Widows (Steve McQueen)

speedboatchase

Directed by Steve McQueen (12 Years A Slave), written by Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl), cast includes Viola Davis, Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Jon Bernthal, Michelle Rodriguez, Carrie Coon, Daniel Kaluuya, Robert Duvall.

Stacked with talent :eek:

bnt

This is based on a Lynda La Plante crime drama on TV in 1985. Elizabeth Debicki (The Great Gatsby, The Night Manager) appears to have a lead role - apparently Jennifer Lawrence wanted it but was too busy. I can see this getting some interest come awards season.

Slydice

That cast! :eek:

JP Liz V1

bnt wrote: »

This is based on a Lynda La Plante crime drama on TV in 1985. Elizabeth Debicki (The Great Gatsby, The Night Manager) appears to have a lead role - apparently Jennifer Lawrence wanted it but was too busy. I can see this getting some interest come awards season.

I'm not a fan Elizabeth Debicki, find her quite a bland actress but given this fim's impressive cast she might not feature too heavily

bnt

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I'm not a fan Elizabeth Debicki, find her quite a bland actress but given this fim's impressive cast she might not feature too heavily

Oh, I don’t know - in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. I thought she took advantage of the opportunity to play an evil genius and chew the scenery a little. We’ll see what she does with this role.

ohnonotgmail

bnt wrote: »

This is based on a Lynda La Plante crime drama on TV in 1985. Elizabeth Debicki (The Great Gatsby, The Night Manager) appears to have a lead role - apparently Jennifer Lawrence wanted it but was too busy. I can see this getting some interest come awards season.

i remember the TV series. It was a cracking show that was very popular.

peteeeed

new trailer

Slydice

thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107178047

pixelburp

Looks like a solid crime / heist drama with a pretty impressive cast; though slightly surprised McQueen is behind this, he hasn't seemed like the type to suddenly knock out a mainstream thriller.

bnt

I like what I hear of Hans Zimmer's soundtrack so far, it doesn't remind me of anything else he's done. :cool:

bnt

The first reviews are in, from the première at the Toronto International Film Festival, and they're looking very good so far.

JP Liz V1

bnt wrote: »

This is based on a Lynda La Plante crime drama on TV in 1985. Elizabeth Debicki (The Great Gatsby, The Night Manager) appears to have a lead role - apparently Jennifer Lawrence wanted it but was too busy. I can see this getting some interest come awards season.

Viola Davis is getting Oscar buzz which is no surprise, great actress

judeboy101

I'm old enough to remember the original TV series, the twist and the sequels.

Mr E

I saw this last night and it's one of my favourite movies this year.

A late revelation was spoiled for me in a synopsis for the book's sequel (due out next year) so watch out for that... (I didn't read the original book or see the TV show)

ohnonotgmail

I seen this yesterday and i thought it was solid but not a whole lot more.

p to the e

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I seen this yesterday and i thought it was solid but not a whole lot more.

So it was really good but not much better?!

ohnonotgmail

p to the e wrote: »

So it was really good but not much better?!

solid <> really good

branie2

I saw it this evening, and I thought it was very good.

bnt

Just heading back from seeing this now. I thought the script had a few clunky and unnecessary bits in it - like the writers were throwing everything at the wall to see what stuck. For example,

Veronica & Harry having a son who was killed by cops, through his own stupidity

- that didn't add anything, sad as it was. But very enjoyable overall, with a few performances that should get Oscar attention.

PS: in thinking about it, there are a few aspects to the plot that are throwing me off and which could even be plot holes.

I'm confused about the money, for starters: there was the $2 million stolen by Harry (Neeson) from Manning at the beginning, not sure where that ended up. Did he give it to Mulligan, and if so, why? He had drawn up plans to steal Mulligan's $5 million - including Manning's $2 million? - but left those plans to Veronica (Davis), knowing full well that he was about to fake his death, meaning Veronica would get the plans. He couldn't have expected she would use them, so was he assmuing she'd hand them over to Manning, and then Manning would rob Mulligan - while they were competing with each other for the Alderman position?

johnny_ultimate

Steve McQueen moving over to straight-up genre territory was an unexpected move... but he handles the transition with great confidence. He's embedded a standard heist thriller with a range of socio-political contexts. It's a great film about modern Chicago, about political corruption, the everyday reality of many 'normal' Americans (in particular African Americans - no surprise from McQueen), a film about powerful women that isn't just a simple piece of action hero fantasy. It never feels like it's lecturing at the audience - well, maybe one violent flashback sequence where the prominent Obama posters feel rather on-the-nose - but has carefully woven all these strands into a nifty, twisty, character-driven thriller.

Pretty excellent performances all round, TBH. While it's not McQueen's most distinctive film by any stretch, he by no means surrenders his ability to stage scenes with great imagination - a conversation sequence shot entirely from a car bumper is a highlight, the focus on the environment powerfully underscoring some of the themes that have been brewing up until that point.

There was one main concern for me... even with a healthy running time and unhurried pace, there's something about the conclusion that didn't sit right. It felt like some of the subplots didn't get the payoffs they deserved. McQueen and Flynn did a great job giving proper space to all the characters and narrative strands up until that point - and while much is wrapped up, I felt a tad frustrated that we didn't have a final check in with some of the others. Still, a relatively minor concern in what is for sure one of the smartest takes on the mainstream heist thriller in a long time.

judeboy101

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Steve McQueen moving over to straight-up genre territory was an unexpected move... but he handles the transition with great confidence. He's embedded a standard heist thriller with a range of socio-political contexts. It's a great film about modern Chicago, about political corruption, the everyday reality of many 'normal' Americans (in particular African Americans - no surprise from McQueen), a film about powerful women that isn't just a simple piece of action hero fantasy. It never feels like it's lecturing at the audience - well, maybe one violent flashback sequence where the prominent Obama posters feel rather on-the-nose - but has carefully woven all these strands into a nifty, twisty, character-driven thriller.

Pretty excellent performances all round, TBH. While it's not McQueen's most distinctive film by any stretch, he by no means surrenders his ability to stage scenes with great imagination - a conversation sequence shot entirely from a car bumper is a highlight, the focus on the environment powerfully underscoring some of the themes that have been brewing up until that point.

There was one main concern for me... even with a healthy running time and unhurried pace, there's something about the conclusion that didn't sit right. It felt like some of the subplots didn't get the payoffs they deserved. McQueen and Flynn did a great job giving proper space to all the characters and narrative strands up until that point - and while much is wrapped up, I felt a tad frustrated that we didn't have a final check in with some of the others. Still, a relatively minor concern in what is for sure one of the smartest takes on the mainstream heist thriller in a long time.

The TV series had 2 sequels that tied up a lot of that

Giruilla

Thought it was extremely underwhelming. Expected more from Steve McQueen.

Had a very 'run of the mill - I've seen this before' vibe. Whereas with Shame was more like 'wow what is this film'.

The

BLM scene

was laaaammme.

Fysh

Caught this last night and while the direction was great, it felt like there were a couple of loose plot strands that worked against the film. More than anything else I didn't understand

what Rawlins' plan was supposed to be - rob Manning, then try and pay him off with a plan for robbing even more money from Mulligan? If he wanted to disappear and start a new life, why did he need more than the $2M from Manning, and why didn't he just jump straight to robbing the $5M from Mulligan?

The various storylines are played out interestingly, bolstered by strong performances throughout, although I felt that

the reveal that Harry wasn't dead mid film was extremely clumsy, and only just about justified itself by providing a reason for the van to have exploded in Classic Hollywood Action Film style at the start

. The plot could work just as well with most of Manning and Mulligan's stories excised, but the film doesn't limit itself to being about the plot...

bnt

From reading other reviews since I saw the film last week, my understanding of the heist plot is something like this.

It starts with Rawlins and Mulligan working together to steal Manning's money as a political manoevre - to cripple Manning's campaign. Mulligan must have been behind it and involved in the planning: why else would he get any money at all? Rawlins' price in addition to money: help him carry out the double-cross on his gang (and his wife), help him fake his death with the explosions, maybe provide a new ID and help him get away. (He stays in town, though - with his new squeeze.)

So

Rawlins drew up secret plans to steal money from Mulligan, and this is where I think I see a major plot hole: since he knew he'd be faking his death, and had left a security box key for Bash to give to Veronica after his death, he surely must have known she'd take the notebook - leaving him without the plans. He should also have known that his death would be in the news, so Manning would go after Veronica, putting her and the notebook in danger. Maybe he intended to throw her under the bus - since he was shacking up with the wife of one of his gang members - but that still doesn't explain his losing the notebook to Veronica.

S.M.B.

Agree on your thoughts in the first paragraph. I then believe

Rawlins assumed Manning crew would pressure Veronica into handing over the notebook, they would then carry out the Mulligan job and he'd be able to swoop in and take the money at the very end. Seems a little overly elaborate and the only gap I can see is that Rawlins would have to have been monitoring Mulligans house to know when the heist would happen and that Veronica would be back at his old meeting place once its done.

pixelburp

On the basis of this, I'd love to see more ostensibly art-house auteurs take cracks at conventional genres (famously, David Lynch was offered the gig of directing Return of the Jedi); stagnation is easily avoided when those with a different sensibility are encouraged to shake things up a little. The end result here was a punchy, raw inflection of the heist thriller - nothing revolutionary, but executed with the confidence and swagger of the best in genre, mixed with a flair that a more creatively inclined director like McQueen can bring. Never dull, never overcooked, and the Subtext never allowed to stray too far into the Text; this was a stylish, muscular and intelligent thriller.

Most pleasingly, it was grown-up, mainstream entertainment; something that's rare enough in these days of post-modernism - or where the Blockbuster is more an overblown fairground attraction, than visceral entertainment.

Morrison J

Am I the only one who found Colin Farrell's accent completely off putting? He definitely slipped in and out of North Dub a few times.

Film itself was great. A heist film that was made feel quite original.

AMKC

I seen this yesterday and enjoyed it. If it has one fault it may be that it tries to put too many issues into the film like racism, whites killing young blacks etc. I thought the twist in the middle was good. I thought all the actors were very good and the end scene's were really good.
I would watch it again when its out on the TV.
I would give it 7 out of 10.

bnt

Time magazine has an article here which tries to make sense of the plot - all spoilers, of course. Regarding my question

about why Harry would leave the notebook for Veronica at all, I forgot about the scene where Bobby (in the wheelchair) calls Veronica to ask whether she'd traded the notebook to Jamal Manning. It doesn't directly answer the question of why he left the notebook for Veronica in the first place, but implies Harry planned to use her to get the notebook to Manning. Or it could have been an oversight on his part that he was trying to fix after the fact. Why would Harry want Jamal to rob Mulligan anyway? He could not have benefited from that financially - Manning did not know he was still alive.

El Duda

A lot of talk on twitter of how badly this is underperforming at the box office. The Emoji movie did better FFS.

Poor marketing? I've barely seen this advertised anywhere.

Giruilla

I hate the way purposefully leaving out story elements hoping the audience will ponder about what actually happened is seen as 'good story telling'. I've noticed directors do this when the plot is nonsense in the first place.
You can respect an audience's intelligence simply by not slowing down to bore them with exposition - eg Heat, arguably greatest heist film made.