Thursday, April 11, 2019

New Review: Widows (2018)





Ever think you knew what a film was all about before you actually even saw it? Thanks to trailers giving away way too much these days- looking at you, Pet Sematary; way to give away your big (and probably only major) twist- a lot of people understandably feel that way, leaving many feeling like they've already seen a movie before they've actually seen it for real. For that reason, many people, myself included, have started avoiding movie trailers like the plague and I completely get why.

Widows was one such example for me. I thought it was a thinly-veiled reinterpretation of a TV-movie/miniseries that I saw a while back, in which a group of ladies whose husbands were mob-affiliated found themselves widowed at relatively early ages and had to step up and assume the respective positions of their husbands or risk losing it all. I think it was called something like Mafia Princesses or something like that. (Mob Wives?)





Well, it turns out that Widows isn't about that at all, and shame on me for being so dismissive of it for that reason. But like I said, I blame the trailer, which I saw maybe once and was like: meh. I wasn't wrong about it being an adaptation of a previous miniseries, but it wasn't one I'd seen- it's also called Widows, and it was British, not American, unlike the one I was just referencing.

Anyway, this one is actually about a group of women whose husbands are relatively low-level crooks that take on jobs for local heavy-weights, typically of the heist variety. On one such heist, everything goes sideways, and, as you might have guessed from the title, said husbands are killed. The problem is, the person the husbands were working for, local thug and would-be politician Jamal Manning (Bryan Tyree Henry, TV's Atlanta), was counting on that money to finance his campaign to become his city's new alderman. 





As such, he holds the wives responsible, particularly the wife of the team leader, Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson, taking a break from being the center of attention to let someone else take over), who seems to be the one most likely to be able to come up with his money, as she is living pretty large in comparison to the others. To that end, Jamal pays Veronica Rawlings (Viola Davis, TV's How to Get Away with Murder) a visit and gives her an ultimatum: come up with the $2 million he's owed, or he'll be back to take it from her by "liquidating" her assets in a week.

At first, Veronica, who knows the sort of thing her husband was up to, but was not in the habit of asking questions about it, has no idea what she's going to do. Then she gets wind of something her husband left behind for her: a notebook featuring details on every job he ever pulled... including one he hadn't gotten around to yet, which would land her the money she needs and then some. 





To that end, she contacts the other ladies and makes them a proposition: what if they pulled the job themselves, paid off Jamal and kept the rest for themselves, dividing it up equally? At first, the women are skeptical- one of them, Amanda (Carrie Coon, TV's Fargo), doesn't even show up to the scheduled meeting and opts out of the robbery altogether.

But the rest, including Linda (Michelle Rodriguez, The Fast and the Furious series) and Alice (Elizabeth Debicki, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) are all on-board, as they are struggling financially much more than Veronica, having been left with virtually nothing in the wake of their husbands' deaths. Linda recruits friend and babysitter Belle (Cythia Ervos, Bad Times at the El Royale) to fill the void left by Amanda, and they're off to the races. 





Also figuring into the action are local politician Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell, making some decent choices lately between this and movies like The Lobster and The Killing of a Scared Deer), whom is the target of the ladies' upcoming heist and Jamal's opponent in the alderman race; Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall, in a fiery turn), Tom's father, an old-schooler who is at odds with his son's more above-board approach to politics; Jamal's psychotic gangster brother, Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out, in a scary, intense turn); Bash (Garrett Dillahunt, Fear the Walking Dead), Veronica's driver, who she recruits to do the same for the heist; and Alice's scheming mother, 
Agnieszka (Jacki Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook), who talks Alice into hooking to pay the bills left in her husband's wake! 




Needless to say, that's quite a top-tier ensemble there, and it's made all the more impressive by their own team leaders, director Steven McQueen (12 Years a Slave) and co-screenwriter (along with McQueen) Gillian Flynn, hot off the critically-acclaimed adaptation of her own novel, Sharp Objects, which she also wrote. 





As with that miniseries and the hugely successful Gone Girl (which she also wrote the source material for), Flynn is fascinated by complicated women who don't always do the "right" thing, which I'm completely in favor of- better that than a lot of the cliché stuff we tend to see from most Hollywood productions.

It certainly works like gangbusters here, as this film could be seen as the complete antithesis of something like Ocean's 8, which was entertaining enough, I suppose, but also considerably more fanciful than what we get here, which is a much grittier, harder-edged version of a similar kind of heist flick. 





I mean, can you imagine a version of Ocean's 8 in which one of the characters hooked on the side to make ends meet? If so, it would most certainly be more Pretty Woman than what we get here, which goes from a meet-sexy to exposing the job for what it really is- yet another way for men to try to control women. (
Debicki is just fantastic in the role, BTW, in her best acting turn to date, as a woman used and abused by everyone in her life that finally reaches her breaking point.)

You see that sort of thing all over Widows- men are constantly interfering, trying to control the women here, without much success, as it turns out. Flynn isn't above making one of the women, Alice's mom, arguably just as bad as the men in question- after all, it's her bright idea to have her own daughter to prostitute herself to keep a roof over their heads. That's pretty icky. 





On the other hand, it's not like Alice's mom is going around capping people in cold blood, a la Jatemme- wait till you see the scene with the would-be rapper- or engaging in dirty politics, like Tom Mulligan, who can't understand why his son would want to be "clean" and is convinced it will cost him. There are also some great twists here that I won't ruin for you that expose other nasty actions by some of the other characters, male and female alike. 





Had I seen it sooner, Widows almost certainly would have made my Best of the Year list a few weeks back- shame on me for having preconceived notions about what it was going to be. But that's standard operating procedure for Hollywood these days, what with all the substandard product out there that actually is cliché, so you can see where I might have made that mistake initially. 


About the only complaint I have about the movie is that, strangely, it kind of gives the male characters short shrift in the end. I mean, the film is called Widows, so that makes sense, but it does sort of mishandle Henry's character, Jamal, who has some strong scenes early on- wait until you see the bit with the dog- but basically drops out of the movie altogether around about the halfway mark. 





It would have been nice to see the final confrontation between him and Veronica, especially after that first one, and actually more so to see her have the upper hand this time around, instead of having left the film with his having successfully intimidated her into doing something crazy to pay him off. In other words, I'd have actually like to have seen her have the final word in that particular relationship, rather than needing closure for his character, per se.

Granted, the film is already over two hours long, but a short scene with those two would have been welcome, and perhaps one with Colin Farrell's character as well, given that we never see his reaction to what goes down in the end, either, and given all that happens, it would have been nice to see a brief scene of his response to everything.





But that's a small quibble, to be sure, and it's much more important that the main characters, which is to say, the widows of the title, do get nice moments of closure at the end. Besides, how many times have you seen a more male-centric film that didn't give the ladies in it a final moment to themselves, either? It's hard to complain when that sort of thing has happened so often with women in film, but rarely has the shoe been on the other foot. Or the high heel, in this case. So, yeah, a minor complaint at best. 





Instead, see this for the strong performances, especially from the ladies- though, make no mistake, the guys all have their moments, too- and the excellent script from McQueen and Flynn, as well as some unique cinematography from Sean Bobbitt (The Place Beyond the Pines, Oldboy) that frames things in unexpected ways that's sort of hard to describe.

For instance, there's a scene in which Colin Farrell's character is rushing from a press conference back to his home after being harassed by a reporter where we hear him complaining to his underling, but the scene is staged completely from the outside of the car- we never see inside it. 





It's meant to show how, even though the distance from the location of the conference to the character's house is short, the divide between the politician and his constituents couldn't be further- nor the living conditions. It's a very clever gambit that I don't recall ever seeing before, and it really worked for me. McQueen and Bobbitt take a similar approach to the heist that begins the film, which is also shot in a unique way- mostly from the back of the getaway van, which is very cool.

Like I said, it's hard to explain, but you'll get what they were going for when you see it for yourself- and you really should. Indeed, I hate I didn't see this one sooner, as it would have been a shoe-in for my Top Ten films of the year. As it stands, it should be a front-runner for films you see next, that's for sure, especially if you like left-of-center action/heist films. Like I said, Ocean's 8 this ain't- it's so much better than that, and I didn't mind that film.














Whatever the case, it's well-worth seeing, and I'd be hard-pressed to name much more in the way of negative things to say about it than the one I mentioned, and that was a minor complaint at best. As such, it's a must-see from me, and should go on the top of your list, especially if you dig a good heist flick. Check it out, by all means. 😃







No comments:

Post a Comment