Widows reviews

flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Widows reviews

Post by flipp525 »

This movie was so utterly forgettable, I actually forgot to post my reaction to it. Boring, with another empty performance by Viola Davis complete with another snot-cry.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Widows reviews

Post by MaxWilder »

Sabin wrote:And it features a fantastic Westie (along with Game Night, Westies are having such a moment right now).
It's actually the same dog!

This was plenty flawed but I was riveted.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Widows reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:
Italiano wrote
And as for the comparisons with The Departed - well, that wasn't Scorsese's most multi-layered movie maybe, but it was still Scorsese, and Scorsese's movies have an urgency, a "vibe", often a rawness, which Widows lacks. This doesn't mean that Steve McQueen doesn't have his own style, of course - but it feels sometimes a bit too "studied", it lacks spontaneity.
This is my favorite take on the film, with an emphasis on urgency. Steve McQueen doesn't invest this film with any urgency. The Departed is hardly a great film but there's such urgency that you'd forgive anyone for mistaking it for one. It's also a juggling act. There is so much going on and yet it's always entirely clear as well as suspenseful. I'm not saying that Widows needed to be as slick as The Departed, but McQueen fundamentally undermines himself by working overtime for less.
Exactly.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Sabin »

Italiano wrote
And as for the comparisons with The Departed - well, that wasn't Scorsese's most multi-layered movie maybe, but it was still Scorsese, and Scorsese's movies have an urgency, a "vibe", often a rawness, which Widows lacks. This doesn't mean that Steve McQueen doesn't have his own style, of course - but it feels sometimes a bit too "studied", it lacks spontaneity.
This is my favorite take on the film, with an emphasis on urgency. Steve McQueen doesn't invest this film with any urgency. The Departed is hardly a great film but there's such urgency that you'd forgive anyone for mistaking it for one. It's also a juggling act. There is so much going on and yet it's always entirely clear as well as suspenseful. I'm not saying that Widows needed to be as slick as The Departed, but McQueen fundamentally undermines himself by working overtime for less.
"How's the despair?"
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Uri »

Precious Doll wrote: One of the interesting changes from the series to the film is the introduction of Veronica's deceased child. It actually fits in well the landscape of the US in which young black men, not involved in crime going about their lives are gunned down by the police. It was a layer added to the film that I thought worked really well.
I must admit I found this aspect of the film to be a rather forced and highly sanctimonious attempt at making the film "relevant". But then again, everything in the same hemisphere Viola Davis inhabits turns sanctimonious simply because she's there. It's her superpower.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

Without a doubt the most accessible Steve McQueen film to date but given its source material that really should not have come as a surprise. It certainly has some artful touches but that doesn't really make it any better than the average Hollywood crime pulp thriller.

It could not have been easy to reduce a five hour TV series (with a couple of things borrowed from the second season) and jam them into a just over two hour running time, sans credits, and to be honest two hours doesn't do it justice - another half hour could have made a huge difference for the better. Some of the changes made from the series are good ones but they don't really deviate too far from the source. For example in the TV series the police play a huge role in the show but here they are basically replaced by the political elite which has always been just as adpt in cinema when mixing with criminals rather than cops (just like the real world). But a three hours less running time there isn't much time spent on the planning of the heist by the women and no real sense of it, we know its going to happen but don't really get many details so that when it does take place its rather ho-hum.

Aside from Dolly Rawlins, now Veronica Rawlings (Viola Davis) all the characterisations in the TV series were very broad and whilst that isn't the case here they are so scantly drawn with everything playing out so quickly there is never really any sense of them or the environment they live it. Its all very sketchy. But worst of all is that Veronica is so watered down and talented Viola Davis is left stranded with a rather bland character to play. She is never menacing, at worst she gets annoyed. Dolly was a force of nature as played by Ann Mitchell in the TV series with layers added to the character as the story progressed. Of course Ann Mitchell had 5 hours to develop Dolly, Viola only gets two but the core of the character has been so compromised in the process which appears driven by a need for a sympathetic portrayal, someone audiences are going to like and sympathise with rather than present a character with an aura of 'this is me and if you don't like it you can fuck off'. They aren't actually words that Dolly speaks in the the series put it is very much in line with her characters attitude. Dolly was a character in the series feared by all.

Most of the twists and turns in the story are from the pen of Lynda La Plante and some have been changed from some characters to others but I didn't find any of them surprising in the original TV series, and didn't find the ones changed in the film any more so. For a film set in the present day there is so little use of mobile phones or the internet I can only concur that Steve McQueen & Gillian Flynn have limited awareness of them. Oh and Viola Davis & Liam Neeson don't own their penthouse! I can't believe that for someone involved with crime for as long as Neeson's character has been that they wouldn't own some property.

Don't get the raves for Elizabeth Debicki who kept slipping in and out of her accent. Ann Mitchell appears with no dialogue. Blink and you'll miss her altogether. A large cast of formidable actors pretty much wasted.

Certainly watching the series (including the second series) in the last week and a half has probably done a disservice to McQueen's film for me but it was fascinating to watch the original work and then an adaptation so closely together.

Spoilers: Don't read any further if you haven't seen the film or you plan to watch the TV series.










One of the interesting changes from the series to the film is the introduction of Veronica's deceased child. It actually fits in well the landscape of the US in which young black men, not involved in crime going about their lives are gunned down by the police. It was a layer added to the film that I thought worked really well. In the series we gradually learn that Dolly could not have children and her surrogate child is her dog Heidi who (not surprisingly) meets a gruesome end. The death of her dog is one of the numerous ways used in the series to show the humane side of Dolly. Also, because the series goes from 10 hours (that's just one and two) the younger women that Dolly has recruited into her plan in some ways become surrogate children to her. Though Dolly is as tough as nails with them when its anything to do with 'the job' or 'money' her motherly instincts come into play at other vulnerable times that the younger women go through.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Widows reviews

Post by ITALIANO »

It's not a bad movie, it's certainly not a boring movie - but it's too lightweight to be really considered "important" in any way. And as for the comparisons with The Departed - well, that wasn't Scorsese's most multi-layered movie maybe, but it was still Scorsese, and Scorsese's movies have an urgency, a "vibe", often a rawness, which Widows lacks. This doesn't mean that Steve McQueen doesn't have his own style, of course - but it feels sometimes a bit too "studied", it lacks spontaneity. The famous conversation in the car is at least unusual, but other scenes are much less original, for example a moment when you see a close-up of a face and then the camera pans on the gun pointed at that face and the smile of the person who holds the gun. I mean, this is 80s television, honestly.
I hope this isn't the best American movie of the year. But seen after A Star is Born, it looks like a masterpiece. It's not badly written, it's quite well edited, it's "entertaining", it succeeds in interweaving several storylines and characters... I guess one can't complain. But it's also a rather forgettable effort.
Viola Davis is admittedly the same Viola Davis we have seen before, but maybe I liked her a bit more this time because she for once doesn't play a total saint. But yes, the tears are still there. Elizabeth Debicki has the showiest role, and is good. But, I mean, even these performances are a bit too "easy" to be seriously considered for important prizes. Still, if the categories they belong too are kind-of weak this year, one or even both could be nominated, and especially in Debicki's case, I wouldn't be too shocked.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

I've finished watching the first series of the English TV show from 1983.

I had thought that the series was an adaptation of a novel but it turns out Lynda La Plante wrote the screenplay for Thames TV and then did a novelisation - not uncommon for films either back then.

The series is enjoyable to watch, partly for the wrong reasons. Given that it is 35 years old, like some films and shows from the past, it really hasn't aged that well but its non PC dialogue was a hoot. Characters referred to as slag, slapper, tart, bum-boy and dialogue like 'Make us a cuppa darling', spoken by a police officer to a female employee and a mother to her daughter 'Your not on the game, are you?' were hilarious as it was so common place in 1983 films and TV and vocabulary has changed so much over time. Then there are the hideous hair, make-up and clothes - the 1980s were truely the decade of bad taste.

It moves at a reasonable pace over the six episodes but there is not a hint of craftsmanship to it. The cast were good given the limited broad characterisations with Ann Mitchell taking best in show as the leader of the group of women, Dolly Rawlins, tough as nails with a non-nonsense attitude and a harder much lived face (I assume that is the role Viola Davis is playing). Of the six episodes the 5th & 6th were the best as it really picked up it pace with revelations and suspense coming more into play. Can't say that any of the plot twists surprised me in the slightest though.

I've started the next series (made in 1985) and the first episode is ho-hum but that is usually the staple for sequels.

I can certainly imagine an effective feature film being made out of the series. There is plenty of fat to trim and improvements to be made and updating it to the present would present no problems as it is a story that could be set in virtually any time period. I suppose the only reservation I have with Steve McQueen as a filmmaker is that he is someone whose films I admire more than I actually like or enjoy.

I expect to see Steve McQueen's film on Monday. Oddly, I have seen the trailer for the film but I barely remember it.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

Big Magilla wrote:All the references to the series I've seen point to the 1983 original.
Thanks Magilla.

I'll watch the first and if I like it enough will proceed with the other. Otherwise, off to eBay.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

All the references to the series I've seen point to the 1983 original.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

I imagine most people are aware that the source material of the McQueen film was first adapted by British television in 1983. A sequel followed in 1985 and than another sequel titled She's Out in 1995.

Does anyone know which of the British adapations the McQueen film adapts?

I purchased the entire British series on Blu Ray (1983 & 1985) which also includes the 1995 sequel on DVD and want to ensure that I watch everything that has been readapted prior to watching the McQueen film. I simply prefer to see works in the order that they were made and to take the baggage with me to the latest adapatation. After all, some of the people involved in the McQueen version would have seen the original work and I wanted to too before I saw his version.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Sabin »

The first season of this movie was promising, but the second season really went off the rails.

EDIT:
Years ago, I knew an idiot in film school who, after the movie The Departed, said "It's bullshit that the guy who shot Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed was totally underdeveloped. In my movie, everybody is going to be developed!" The crazy thing is that guy actually made his movie for $3 million. You'll never see it. It's terrible.

But Widows is in theaters right now. And yes, everybody has a part. Everybody has a motivation. Everybody has a backstory. Everybody creates a plot-line, even when it goes nowhere. If Steve McQueen was this disinterested in making a heist film, then Widows should have just been a miniseries where he could get around it. Or don't make it a heist film. Just make it about the widows. This film exists so awkwardly between genre, auteur stamp, and social justice expose that it's never entirely serious as anything.

I liked parts of the film. The opening sequence is very stylish cutting back and forth between the husbands and their wives to the heist. Elizabeth Debicki is an absolute standout, although to be honest if McQueen truly wanted to tackle the convoluted political landscape of Chicago I'm not sure more than Viola Davis' character needed a story. And it features a fantastic Westie (along with Game Night, Westies are having such a moment right now). Beyond this, it's a lot of strong craftsmanship in the service of setup and scenes, not storytelling. And there are so many scenes that leap out for their ineptitude (like an awful scene between Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell halfway through) or confusing intent (Michelle Rodriguez paying a visit to a widower).

At the end of the day, this is a miniseries condensed down to a feature and it shows. Just remake the miniseries.
Last edited by Sabin on Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

For what it's worth, my friend who's an Academy voter said this was easily his favorite of the movies he saw at Toronto this year (he didn't see Roma).
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Widows reviews

Post by The Original BJ »

Sabin wrote:What do you think for craft? Score, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, etc?
Editing and Sound are both first-rate and probably its likeliest below-the-line nominations. Score is quite memorable too, but it's more on the pulsing/not-melodic side, which can often be overlooked for more sweeping orchestral music, though the fact that Hans Zimmer is so clearly in the composer club is a plus. I'd probably say it's just not beautiful enough to make it in Cinematography -- it sure would be odd for Sean Bobbit to make it in for this but not 12 Years a Slave -- but at this point you never know.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Widows reviews

Post by Sabin »

The Original BJ wrote
We'll see how box office goes, but my first instinct is that this movie could do quite well this season.
Very well, I'd imagine.

Widows is one of the big question marks for me this fall. It has a slight The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo quality to it... but this one looks more resonating. If that is the case and considering the "New Academy"s taste for diversity as well as auteurism then perhaps it's a bigger threat than some are making it.

What do you think for craft? Score, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, etc?
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “2018”