I thought it unfortunately fell back on action movie tropes and convenience; that Fuqua, who had pushed the boundaries of drama and action before, didn't take any chances. McQueen, sadly, took a page out of that book with Widows.

The story follows four women, lead by Veronica (the amazing Viola Davis) who come together after Veronica's husband, Harry (Liam Neeson) and his crew of criminals are killed during a heist. Veronica then gathers most of the widows as they need to pull off another job to help settle things in their life, and with an angered gang leader, who was the individual Harry robbed. 1.jpg If Davis and Neeson aren't enough of a draw for you (and they should be, as they most definitely carry the film) then might I add that this is one of the greatest ensembles put together I have seen in a long time. Icons like Robert Duvall, big names like Colin Farrell, new stars like Elizabeth Debicki and Daniel Kaluuya, action mavens like Michelle Rodriguez, and some of the best actors television has offered in recent memory with names like Jon Bernthal (Walking Dead, Punisher), Carrie Coon (Fargo) and Brian Tyree Henry (Atlanta). This was the draw for me. I couldn't believe what a collective McQueen had assembled.

I can only assume they believed in the project, however, after viewing the film, I no longer believe. I felt so many of the characters were stereotypes, archetypes or any other kind of type. Tom Mulligan (Duvall) and Jatemme Mannin (Kaluuya) stuck out the most. Both characters, who were antagonists were simply there to be hated, and in every way did McQueen play up the villainous tropes. Mulligan was just a mean-old-coot with all the characteristics we've come to hate about this burgeoning America; he was rich, white, racist and politically corrupt. A subtle comment on social equality and today's western world? Perhaps... but not that subtle. His character didn't even completely seem necessary. Jack Mulligan, his son (played by Colin Farrell) was the more interesting and layered character, caught between his father's crimes, his hatred for his father, yet still pushing to maintain the legacy and safety his family has built. If you removed the older Mulligan, the film would have remained pretty much the same which is a true waste of Duvall's talents. Kaluuya, who broke out in last years' Get Out was the biggest waste. His Jatemme was another character that could have either been amalgamated or cut completely. While the character had almost nothing to give a solid actor like Kaluuya, I even found the way he was played was too over-the-top villainous, throwing paraplegics from wheelchairs and killing without reason or remorse.

There were several aspects of the cast I was excited about, yet ultimately disappointed with. I was excited about Bernthal and Coon, but they're barely in the film. Even Neeson has very limited screen time, his role mostly comprised of flashbacks. Debicki is another gifted actor whose character was not given enough time or development to give the actor a chance. I would dare say that with the exception of Davis (again) almost all of the characters were one-dimensional.

Without Davis' Veronica, there is almost no one or nothing to latch onto in the story, (This may in fact be one of the downfalls of such a large ensemble and such an ambitious story). Luckily with Davis at the helm, steering this otherwise sinking ship, you can at least enjoy another powerful performance by this seasoned and award-winning actor. Veronica also represents the main point of the film, which is McQueen's focus on creating strong female characters. The Widows are in fact quite strong, one way or another, many of. I think with more time and a better rounded script, they could have all shown that. Sadly, once again, it seemed like the easy answer was to show physical prowess instead of inner strength or intellect; showing how fast Cynthia Erivo's Belle can run, showing Michelle Rodriguez's trademark Latina attitude, or showing Viola Davis' impressive musculature. Davis was the only character who on more than one occasion showed true inner strength and intellect, as she was not only capable of being Harry's equal in terms of planning and leading a heist, but perhaps even out-doing him.

Yet that subtext falls flat in many of the other characters. McQueen and his co-writer Gillian Flynn constantly attempt to show strength in these women, but fall just short. They constantly try to convey other sub-textual elements like the class war, or the way men treat women, but again, fall short. They merely introduce concepts and perhaps give them one other small moment within the film, but I never found any theme truly woven throughout the story. The element that was the biggest disappointment to me wasn't McQueen's direction, it was Flynn's writing - I was enamored with Gone Girl (ironically also released in 2014) as I thought the development, the twists, and ironically again, the breadth of strong female characters was near perfect.

For Flynn to be so near-perfect in her previous screenwriting endeavor, to create such intrigue, to masterfully reveal twists, and to develop the depth of character she did makes this endeavor that much more disappointing. Granted, she was adapting her own novel at the time, but she certainly has the writing talent and the tools available to have made Widows something special, or exhilarating, but instead it falls flat in every respect. The so-called twists especially were completely wasted. Mid way through the film, there is a major revelation that could have taken the story in so many different directions, and yet, once again, it went in the safest route possible.

Everything about Widows whispered "missed opportunity" to me, and I call it a whisper because the experience of viewing it was akin to waiting quietly, patiently, but then ultimately realizing my expectations were never going to be fulfilled. While the film starts with some intrigue and excitement, it becomes more and more predictable. The conclusion has been seen several times before in one iteration or another, and especially after the conclusion, I realized there were several plot holes and that my suspension of disbelief for some of the cinematic convenience had been stretched too thin over too much time. You may think I'm simply being too overly critical (even for a guy who has a job title with 'critic' in it), but the fact is, there were reactions from my fellow audience members that were inexplicably inappropriate. There were several moments where I'm positive the scene was projected to be dramatic or sad, but some TIFF goers were laughing. That's a serious issue that goes past someone's terrible individual sense of humor, that's a failure of the director and the actors to convey the intended tone and emotion.

You can't argue that a film like Widows, with its pedigree of direction, writing and one of the most impressive casts recruited is a Festival Film. Having seen the packed house at TIFF, you also can't argue that it will have thousands of fans clamoring to see it in theaters. What I can argue is whether it is the film it could have been. Flynn could have written a much tauter thriller. McQueen could have balanced the characters and pace of the film better. The actors could have tried to create more depth rather than surface level tropes. The potential with this group of artists far exceeds what was actually presented, but more importantly, so much of the movie has been done before. This goes beyond simply remaking a television show, but telling the story in a cinematic manner that is neither original nor inspired. I merely felt with all the talent this film had going in, what came out of it made Widows my most disappointing film at TIFF this year.

Room for improvement

[Easygoer10 · 7/10 · 3 December 2018]

Ate there any films out today that Viola Davis is not in? Seriously, I like her a lot. She has a prrsence like no other woman; specifically, she uses pauses in her delivery in many films, especially the past 5 years. I am glad for her. To be honest, she should have been cast in more films going back a long time. I am referring to all the TV she did, with small but powerful roles in films. A perfect exampke is Law Abiding Citizen, ehich stars Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx. She has maybe 5 or 10 minutes of screen time (maximum), cast as the mayor of Philadelphia. It is a small, but memorable role because of her presence. Widows could have been better. It is good, but predictable (to me). I would skip it.

simplicity would be better

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 2 February 2019]

In Chicago, Veronica (Viola Davis) becomes a widow when her husband Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson) is killed while stealing $2M from ruthless criminals Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme Manning (Daniel Kaluuya). The Manning brothers want their money back from Veronica. Jatemme is running for office against equally corrupt politician Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) who is following in his father Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall)'s footstep. Harry has left behind a notebook with his next target and Veronica decides to hit it with the other widows from Harry's job, Linda (Michelle Rodriguez) and Alice (Elizabeth Debicki). In need of a driver, Linda recruits her friend Belle (Cynthia Erivo).

I really don't like the start. The first act is essentially introducing the Mannings and Mulligan with their political rivalry. It'd be fine if the movie is about them but it should be about the women. One of the themes of the story is that the women are dismissed as secondary people and the movie starts off by treating them as secondary characters. It is a bad start. Once they get going with the ladies, the movie gets better. I really like their stories. There is a big twist reveal but it comes way too early. The Mannings and Mulligan rivalry may be important but really unnecessary for the women. This would be a much more compelling story if it gets streamlined and concentrated on the ladies. Director Steve McQueen has great skills but sometimes simplicity is better. This is about the women and not about the men.

Not your average heist thriller

[GODZILLA_Alpha_Predator · 9/10 · 20 September 2018]

Caught Widows at TIFF this month and I can tell after watching that this is going to be an Oscar favourite next year. After a group of criminals dye in a heist gone wrong, their widows, Veronica, Alice and Linda, are forced to collect the money to repay their husband's debt. From there the women have to find their individual strength to survive especially when most of the men in their world are either cut-throat criminals or corrupt politicians. And that is just the basics of Widows. This story has far more to tell when you look at it under the surface.

Widows is thematically about how people move on and rebuild themselves in a broken society. The core group of women have had their lives be defined by their husbands' actions for better or for worse. From sexism, race relations, entitled privileges, politics to infidelity, director Steve McQueen is exploring so many of these subjects in his heist thriller. In less capable hands, so many of these themes and messages could feel force-fed and overbearing but McQueen makes them engaging in every single scene he shoots. Scenes will cut from calm, quiet moments to establish the nature of the widow's late marriages to sudden bursts of violence, action and tension to get your heart racing. Along with shots filled with dark and cool, light color palettes, McQueen shows on screen how divided the world is between those who feel they deserve wealth and power and those are mistreated by it. And through this divided perception, the women begin to take ownership of their lives and reassess what their marriages were really built on.

While Widows is a thematically dark and serious story, Gone Girl author-turned-screenwriter Gillian Flynn gives the characters a lot of subtle humour and sharp witted dialogue that actually makes the film surprisingly fun to watch. And to its credit that Flynn, along with McQueen as the co-writer, gives so many of these characters, especially the star women, unique layers that makes no one feel like a blank slate.

While it is an ensemble piece, Viola Davis is definitely the most awards-worthy to watch. As the lead widow Veronica, Davis brings so much to her character without even having to say a word. Davis displays this feeling that Veronica has to build a wall to block the emotional pain she is suppressing in order to keep the other widows in line for the upcoming heist. But once in moments when she is alone, you see Davis unleash that emotions very suddenly and then very quickly go back into being a commanding presence. Michelle Rodriguez gets a break from the usual action films to show dramatic range in her character Linda. While I wouldn't call it a break-out, it establishes that Rodriguez can play more then just the usual action heroine. Collin Farrell also does great bringing complexity to the corrupt politician Jack Mulligan who is seeking to escape his cruel father's legacy. But Widows is also filled with a lot of surprising stand-outs in terms of acting performances. Elizabeth Debicki does a lot with her character Alice that could have been one-note. Debicki shows Alice go on a transformation from a young, frail socially-dependant housewife to a character that is done being mistreated and seen as vulnerable. While Cynthia Erivo doesn't show up until late in the film, she makes a very strong impression once she joins the crew. And Brian Tyler Henry and Daniel Kaluuya bring a lot to their villain roles. Henry is calm, confident but also intimidating as the kingpin-turning-politician Jamal Manning, particularly in a scene with Davis. However it is Kaluuya as Jamal's brother Jatemme, who is just absolutely terrifying. With just a stare, Kaluuya'c character makes you feel small and scared knowing what horrible things he will do next. The one thing I will criticize is that I felt both Jon Bernthal and Carrie Coon were both underutilized in their roles.

Widows has a lot going on in its two-hour runtime and there some plot twists that make it feel a little incoherent but does very little to impact the film's near perfect quality. Widows is a film that is one of the most thrilling of this year and still has a very compelling and ambitious story that McQueen and Flynn have put on screen.

Ok movie that could have been worse or better

[Greek_77 · 6/10 · 24 December 2021]

I was expecting a music video type of silly movie, but thankfully I was wrong.

It is not silly at all. On the contrary, it has a tiny back story, some interesting twists, and it also deals, even though not in depth, with the hypocrisy around politicians and their relationship to African American communities.

Viola is not an action hero here, doing karate flips and all that, and that is definitely a positive. That was my main fear before watching the film.

Action and guns are there only when needed, the story is good, the director did a good job.

It could have been a much deeper and better film, but the director made this for Hollywood, and not as an artistic statement.

A BIT RACIST. BUT GOOD FILM

[lopezpatricia-06139 · 8/10 · 19 January 2021]

I have to say I did notice a smattering of racism which I'm getting a little fed up of with Hollywood. Why are all white people portrayed as racist. I don't recall this in the original. Viola says "I should never have married a white man" what so a black man career criminal would have been preferable? What!! Colin Farrell as the typical Irish American racist with a worse father. It's not necessary for this plot. The scene where their son is shot by police because he was driving a nice car. Irritating! As if that happens every day. The African American characters were just as violent as the white characters. So I'd advise not to draw attention to this. If the boot was on the other foot we'd never hear the end of it. I've made no friends with this review but I don't care it needs to be said . Otherwise a really good reboot of the original. Watch out for Anne Mitchell's cameo. That was cool.

Great movie, but not fantastic

[u-go-glencoco · 7/10 · 7 February 2020]

I liked this movie a lot. I got into it from the first minute and knew that this would be a pretty nice movie experience. Loved the supporting actresses of the main squad. But the movie had a pretty big flaw: it had too much going on. It would be even better with an edited script, where some of the side stories where removed. If so, it could focus more on the parts we really cared for. But hey, it's still really worth a watch.

SISTERS ARE DOING IT FOR THEMSELVES...!

[masonfisk · 8/10 · 27 November 2018]

Steve McQueen's (12 Years a Slave/Hunger) follow up to his Best Picture winner is a heist film told from the female perspective. Inspired by a British series McQueen saw on the BBC in the 80's, this American remake transports the story of a failed robbery & the men who lost their lives committing it to our shores & opens the tale w/side elements of politics & gangsterism to give the film a more deeper set of aesthetics to play with. Enter the women of the tale, who are the wives, girlfriends or significant others to the criminals who initially bought the farm, now being pressured by the pair of crime lord brothers who were robbed to make good on the failed theft. When the lead thief's detailed robbery diary pops up, our main heroine, played by Oscar winner Viola Davis, comes up w/a plan to pull the next score themselves in order to pay their debt & have something for a rainy day. What could have been a typical masculinization of a gang of chicks kicking ass & taking names becomes a dialectic between the realities of crime whether socio-political, racial or in this case gender & the notion of taking your foes for granted. A brilliant cast featuring Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, & newcomer Cynthia Erivo hit all the right notes in this tense, smart thriller which is damn well near perfect.

A surprising and well played thriller with intrigue, noisy action, suspense, twists and turns.

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 3 September 2023]

Set in contemporary Chicago, amid a time of turmoil and tensions bursting out. During the escape after carrying out a robbery, the van in which four thieves tried to getaway is shot at and bursts into flames. Four women with nothing in common except a debt left behind by their dead husbands' criminal activities take fate into their own hands and conspire to forge a future on their own terms. They are Veronica (Viola Davis), Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), Linda (Michelle Rodriguez) and Belle (Cynthia Erivo) . They're planning a complex scheme to carry out a robbery. Alice buys the getaway car and guns, while Linda is tasked with deciphering a blueprint in Harry's plan. Alice uses David (Lukas Haas), a real estate executive with whom she is in a transactional relationship, to identify the blueprint as a safe in Jack Mulligan's (Colin Farrell) home. But although they have all separated and started new lives, the unexpected return of someone from the past, ensures that they have to reunite, with frightening consequences for some of them. Left with nothing !. Capable of anything !.

This is the story of four women with nothing in common, except a debt left behind by their dead husbands' criminal activities. McQueen directs, co-writes and produces this film based on the British television series Widows (1983-195). The director is an admirer of the original series by Lynda La Plante and decided to take up the story about 4 women from different social backgrounds - racial, social, economic - who join forces for a common goal. For himself, McQueen decided to transfer from London in the 1880s to contemporary Chicago, something that, as he himself explains, "was vital for me to be able to also comment on and criticize politics, religion, social classes, race, delinquency and mourning and to see the city of Chicago and reverse it like a telescope to look at the world¨. Starring Viola Davis whose performance earned her a BAFTA 2019 nomination for best leading actress ,who after a three-decade career playing more than 7o mostly supporting roles, this film marks Viola Davis's first lead role in a major studio movie. Viola Davis plays the leader of a female group who organised themselves a plan in order to carry out the robbery which her dead husband had planned to commit. Accompanied by other great lead and supporting actors, such as Liam Neeson, Jon Bernthal, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, Jacki Weaver, James Vincent Meredith, Daniel Kaluuya, Carrie Coon, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell, Molly Kunz, Lukas Haas, among others. And this is the first time that McQueen does not have actor Michael Fassbender in one of his films. Director McQueen frequently cast Fassbender who had starred in McQueen's three previous movies: Hunger (2008), Shame (2011), and 12 years a slave (2013).

The motion picture was competently directed by Steve McQueen. This great writer and director often uses trademarks as dialogue scenes shot in a single take or a series of long takes, utilizes Sean Bobbitt as his director of photography and Joe Walker as his editor, developing unflinchingly brutal style and approach to difficult subject matter. McQueen is a prestigious writer/producer/director known for 12 years a slave (2013), Shame (2011) y Hunger (2008), Uprising , Small Axe, Occupied City (2023), among others. Rating. 7/10. Better than average. The movie will appeal to thriller enthusiasts.

Poor plot, open loops and ultimately pointless

[nickbolton-63999 · 3/10 · 9 November 2018]

Going against the grain of all the positive reviews, I found this a very unsatisfying and silly drama. The plot is incoherent and so many story lines are left undeveloped and, essentially, irrelevant. Key plot lines make no sense at all from the macro plot to the micro details that don't stack up and serve only to undermine it. I suspect the very same film from a less regarded director would be slammed but we become hyptonised to assume there must be something important and worthy going on here.

With so many plot lines this would make a great Netflix series but as a film it is very poor.

Only the acting redeems it.