Definitely not for everyone, even at times i found myself having a bit of a yawn and checking the time. However, it's a film worth watching to see some really talented acting and directing. Ian McShane, i thought, was the standout and was thoroughly brilliant as Meredith - i was blown away by his performance and every time he spoke i hung on his every word. Surely (at least) deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Ray Winstone was scarily good, He wasn't an actor and it wasn't a movie. Ray Winstone had me utterly convinced that he was a broken down man who was being torn to pieces, both mentally and physically - but mostly mentally lol. The direction was also magnificent and the settings were just awe-inspiring, The way in which they made the surroundings look so sinister was just terrific. Although, i must say that the plot was a little dry. The director, the actors and the script-writers did an astonishingly good job, but the movie itself was a little disappointing.
78 Reviews
Actors make-up the inches for stagey film
C-Younkin18 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
British tough guys unite, and for once Guy Ritchie has nothing to do with it. "44 Inch Chest", from "Sexy Beast" writers Louis Mellis and David Scinto, boasts one of the best casts of the new year, with Tom Wilkinson, John Hurt, Ian McShane, and a very impressive Ray Winstone. And for much of it, that's exactly the point.
Winstone plays Colin, a hopeless-romantic plunged into depression once learning that his wife (Joanne Whalley) is having an affair. He rounds up his friends, Archie (Wilkinson), Meredith (McShane), Peanut (Hurt), and Cal (Stephen Dillane) and kidnaps her lover boy.
What follows is talky and stagey, but works if you're into tough guys dealing with sensitive issues of marriage and love to name a few. The dialogue is hilarious, expletive-filled, and at times kinda moving (a long speech about love given by Colin especially). And the real joy is watching these actors work together. John Hurt viciously growls his dialogue as the group's meanest and oldest. McShane is polished and soft-spoken as a single-life-loving homosexual. And Wilkinson, Dillane, and Whalley have less showy roles, but play them well. Unfortunately the second half drifts into a confusing bit of madness from Colin that gives the supporting cast little to do. But Winstone, going mano-e-mano with the mostly-silent lover boy, finds the tortured-soul inside this domineering tough and keeps you guessing how this all will end. Director Malcolm Venville creates suspense but can't overcome the condensed setting, no matter how many flashbacks or clips of old movies ("Samson and Delilah" plays into the film) he uses, and he fumble's the end's emotional climax, but top-notch actors make "Chest" worth seeing.
Winstone plays Colin, a hopeless-romantic plunged into depression once learning that his wife (Joanne Whalley) is having an affair. He rounds up his friends, Archie (Wilkinson), Meredith (McShane), Peanut (Hurt), and Cal (Stephen Dillane) and kidnaps her lover boy.
What follows is talky and stagey, but works if you're into tough guys dealing with sensitive issues of marriage and love to name a few. The dialogue is hilarious, expletive-filled, and at times kinda moving (a long speech about love given by Colin especially). And the real joy is watching these actors work together. John Hurt viciously growls his dialogue as the group's meanest and oldest. McShane is polished and soft-spoken as a single-life-loving homosexual. And Wilkinson, Dillane, and Whalley have less showy roles, but play them well. Unfortunately the second half drifts into a confusing bit of madness from Colin that gives the supporting cast little to do. But Winstone, going mano-e-mano with the mostly-silent lover boy, finds the tortured-soul inside this domineering tough and keeps you guessing how this all will end. Director Malcolm Venville creates suspense but can't overcome the condensed setting, no matter how many flashbacks or clips of old movies ("Samson and Delilah" plays into the film) he uses, and he fumble's the end's emotional climax, but top-notch actors make "Chest" worth seeing.
Not as good as it should be
tegoodfellow8 June 2009
(I saw this at the Sydney Film Festival, but IMDb has it as "in production", so I may have seen an incomplete version.) The pitch would have been something like "Reservoir Dogs meets Last Orders". From Reservoir Dogs we get the basic set-up of a bunch of crooks played by fine actors meeting in a lock-up and debating what to do with their captive, plus an enigmatic title and a flashback structure. From Last Orders comes a group of top-notch actors clearly enjoying themselves in a brown, downbeat London.
Some of the dialogue is fun if you like expletives spat out in poetry-like rhythms. There are good jokes and the acting is, as you'd expect from this lot, pretty fine. I was particularly pleased to see Stephen Dillane get his chance to prove himself cinematically after such an impressive theatrical career.
The downside is the plot, or rather the lack of it. The basic premise is laid out early on in the piece, and there is no real conflict to maintain our interest. Contrast the uniformity of opinion here with the combustible dynamics of Mr Blond, Mr White et al and the problem is clear. Some dream sequences intended to open the tale out feel forced, and a couple of minor twists are inconsequential.
If this script had been produced with a younger group of unknown actors it might get hailed for its promise. With this cast, 44 Inch Chest can only be counted a disappointment.
Some of the dialogue is fun if you like expletives spat out in poetry-like rhythms. There are good jokes and the acting is, as you'd expect from this lot, pretty fine. I was particularly pleased to see Stephen Dillane get his chance to prove himself cinematically after such an impressive theatrical career.
The downside is the plot, or rather the lack of it. The basic premise is laid out early on in the piece, and there is no real conflict to maintain our interest. Contrast the uniformity of opinion here with the combustible dynamics of Mr Blond, Mr White et al and the problem is clear. Some dream sequences intended to open the tale out feel forced, and a couple of minor twists are inconsequential.
If this script had been produced with a younger group of unknown actors it might get hailed for its promise. With this cast, 44 Inch Chest can only be counted a disappointment.
The worst British film I have even seen.
kevin-637-9814717 January 2010
This is without doubt the worst British film I have even seen by a long country mile. I felt cheated afterwards and for the first time in my life in a movie theatre I felt like asking for my money back on the way out. The script is incredibly naive and downright boring. It smells like a script written by a first year student on the night following his/her first viewing of Reservoir Dogs where he/she has a brain wave to do a British version. I stayed to the end because I thought the film might develop as it had a sterling cast. There is nothing, I repeat nothing nothing nothing original about this film. For future I will ensure I read all reviews before I go to any films written or directed by the names attached to this film. Save your money and go across the hall to the other theatre in the plex.
44 Inch Chest is a largely unmemorable British gangster film because of its small scale and its failure to amount to anything more than old men behaving badly
Likes_Ninjas9012 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Amidst the wreckage, Colin Diamond (Ray Winstone) lies on the floor of his home with the stereo still on. He is alive but entirely shell-shocked by something that he has done. He calls his friend Archie (Tom Wilkinson) to tell him what has happened. It becomes apparent that Colin has had a domestic fight with his wife Liz (Joanne Whalley) who has admitted to him that she has been seeing someone else and that their marriage is now over. Colin, with the help of his gangster friends like Archie, Old Man Peanut (John Hurt), Meredith (Ian McShane) and Mal (Stephen Dillane) decides to kidnap Liz's lover, who is a French waiter. They bound him up and stick him in a wardrobe in a rundown building. Struggling with his internal frustrations, Colin must decide whether he is going to kill the man who stole his wife.
At just 95 minutes this minor British dramedy attempts to subvert the conventions and characterisation of the gangster genre. Whereas Guy Ritchie stylishly visualised the lives of the lowest ranked criminals in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, director Malcolm Venville has opted to focus on the middle class variant of the underworld. With their comfortable homes and knowledge of culture these thugs seem to be a step up from the street work but regardless they are still foulmouthed, primitive animals. They bash then interrogate the unnamed lover without letting him utter a word and their misogynist remarks directed at Liz ensures that there is little consideration for the choices that she has decided to make for herself. As bleak as this may sound, the film is still regularly funny and edgy, with a heavy reliance on four letter expletives for laughs. According to some sources, one of the swear words is used at least 160 times throughout the film. Given that so much of the narrative takes place in just a single room, with only a few flashbacks to show the audience what has happened previously, it is testimony to the experience of the cast and their pinpoint delivery of this rather crude dialogue that one's engagement is still sustained.
Yet for all the laughs that it earns, the end leaves the film in its entirety as unsatisfying and superfluous. There has been a deliberate effort here to make the film anticlimactic and it is exactly that. It is meant to subvert the savagery and ruthlessness of the gangster's life but at the same time it simply leaves the audience asking what the point was. Whether Venville intended it or not, the message is one that has been read many times before, only here it is less satisfying: crime doesn't pay. Any of the film's attempts to reach a deeper psychological understanding of Colin feels incoherent rather than intelligent. With such a short running time there will be many who will be left expecting more from this particularly narrow story.
Even though the characters are enlivened more by the experience of the British cast rather than the quality of the script, the performances are still uniformly solid. The only strain on credibility here is why a woman as beautiful as Liz would be so inclined to marry a brute like Colin. Ray Winstone is not as acceptable as a loving man but he is still adept at conveying the internal anger that swells up inside of him, thinking about what he has lost. His performance works most efficiently as a means of passive expression. John Hurt steals this film as Old Man Peanut with a riotously funny performance and some outrageous dialogue. His retelling of Samson and Delilah, complete with expletives, is easily one of the film's very best moments.
44 Inch Chest is a largely unmemorable British gangster film because of its small scale and its failure to amount to anything more than old men behaving badly. It attempts to subvert the genre by showing the vulnerable side of the crime figure, but it is still difficult to care about what happens to these thugs. For those who are drawn in by the quality of the cast though, there are still some genuinely funny moments and enjoyable performances that might prove satisfactory.
At just 95 minutes this minor British dramedy attempts to subvert the conventions and characterisation of the gangster genre. Whereas Guy Ritchie stylishly visualised the lives of the lowest ranked criminals in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, director Malcolm Venville has opted to focus on the middle class variant of the underworld. With their comfortable homes and knowledge of culture these thugs seem to be a step up from the street work but regardless they are still foulmouthed, primitive animals. They bash then interrogate the unnamed lover without letting him utter a word and their misogynist remarks directed at Liz ensures that there is little consideration for the choices that she has decided to make for herself. As bleak as this may sound, the film is still regularly funny and edgy, with a heavy reliance on four letter expletives for laughs. According to some sources, one of the swear words is used at least 160 times throughout the film. Given that so much of the narrative takes place in just a single room, with only a few flashbacks to show the audience what has happened previously, it is testimony to the experience of the cast and their pinpoint delivery of this rather crude dialogue that one's engagement is still sustained.
Yet for all the laughs that it earns, the end leaves the film in its entirety as unsatisfying and superfluous. There has been a deliberate effort here to make the film anticlimactic and it is exactly that. It is meant to subvert the savagery and ruthlessness of the gangster's life but at the same time it simply leaves the audience asking what the point was. Whether Venville intended it or not, the message is one that has been read many times before, only here it is less satisfying: crime doesn't pay. Any of the film's attempts to reach a deeper psychological understanding of Colin feels incoherent rather than intelligent. With such a short running time there will be many who will be left expecting more from this particularly narrow story.
Even though the characters are enlivened more by the experience of the British cast rather than the quality of the script, the performances are still uniformly solid. The only strain on credibility here is why a woman as beautiful as Liz would be so inclined to marry a brute like Colin. Ray Winstone is not as acceptable as a loving man but he is still adept at conveying the internal anger that swells up inside of him, thinking about what he has lost. His performance works most efficiently as a means of passive expression. John Hurt steals this film as Old Man Peanut with a riotously funny performance and some outrageous dialogue. His retelling of Samson and Delilah, complete with expletives, is easily one of the film's very best moments.
44 Inch Chest is a largely unmemorable British gangster film because of its small scale and its failure to amount to anything more than old men behaving badly. It attempts to subvert the genre by showing the vulnerable side of the crime figure, but it is still difficult to care about what happens to these thugs. For those who are drawn in by the quality of the cast though, there are still some genuinely funny moments and enjoyable performances that might prove satisfactory.
Did you use a banana?
dsd_uk25 January 2010
A front-runner for film of the year? Probably not, but this movie definitely does come with it's moments with a bolster of some of Britain's finest talents. Ray Winstone, John 'F*****G' Hurt, Tom Wilkinson, Ian 'Lovejoy' McShane and some guy called Stephen Dillane. With its slightly muddled beginning's one is led to believe that there is somewhat of a dilemma at stake. Ray Winstone's alcohol fuelled, lost and idiocentric character Colin with his loose personality comes face to face with a situation that he clearly has no grasp of dealing with. So whom should he turn to in his hour of need? His trusting gangster friends of course.
Nestled in a room for the majority of the film each of Colin's friends play their part in trying to comfort him in his hour of need, or not as the case would seem. The centre of attention being Melvil Poupaud portraying a French waiter accused of committing sins with Colin's wife 'Liz' played by Joanne Whalley. What should Colin do with him? How does he tackle this scenario? The love of his life with another man? A French man!!! With his friends on board each offering their own unique words of wisdom you can all but feel Colin's mind fracturing into the unknown.
Alone I feel that John Hurt's foul mouth is worth the entrance fee, here's a guy who's pants I'd like to wear, clean or soiled, I'm not fussy. The guy really show piecing his talents here as an old school foul mouthed gangster, and when I say foul, I really mean foul, I'm pretty sure that my mother would have a hernia should she witness some of the obscenities to fall out old John's mouth here. His character 'Old Man Peanut' re-telling the story of Samson and Delilah in his own narrative is quite simply priceless.
Ian 'Lovejoy' McShane adding a certain suaveness to his role as homosexual 'Meredith' shunning Old Man Peanut's homophobic remarks with confidence whilst Mommy's boy 'Archie' played by Tom Wilkinson is a lacklustre character who just really wants to go home, a character that is seemingly fell into the criminal underworld by accident. Stephen Dillane plays slightly shady 'Mal' who Colin has his suspicions about, or is it all in his head?
I feel that the film could be quite easily misunderstood, it is in essence a dialogue film with word play being order of the day, breathing scantily clad undertones of Reservoir Dogs, a film I always remember my Granddad going to see at the cinema on a holiday in Brighton to escape my Nan for the day, he came out disgusted and disappointed in his choice. Naturally however this film is no Reservoir Dogs and it definitely won't appeal to all with its minimal scene locale and John Hurt's foul mouth. So if you want aesthetically pleasing locations and out of world experiences or if your put off by naughty words then you'd best stick with Avatar. But if your interested in witnessing some of Britain's finest meat play it out in a room together for 95 minutes then this movie is well worth a butchers look.
7/10
Nestled in a room for the majority of the film each of Colin's friends play their part in trying to comfort him in his hour of need, or not as the case would seem. The centre of attention being Melvil Poupaud portraying a French waiter accused of committing sins with Colin's wife 'Liz' played by Joanne Whalley. What should Colin do with him? How does he tackle this scenario? The love of his life with another man? A French man!!! With his friends on board each offering their own unique words of wisdom you can all but feel Colin's mind fracturing into the unknown.
Alone I feel that John Hurt's foul mouth is worth the entrance fee, here's a guy who's pants I'd like to wear, clean or soiled, I'm not fussy. The guy really show piecing his talents here as an old school foul mouthed gangster, and when I say foul, I really mean foul, I'm pretty sure that my mother would have a hernia should she witness some of the obscenities to fall out old John's mouth here. His character 'Old Man Peanut' re-telling the story of Samson and Delilah in his own narrative is quite simply priceless.
Ian 'Lovejoy' McShane adding a certain suaveness to his role as homosexual 'Meredith' shunning Old Man Peanut's homophobic remarks with confidence whilst Mommy's boy 'Archie' played by Tom Wilkinson is a lacklustre character who just really wants to go home, a character that is seemingly fell into the criminal underworld by accident. Stephen Dillane plays slightly shady 'Mal' who Colin has his suspicions about, or is it all in his head?
I feel that the film could be quite easily misunderstood, it is in essence a dialogue film with word play being order of the day, breathing scantily clad undertones of Reservoir Dogs, a film I always remember my Granddad going to see at the cinema on a holiday in Brighton to escape my Nan for the day, he came out disgusted and disappointed in his choice. Naturally however this film is no Reservoir Dogs and it definitely won't appeal to all with its minimal scene locale and John Hurt's foul mouth. So if you want aesthetically pleasing locations and out of world experiences or if your put off by naughty words then you'd best stick with Avatar. But if your interested in witnessing some of Britain's finest meat play it out in a room together for 95 minutes then this movie is well worth a butchers look.
7/10
waste of time
pepekwa11 June 2010
I really didn't think I would be writing a poor review about a movie with Winstone, Hurt, McShane, Wilkinson and the still beautiful Joanne Whalley as central characters.
However, this was just a waste of their talents and a boring film to boot. Its a talkfest so if you don't fancy the idea of almost all of the film consisting of dialogue in one room, this ain't for you. I liked the Before Sunrise and Before sunset movies with Ethan Hawke, these were talkfests too but they had a point and the characters were clearly defined.
In this movie, you don't really know enough about anyone to really care, you don't know if Ray Winstone really is a bad husband and how well his gangster mates know him and why they know him which is important in the whole witch hunt that takes place.
The writers for this wrote the excellent sexy beast and it looks like they didn't have anything left creatively here. Does every UK movie have to have a gangster undercurrent, its so overdone and this didn't help here, neither did the excessive swearing, I'm no prude, but it just wasn't warranted, if that was meant to portray Winstone;s mates as real hard cases, it didn't work.
And the ending was the biggest disappointment of all, I ended up looking around in astonishment, asking "is that it then"? It made all of what we had seen in the previous 85 minutes redundant.
However, this was just a waste of their talents and a boring film to boot. Its a talkfest so if you don't fancy the idea of almost all of the film consisting of dialogue in one room, this ain't for you. I liked the Before Sunrise and Before sunset movies with Ethan Hawke, these were talkfests too but they had a point and the characters were clearly defined.
In this movie, you don't really know enough about anyone to really care, you don't know if Ray Winstone really is a bad husband and how well his gangster mates know him and why they know him which is important in the whole witch hunt that takes place.
The writers for this wrote the excellent sexy beast and it looks like they didn't have anything left creatively here. Does every UK movie have to have a gangster undercurrent, its so overdone and this didn't help here, neither did the excessive swearing, I'm no prude, but it just wasn't warranted, if that was meant to portray Winstone;s mates as real hard cases, it didn't work.
And the ending was the biggest disappointment of all, I ended up looking around in astonishment, asking "is that it then"? It made all of what we had seen in the previous 85 minutes redundant.
Fails to hit the mark despite some great performances...
ajs-1029 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of those films I have wanted to see for some time now. From the writers of 'Sexy Beast' (a film I very much enjoyed) I was really looking forward to more of the same. I can see where they were going with it, but it didn't quite have the same impact as their previous effort. I think the idea was solid enough, but what they did with it really didn't quite work out (for me). I will tell you more after this brief summary.
When Colin Diamond's wife, Liz, tells him she's leaving him for another, he is devastated. He gets her to give him the name of the other man and he, and some friends, take him to a room for a talk. It is here where the majority of the action takes place. Even before the man is brought out of the cupboard they have him stashed in we have some quite explicit dialogue and flashbacks of what had transpired in the previous 24 hours. Colin's 'colleagues', Meredith, Old Man Peanut, Archie and Mal have already softened 'Loverboy' up for him, but now it's up to him to decide what's to be done. Asking the others to leave the room, he talks through the various options open to him. I will leave it there or the Spoiler Police will be looking into the disappearance of that waiter a few months back.
A very well made film with some very colourful characters and some great dialogue, but it does have the look and feel of a stage play. I guess this is because the majority of the action takes place in one room. One thing I cannot fault is the performances; everyone was superb! And so special mentions go to; Ray Winstone as Colin Diamond, Ian McShane as Meredith, John Hurt as Old Man Peanut, Tom Wilkinson as Archie and Stephen Dillane as Mal.
There is an awful lot of dialogue in this film and much of it contains extreme swearing, but much of it I found was quite philosophical. I think the trouble is, there's far too much of it and, at times, it doesn't help the story move along very smoothly. I found the 'hallucination' scenes very confusing and they got more bizarre the longer they went on! It ended up being quite a strange film in the end that left me kind of flat. I can't really recommend it for that reason, but if anyone out there feels like giving it a look I'd be interested to hear what you made of it.
My score: 5.7/10 IMDb Score: 5.8/10 (based on 3,175 votes at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 40/100 (based on 77 reviews counted at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 36/100 (based on 13,005 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
When Colin Diamond's wife, Liz, tells him she's leaving him for another, he is devastated. He gets her to give him the name of the other man and he, and some friends, take him to a room for a talk. It is here where the majority of the action takes place. Even before the man is brought out of the cupboard they have him stashed in we have some quite explicit dialogue and flashbacks of what had transpired in the previous 24 hours. Colin's 'colleagues', Meredith, Old Man Peanut, Archie and Mal have already softened 'Loverboy' up for him, but now it's up to him to decide what's to be done. Asking the others to leave the room, he talks through the various options open to him. I will leave it there or the Spoiler Police will be looking into the disappearance of that waiter a few months back.
A very well made film with some very colourful characters and some great dialogue, but it does have the look and feel of a stage play. I guess this is because the majority of the action takes place in one room. One thing I cannot fault is the performances; everyone was superb! And so special mentions go to; Ray Winstone as Colin Diamond, Ian McShane as Meredith, John Hurt as Old Man Peanut, Tom Wilkinson as Archie and Stephen Dillane as Mal.
There is an awful lot of dialogue in this film and much of it contains extreme swearing, but much of it I found was quite philosophical. I think the trouble is, there's far too much of it and, at times, it doesn't help the story move along very smoothly. I found the 'hallucination' scenes very confusing and they got more bizarre the longer they went on! It ended up being quite a strange film in the end that left me kind of flat. I can't really recommend it for that reason, but if anyone out there feels like giving it a look I'd be interested to hear what you made of it.
My score: 5.7/10 IMDb Score: 5.8/10 (based on 3,175 votes at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 40/100 (based on 77 reviews counted at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 36/100 (based on 13,005 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
Strangely anachronistic
starvin4megravy3 May 2010
Well ... I've always joked to friends that I'd happily pay to watch Ray Winstone cooking beans on toast. He's perhaps best known here in Oz for the wonderful Vincent, but has been a real favourite for me since his early work.
However, if he'd got the saucepan and can-opener out at some stage in these proceedings, it could only have improved things.
The opening scene is compelling, with Winstone sprawled semi-conscious on the floor amidst the wreckage of a family living room. As if the poor fellow clearly hadn't suffered enough already (even if we aren't yet privy to the particulars of his situation), the almost-forgotten hideousness of Nilsson's Without You provides perfect background music.
Our hero's friends and family rally round in this time of crisis and there's some diverting argy-bargy (amid fantastic London locations) as our group of protagonists is assembled. This stage-setting phase of the movie concludes with the group's arrival at a grimy terraced house - I use that phrase intentionally because at this point the film effectively becomes a conventional play spread over two locations.
This terrific cast never exceeds or even equals the sum of its parts amid production values that call to mind BBC's Play For Today in the 70s and early 80s. RADA's likely advice from an earlier period for portraying cockneys also seems have been in play - drop yourself about 3 social classes and 50 IQ points and you'll be fine, love.
It's no mean feat to tell a fulfilling story within a bubble such as the one created here, and it doesn't really come off - we never learn enough about the relationships between the players or the context that surrounds some of the remarks that are made.
Yes, Winstone's character is supposed to be confused, I do understand that, but I don't believe the audience should be sharing in that affliction.
Stephen Dillane impresses but John Hurt's wasted here, and with his ill-fitting dentures (at least I ASSUME that's what they are ... ) he channels Phil Davis doing his best Albert Steptoe impersonation at one of Mike Leigh's Christmas parties.
The one lasting benefit for me is that I might just tone down my own bad language a little. They just don't stop in this film. Everyone knows that a well-deployed swear word can have massive impact but this dialogue is peppered with Anglo-Saxon to the point where it rapidly becomes not only meaningless but irritating.
I suspect I sounded a little like this at the footy the night before, and I can only promise my neighbours I'll try to be better in future ... if that works I'll tell my daughter she should seriously think about doing the same!
However, if he'd got the saucepan and can-opener out at some stage in these proceedings, it could only have improved things.
The opening scene is compelling, with Winstone sprawled semi-conscious on the floor amidst the wreckage of a family living room. As if the poor fellow clearly hadn't suffered enough already (even if we aren't yet privy to the particulars of his situation), the almost-forgotten hideousness of Nilsson's Without You provides perfect background music.
Our hero's friends and family rally round in this time of crisis and there's some diverting argy-bargy (amid fantastic London locations) as our group of protagonists is assembled. This stage-setting phase of the movie concludes with the group's arrival at a grimy terraced house - I use that phrase intentionally because at this point the film effectively becomes a conventional play spread over two locations.
This terrific cast never exceeds or even equals the sum of its parts amid production values that call to mind BBC's Play For Today in the 70s and early 80s. RADA's likely advice from an earlier period for portraying cockneys also seems have been in play - drop yourself about 3 social classes and 50 IQ points and you'll be fine, love.
It's no mean feat to tell a fulfilling story within a bubble such as the one created here, and it doesn't really come off - we never learn enough about the relationships between the players or the context that surrounds some of the remarks that are made.
Yes, Winstone's character is supposed to be confused, I do understand that, but I don't believe the audience should be sharing in that affliction.
Stephen Dillane impresses but John Hurt's wasted here, and with his ill-fitting dentures (at least I ASSUME that's what they are ... ) he channels Phil Davis doing his best Albert Steptoe impersonation at one of Mike Leigh's Christmas parties.
The one lasting benefit for me is that I might just tone down my own bad language a little. They just don't stop in this film. Everyone knows that a well-deployed swear word can have massive impact but this dialogue is peppered with Anglo-Saxon to the point where it rapidly becomes not only meaningless but irritating.
I suspect I sounded a little like this at the footy the night before, and I can only promise my neighbours I'll try to be better in future ... if that works I'll tell my daughter she should seriously think about doing the same!
Could have been better
bill-174111 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Although I liked the movie it did not leave wanting more, so much was achieved, but from such a strong cast it should be expected. The use of the word c*** was excessive but understandable for the characters involved. However John Hurt's use of it began to make me laugh and his use of language at times was laughable. Ray Winstone was stunning as was Ian McShane as the camp geezer, very funny interludes from him and his colleagues. However I was expecting more, a bit of aggression but it was more fight and then flight. The story was simple and was better for that, the actors were on great form with Tom Wilkinson for me stealing the show. The music helped the story along and the decaying into madness of the main characters was entertaining and sad.
All in all an excellent movie which was well written and directed. The acting was wonderful but a little camp in places, but I can forgive that.
All in all an excellent movie which was well written and directed. The acting was wonderful but a little camp in places, but I can forgive that.
so, so, so disappointed...
gav_mcc20 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Like a lot of people who were eagerly anticipating this film, I too am a big fan of Sexy Beast. Ian McShane was quoted prior to the release of 44 Inch Chest as saying this new film makes Sexy Beast look like Mary Poppins - well it does - it highlights how great Sexy Beast is and how poor and pointless 44 Inch Chest is. Of course McShane was talking about the strong language used in '44' which grows ever so tiresome after the first five minutes. That's the first problem with the film - too much swearing. I find colourful language funny and entertaining but when every character is spouting it out constantly the words lose their impact and meaning and it feels like the writers just added most of the expletives for the sake of it. The highlight for me was not the actual film but the offended couple who walked out of the cinema only half an hour in! I could've followed them to be fair because at this point the plot had not progressed at all. I knew there was still an hour to go and had confidence something would happen - it doesn't. Sexy Beast went from A(the villa) to B(Logan's arrival) to C/D/E/F/G(Logan's mood swings!) to H(London for the job) to I(back to the villa again). '44' stays at A all the time with the slightest hints we might scrape to B but it doesn't ever happen. I did start thinking a possible twist was coming late on which may have redeemed the film somewhat but the hope came in vain. The acting was faultless as you'd expect from a cast of this calibre - it's the non-existent plot which obviously takes the film nowhere and creates a wasted cinematic experience. I left the cinema so, so, so disappointed.
A Pinteresque exploration, beautifully written, acted and directed
TDNathan26 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
While agreeing with the first reviewer that the plot could be summarised in the two words "nothing happens", very much the same thing could be said of "Waiting for Godot" and half the plays of Pinter. Indeed the style of dialogue is very reminiscent of Pinter, with the five main characters each portraying an archetypical personality type.
The main point of the film is that the five characters are operating in a moral vacuum, and having to make their own decisions without influence from the law of the land or any other moral compass.
It would seem that the Law is simply non existent in their world - they kidnap into a van in broad daylight in front of many witnesses without disguising the number plate, and they finally let their victim go having inflicted on him an ordeal which would earn them each a long prison sentence with only the slightest word from John Hurt's character that they don't want to hear any more about it.
No, the whole point is that they, like the characters in Lord of the Flies, have to work it out for themselves.
And this freedom allows them the range to each demonstrate their character with the finest of English acting. Some of their characters are rather hackneyed, like Tom Wilkinson's who moves seamlessly from discussing with his mother about her favourite TV show into being a heartless thug, in a manner reminiscent of the second scene of Pulp Fiction, but the John Hurt character is beautifully drawn, by script writer, actor and director alike.
John Hurt plays an elderly man who clearly fancied himself as a ruthless thug in his younger days, and defines himself by his association with a psychopath gang leader. He is now treated with amused but slightly wary contempt by his friends, but is still determined to show his teeth by egging the Ray Winstone character into terrible and sadistic acts of revenge. The irony is that, in one of Winstone's psychotic daydreams, when given the opportunity to offer violence himself, his dentures fall out and he backs off, showing him for the toothless windbag he is.
The other major archetype is a louche gambler and homosexual predator played beautifully by Ian McShane. In a scene reminiscent of "The Dice Man" he agrees that life and death decisions are too hard for an individual to take, and accordingly persuades Ray Winstone that the decision between flaying alive and release should be taken on the toss of a coin.
The two main protagonists of the film are Ray Winstone, whose drink, shock and schizophrenia induced ramblings form the backbone of the script and Melvil Poupaud who never says a word and barely moves a muscle throughout the film. However, among a group of psychopaths, it is he, playing the kidnapped French waiter, who is the only one that the audience can relate to, and it is a tribute to Director Malcolm Venville that we know exactly what is going through his mind, despite his almost complete lack of expression.
This is a film about the struggle between revenge, blood lust and evil on the one hand and justice, decency and humanity on the other. It is about a man working through a psychosis and returning to rational thought. It is about how people can reach their own moral selves without influence from Church, Law or Society.
It is far from an action film, and if you want simple plot this is not the film for you, but it is a beautifully crafted set piece delivered by a very fine set of actors, performing a fine script and under subtle but powerful direction.
The main point of the film is that the five characters are operating in a moral vacuum, and having to make their own decisions without influence from the law of the land or any other moral compass.
It would seem that the Law is simply non existent in their world - they kidnap into a van in broad daylight in front of many witnesses without disguising the number plate, and they finally let their victim go having inflicted on him an ordeal which would earn them each a long prison sentence with only the slightest word from John Hurt's character that they don't want to hear any more about it.
No, the whole point is that they, like the characters in Lord of the Flies, have to work it out for themselves.
And this freedom allows them the range to each demonstrate their character with the finest of English acting. Some of their characters are rather hackneyed, like Tom Wilkinson's who moves seamlessly from discussing with his mother about her favourite TV show into being a heartless thug, in a manner reminiscent of the second scene of Pulp Fiction, but the John Hurt character is beautifully drawn, by script writer, actor and director alike.
John Hurt plays an elderly man who clearly fancied himself as a ruthless thug in his younger days, and defines himself by his association with a psychopath gang leader. He is now treated with amused but slightly wary contempt by his friends, but is still determined to show his teeth by egging the Ray Winstone character into terrible and sadistic acts of revenge. The irony is that, in one of Winstone's psychotic daydreams, when given the opportunity to offer violence himself, his dentures fall out and he backs off, showing him for the toothless windbag he is.
The other major archetype is a louche gambler and homosexual predator played beautifully by Ian McShane. In a scene reminiscent of "The Dice Man" he agrees that life and death decisions are too hard for an individual to take, and accordingly persuades Ray Winstone that the decision between flaying alive and release should be taken on the toss of a coin.
The two main protagonists of the film are Ray Winstone, whose drink, shock and schizophrenia induced ramblings form the backbone of the script and Melvil Poupaud who never says a word and barely moves a muscle throughout the film. However, among a group of psychopaths, it is he, playing the kidnapped French waiter, who is the only one that the audience can relate to, and it is a tribute to Director Malcolm Venville that we know exactly what is going through his mind, despite his almost complete lack of expression.
This is a film about the struggle between revenge, blood lust and evil on the one hand and justice, decency and humanity on the other. It is about a man working through a psychosis and returning to rational thought. It is about how people can reach their own moral selves without influence from Church, Law or Society.
It is far from an action film, and if you want simple plot this is not the film for you, but it is a beautifully crafted set piece delivered by a very fine set of actors, performing a fine script and under subtle but powerful direction.
Two thumbs up!
liajane1929 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard the plot of the story I expected lots of violence, but what I actually got was something better. Even though nothing really happens in the movie, the characters make it thoroughly entertaining. However, I may have a biased opinion because I love British movies and there complete over-use of the word "cunt". One man broken hearted by his cheating wife and his best friends kidnap her lover. I love how all the characters are so contrasting. We have the gay sophisticate and the mean old man who thinks he is a pervert and a sexual deviant. The loser older guy who still lives with his mom, and the younger tattooed guy in a suit. Even though the whole story consists of these five men in a house, it still captured my attention the entire time.
below average
marcuspeerman14 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
with the team behind sexy beast and a fantastic cast I had high hopes for the movie. Sadly my hopes were not realised. 44 inch chest isn't bad, its just not actually good. The ingredients from sexy beast are there but the cake didn't turn out as well. It didn't rise in the oven.
The amount of swearing is unbelievable but anyone who's seen sexy beast will not be surprised by that.The acting is excellent throughout, with Ian Mcshane getting some laugh out loud comments.
I might be biased against cockney gangster movies but i really thought this movie would be ten times better than it was. The script feels like a first draft. It has ideas but they don't go anywhere.
Lightning didn't strike twice. A let down.
The amount of swearing is unbelievable but anyone who's seen sexy beast will not be surprised by that.The acting is excellent throughout, with Ian Mcshane getting some laugh out loud comments.
I might be biased against cockney gangster movies but i really thought this movie would be ten times better than it was. The script feels like a first draft. It has ideas but they don't go anywhere.
Lightning didn't strike twice. A let down.
What have Guy & Quentin wrought?
lor_13 June 2016
No, this is not the direct fault of Tarantino or Ritchie or any conspiracy. This exceedingly trite and uninteresting film is the result of the popularity in recent decades of what I often term "pseudo-hip" cinema, a condescending attitude toward his or her audience by a scriptwriter (as well as a director) who feels more perceptive than the average bloke. Or average filmmaker who came before them (in this case, see the British gangster films of the '50s by the likes of Lewis Gilbert or starring Richard Attenborough.
Both Gilbert, more famous for his later Bond movies and quality feel-good items like "Educating Rita" and "Shirley Valentine", there will never be praise or film-buff adoration. No, it is the pranksters who catch the public's eye, but this followup to the unusual (and vastly overrated, natch) "Sexy Beast" has nothing to offer.
It is basically a one-act play, suitable perhaps for acting class or some limited run at a hard-up local repertory theatre. There's an assortment of gangster cliché figures, hardly worth calling characters, and their victim, an adulterer.
The subject of adultery is run into the ground here as if it were novel, timely or even remotely interesting. Ray Winstone, who I first admired way back in "Quadrophenia" and "Scum" (and even "That Summer") when an independent British Cinema (see: hit "Gregory's Girl") was making its name internationally, is stuck with a useless, unplayable role unworthy of his talents as the sob-story vegetable of a protagonist.
His pals/comrades are written to let the talented actors chew the scenery, with the great John Hurt especially indulgent in delivering a retarded, foul-mouthed zero. Ian McShane fares the best, given literate soliloquies to recite and basically able to stay above the low-life fray as an egotistical homosexual gangster. I first became a fan of his in 1971 watching "Villain" at a local Cleveland drive-in theater and though that gangster film (part of an early '70s renaissance headed by Mike Hodges) was roundly knocked by the critics, its violent power impressed me, as did the journeyman director, like Hodges from Brit TV, Michael Tuchner.
So Ritchie and his imitators sell tickets, and we will see this nonsensical rush to the bottom continue. These films are not entertaining nor enlightening -mere exercises in "Look ma, I'm swearing!" We probably have that jerk Brian DePalma and his "Scarface" to thank for that.
Both Gilbert, more famous for his later Bond movies and quality feel-good items like "Educating Rita" and "Shirley Valentine", there will never be praise or film-buff adoration. No, it is the pranksters who catch the public's eye, but this followup to the unusual (and vastly overrated, natch) "Sexy Beast" has nothing to offer.
It is basically a one-act play, suitable perhaps for acting class or some limited run at a hard-up local repertory theatre. There's an assortment of gangster cliché figures, hardly worth calling characters, and their victim, an adulterer.
The subject of adultery is run into the ground here as if it were novel, timely or even remotely interesting. Ray Winstone, who I first admired way back in "Quadrophenia" and "Scum" (and even "That Summer") when an independent British Cinema (see: hit "Gregory's Girl") was making its name internationally, is stuck with a useless, unplayable role unworthy of his talents as the sob-story vegetable of a protagonist.
His pals/comrades are written to let the talented actors chew the scenery, with the great John Hurt especially indulgent in delivering a retarded, foul-mouthed zero. Ian McShane fares the best, given literate soliloquies to recite and basically able to stay above the low-life fray as an egotistical homosexual gangster. I first became a fan of his in 1971 watching "Villain" at a local Cleveland drive-in theater and though that gangster film (part of an early '70s renaissance headed by Mike Hodges) was roundly knocked by the critics, its violent power impressed me, as did the journeyman director, like Hodges from Brit TV, Michael Tuchner.
So Ritchie and his imitators sell tickets, and we will see this nonsensical rush to the bottom continue. These films are not entertaining nor enlightening -mere exercises in "Look ma, I'm swearing!" We probably have that jerk Brian DePalma and his "Scarface" to thank for that.
"A Line the Size of a Toblerone"
jzappa7 May 2010
With a cast comprised of John Hurt, Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, Tom Wilkinson, Steven Berkoff and intermittently Joanne Whalley, one can fully understand the feeling that there must be something substantial at the core of 44 Inch Chest. Just how do you accumulate so much powerhouse English talent in one Cockney "crime" film? The answer supposedly lies in the trusted filmography of screenwriters Louis Mellis and David Scinto, whose previous outing Sexy Beast is the most powerful, intelligent and provocative British gangster film since The Long Good Friday. But something is fundamentally amiss here. The futile indulgence and show-offy profanity of their script results in not so much a narrative of any body or core as an exhibition of one-upmanship between some of England's most powerfully present actors to see who can pronounce the c-word the most often and with the most bitterness. The winner is John Hurt.
We feel we shall be in for a charismatic exercise in style once absorbed in the film's opening, an affected but atmospheric scene with Winstone as Colin Diamond, a brawny thug who has been demeaned into a lamenting shell of a man because his wife has run off with some younger man. We find him as the camera smoothly streams through his shipwrecked flat, then fixing on his disillusioned face while Harry Nilsson belts Without You on the stereo. Indeed, it is this unevenly handled but nevertheless interesting theme that was strongest in the writing and directing, the fragility and disconcerting retaliation of the male ego, the inscrutably tough exterior's potential to be shattered like glass and being too shocked by its own vulnerability to successfully pick up all the shards. Winstone is seamless in his consistent evocation of this theme throughout his performance, and although the surrounding movie renders that quality rather insignificant, his delivery of every line, often huge monologues, is thoroughly captivating, as is the nature of his tremendous presence as an actor.
But after that opening scene, the devolving dramatic pretension grows more and more transparent, with much of the film shot unimaginatively in one room. We listen and listen as Colin's violent and verbal mates persuade him toward his next move: nab the cocksure lover boy who has instigated the anguish, lock him in a chest that's theoretically sized to capacity and discipline him gangster-style within an inch of his life using a barbaric blend of muscle and lingo. There is literally a point by which the story does not seem to be going anywhere, just concocting sequences of peripheral significance out of thin air and laboriously treating itself to them.
It simply seems to all be for show. These guys aren't gangsters as much as they take on the shell of cinematic gangster persona. Winstone's dilemma isn't something that is expounded upon or made to change him or anyone else, but something that functions as a reason to get all these hambones into a room so they can add gusto to their dialogue by means of profanity with thick Cockney accents as well as to say things like, "I like a line the size of a Toblerone" and "I wouldn't give her the pickings out of my handkerchief." And Malcolm Venville, the director making his debut here, seems more in love with the stylistic exercise he gets in contriving music and montage out of the crevices of a chamber play than he does in elucidating or providing a bedrock for his characters.
We feel we shall be in for a charismatic exercise in style once absorbed in the film's opening, an affected but atmospheric scene with Winstone as Colin Diamond, a brawny thug who has been demeaned into a lamenting shell of a man because his wife has run off with some younger man. We find him as the camera smoothly streams through his shipwrecked flat, then fixing on his disillusioned face while Harry Nilsson belts Without You on the stereo. Indeed, it is this unevenly handled but nevertheless interesting theme that was strongest in the writing and directing, the fragility and disconcerting retaliation of the male ego, the inscrutably tough exterior's potential to be shattered like glass and being too shocked by its own vulnerability to successfully pick up all the shards. Winstone is seamless in his consistent evocation of this theme throughout his performance, and although the surrounding movie renders that quality rather insignificant, his delivery of every line, often huge monologues, is thoroughly captivating, as is the nature of his tremendous presence as an actor.
But after that opening scene, the devolving dramatic pretension grows more and more transparent, with much of the film shot unimaginatively in one room. We listen and listen as Colin's violent and verbal mates persuade him toward his next move: nab the cocksure lover boy who has instigated the anguish, lock him in a chest that's theoretically sized to capacity and discipline him gangster-style within an inch of his life using a barbaric blend of muscle and lingo. There is literally a point by which the story does not seem to be going anywhere, just concocting sequences of peripheral significance out of thin air and laboriously treating itself to them.
It simply seems to all be for show. These guys aren't gangsters as much as they take on the shell of cinematic gangster persona. Winstone's dilemma isn't something that is expounded upon or made to change him or anyone else, but something that functions as a reason to get all these hambones into a room so they can add gusto to their dialogue by means of profanity with thick Cockney accents as well as to say things like, "I like a line the size of a Toblerone" and "I wouldn't give her the pickings out of my handkerchief." And Malcolm Venville, the director making his debut here, seems more in love with the stylistic exercise he gets in contriving music and montage out of the crevices of a chamber play than he does in elucidating or providing a bedrock for his characters.
Try "Sexy Beast"
Geeky Randy23 April 2010
A simple film about a successful car salesman (Winstone) and his friends (Hurt, McShane, Wilkinson and Dillane) kidnapping his wife's lover (Poupaud) in an attempt to teach the lover a lesson, get revenge on the cheating wife (Whalley) and to repair the broken-hearted husband's shattered ego. Driven by strong dialogue and momentous presence from all six characters. But the wonderful mood of intensity doesn't really seem to move forward, it just kind of lingers. Emotional outbursts and other theatrical expressions are convincing, being that they're delivered from a talented ensemble cast, but it becomes a bit redundant when it happens more than once and takes the story nowhere. If you want a similarly strong cast in the same type of movie, but executed more successfully, try "Sexy Beast".
**½ (out of four)
**½ (out of four)
A Gayprop Movie, Although Well-Disguised
stevesishton-667-95324321 February 2010
I saw the film last night and have been puzzling over it ever since.
The homosexual references in the film are many and I think I can detect the 'message'. The hard man who can't find the spirit for revenge; the old man who lacks respect from others in his old age; the lover who can't defend his love; the wife who can't be faithful to the man who truly loves her and so forth. Victor Mature and Hedi Lamarr in the spliced-in clip from 'Samson' - an anti-feminist blast if ever I've seen one. The character who comes out best is the one played by Iain McShane. He is unremittingly witty, has a functional attitude to sex yet has an eye for beauty. In the end, the old man agrees to accompany him to the Clayton (a gay club)and therefore seems to be getting to grips with his superannuated homophobia. The gangster's conversion through love gives rise to a new kind of world where other characters can find their true selves. What else could explain the grafting of the wife's head on to the old man's body, for instance? As a non-homophobic heterosexual male, I'd have appreciated a lot more up-front honesty about the film's themes. I think I've just seen 'Brokeback Mountain Meets No Country for Old Men' but with British cultural references.
The homosexual references in the film are many and I think I can detect the 'message'. The hard man who can't find the spirit for revenge; the old man who lacks respect from others in his old age; the lover who can't defend his love; the wife who can't be faithful to the man who truly loves her and so forth. Victor Mature and Hedi Lamarr in the spliced-in clip from 'Samson' - an anti-feminist blast if ever I've seen one. The character who comes out best is the one played by Iain McShane. He is unremittingly witty, has a functional attitude to sex yet has an eye for beauty. In the end, the old man agrees to accompany him to the Clayton (a gay club)and therefore seems to be getting to grips with his superannuated homophobia. The gangster's conversion through love gives rise to a new kind of world where other characters can find their true selves. What else could explain the grafting of the wife's head on to the old man's body, for instance? As a non-homophobic heterosexual male, I'd have appreciated a lot more up-front honesty about the film's themes. I think I've just seen 'Brokeback Mountain Meets No Country for Old Men' but with British cultural references.
All Star British Cast Elevate Drama
moviesareawayoflife4 February 2024
44inch Chest has a cast which includes Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, John Hurt and Tom Wilkinson. It is essentially a film based in one location and concentrating on the revenge of Winstone on his wife's lover. 44inch Chest is a very dialogue driven film with lots of expletives. The script is sharp and in places very funny with some memorable lines from each character. Hurt and McShane for me provide the standout performances, Hurt being particularly funny, however there is not a bad performance in the film. For me the film does get a little too weird in the final act as we follow the thought process in Winstone head but doesn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the film. In summary i found 44inch Chest a good quick enjoyable watch and nowhere near as bad as its reputation would suggest.
Not for me - I'm afraid
Joseph-Hockey21 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It is apparent that you will either love or loathe this film. Unfortunately I fall into the later category as I could not gleam any point to the story. In essence the principal character's relationship with his partner fails because of her sexual relationship with another. Because of his past and his associates he is able to exact a violent physical revenge on the new lover which is everyone's principal reaction, realising the futility of this action in restoring his relationship he does nothing. The lover for his part learns the effect his actions have caused. That's it, hardly educating. The main feature of the film is continuous swearing which although typical really adds nothing and becomes quite tedious after a few minutes. We are treated to a flashback of how one character won £40,600 last night, why? Any relevance to the plot? In reality of course these low life individuals would have beat the life out of the lover and felt quite good about it. Sorry I can't manage to intellectualise a boring tale punctuated by obscenities inter dispersed with shots of railway arches - highlight as they were! Or any of the occasional snippets of music which again seemed to bear no relevance. The 2 points were for the lighting and cinematography!
A disappointing and near incomprehensible mess
DonFishies12 May 2010
I will confess up front that I have not seen the wildly acclaimed and Oscar-nominated Sexy Beast. Writers Louis Mellis and David Scinto broke onto the scene with that film ten years ago, and seem to have done very little since. Even the box art for 44 Inch Chest mentions that film more than once. But the success of every movie should be measured on its own, and the trailer for 44 Inch Chest suggested that it would be one hell of a character driven piece.
Colin (Ray Winstone) has just found out his wife Liz (Joanna Whalley) is having an affair with a much younger man. At the encouragement of his friends (and with their help), Colin has the man kidnapped, tied up, beaten, and locked in a cupboard. They discuss at lengths what to do next and what will help Colin come to terms with his wife's infidelity. All signs seem to point to murder.
In a word, 44 Inch Chest is a mess. The film is incredibly shorter than one might think (the running time is 95-minutes, but the actual film without credits is less than 90), but it is more gruellingly boring than one would expect either. When the trailer suggested it was a character driven piece, it was lying. We learn very little about the characters in the beginning or even by the end of the film. Instead, the film is made up almost entirely of the cast standing around each other, discussing at lengths what should or should not be done next. And in almost every instance, the only thing that happens next is more talking. Even with its punctuated moments of violence, they merely stand as a momentary break from all the talking that is going on. I have read comparisons to the work of David Mamet, but even at his most verbose, his movies seem to have more going on than just talking.
But the problem does not lie with the talking itself, it lies more with what is being said and discussed. In a word: nothing. Almost all of the dialogue that comprises the film seems to just be thrown in to ensure there is no real dead air amongst the cast. I am a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino, but can admit that a great deal of the dialogue in his films seem to revolve trivial and meaningless things. But the man makes this things matter to the audience, and he makes his actors care about what they are talking about. How else can you explain how a discussion involving a "Royale with Cheese" became so wildly popular? Mellis and Scinto on the other hand, do not seem to have this gift. They simply seem to be throwing lines at the script for the actors to say, and not really offer any finite reason for any of it to matter. By the end, the whole film feels like a cheat. We are expected to care initially about Colin and the revenge he wants to wreak on Loverboy (Melvin Poupaud) for the emotional duress he has put him in. But whether Loverboy is killed or spared, it becomes almost secondary to how important the boring and insignificant dialogue quickly becomes.
Worse yet, almost every line is given some pop with the addition of a certain four letter word starting with the letter f, or a four letter word starting with the letter c. Again, going back to being a big fan of Tarantino, I have no problem with excessive profanity. But in this case, I almost had to turn the film off from being so disgusted at how easy these two words slip off any number of the actors' tongues. I am usually surprised by how profanity-laden some films are, but this film got to be so excessive that it became outright annoying. I wanted to find something to like about the film, but the use of these two words just made the film even worse. At times, it almost came off as amateur, like the writers were trying too hard to ape much better gangster pictures from Tarantino, Martin Scorsese or even Britain's own Guy Richie. But using the word gangster to describe this movie may be letting it off a little easy, as we never really learn who these guys are, what the majority of them do for a living, or why it was so easy for them to kidnap Loverboy in broad daylight and not get caught.
I cannot really say much for the actors themselves, other than that they seem just as confused at what is going on as the audience likely does. Winstone, who I best remember as Mr. French in The Departed, puts his best foot forward and does the most of any actor in the film. We see how broken and distraught a man he is in the film's incredibly well-edited opening, and can see how affected he has become as the film goes on. But the hurt and anguish in his eyes and body language is all we really get to understand. His dialogue is wasted, and his actions seem misguided. On the same token, Ian McShane and John Hurt are two of his helpful friends who get to be the comic relief in the film, but seem even more wasted with horrendous dialogue. At least McShane appears to be having fun with it. Which is more than I can say for Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane as Colin's other two friends, or even Whalley as his wife. They are all just given heaps of terrible dialogue, and next to zero character motivations.
44 Inch Chest is a movie that may have looked good on paper, but makes for an absolutely atrocious film. What little good there is here, is made absent by the end of the film. It feels like one wasted opportunity after the next.
2/10.
(Portions of this review originally appeared on http://www.dvdfanatic.com).
Colin (Ray Winstone) has just found out his wife Liz (Joanna Whalley) is having an affair with a much younger man. At the encouragement of his friends (and with their help), Colin has the man kidnapped, tied up, beaten, and locked in a cupboard. They discuss at lengths what to do next and what will help Colin come to terms with his wife's infidelity. All signs seem to point to murder.
In a word, 44 Inch Chest is a mess. The film is incredibly shorter than one might think (the running time is 95-minutes, but the actual film without credits is less than 90), but it is more gruellingly boring than one would expect either. When the trailer suggested it was a character driven piece, it was lying. We learn very little about the characters in the beginning or even by the end of the film. Instead, the film is made up almost entirely of the cast standing around each other, discussing at lengths what should or should not be done next. And in almost every instance, the only thing that happens next is more talking. Even with its punctuated moments of violence, they merely stand as a momentary break from all the talking that is going on. I have read comparisons to the work of David Mamet, but even at his most verbose, his movies seem to have more going on than just talking.
But the problem does not lie with the talking itself, it lies more with what is being said and discussed. In a word: nothing. Almost all of the dialogue that comprises the film seems to just be thrown in to ensure there is no real dead air amongst the cast. I am a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino, but can admit that a great deal of the dialogue in his films seem to revolve trivial and meaningless things. But the man makes this things matter to the audience, and he makes his actors care about what they are talking about. How else can you explain how a discussion involving a "Royale with Cheese" became so wildly popular? Mellis and Scinto on the other hand, do not seem to have this gift. They simply seem to be throwing lines at the script for the actors to say, and not really offer any finite reason for any of it to matter. By the end, the whole film feels like a cheat. We are expected to care initially about Colin and the revenge he wants to wreak on Loverboy (Melvin Poupaud) for the emotional duress he has put him in. But whether Loverboy is killed or spared, it becomes almost secondary to how important the boring and insignificant dialogue quickly becomes.
Worse yet, almost every line is given some pop with the addition of a certain four letter word starting with the letter f, or a four letter word starting with the letter c. Again, going back to being a big fan of Tarantino, I have no problem with excessive profanity. But in this case, I almost had to turn the film off from being so disgusted at how easy these two words slip off any number of the actors' tongues. I am usually surprised by how profanity-laden some films are, but this film got to be so excessive that it became outright annoying. I wanted to find something to like about the film, but the use of these two words just made the film even worse. At times, it almost came off as amateur, like the writers were trying too hard to ape much better gangster pictures from Tarantino, Martin Scorsese or even Britain's own Guy Richie. But using the word gangster to describe this movie may be letting it off a little easy, as we never really learn who these guys are, what the majority of them do for a living, or why it was so easy for them to kidnap Loverboy in broad daylight and not get caught.
I cannot really say much for the actors themselves, other than that they seem just as confused at what is going on as the audience likely does. Winstone, who I best remember as Mr. French in The Departed, puts his best foot forward and does the most of any actor in the film. We see how broken and distraught a man he is in the film's incredibly well-edited opening, and can see how affected he has become as the film goes on. But the hurt and anguish in his eyes and body language is all we really get to understand. His dialogue is wasted, and his actions seem misguided. On the same token, Ian McShane and John Hurt are two of his helpful friends who get to be the comic relief in the film, but seem even more wasted with horrendous dialogue. At least McShane appears to be having fun with it. Which is more than I can say for Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane as Colin's other two friends, or even Whalley as his wife. They are all just given heaps of terrible dialogue, and next to zero character motivations.
44 Inch Chest is a movie that may have looked good on paper, but makes for an absolutely atrocious film. What little good there is here, is made absent by the end of the film. It feels like one wasted opportunity after the next.
2/10.
(Portions of this review originally appeared on http://www.dvdfanatic.com).
Crises: An Actor's Film
gradyharp31 May 2010
44 INCH CHEST is a very dark, brooding, cynical, fairly static stagey film that allows a platform for some of England's finest actors a tour de force in roles they likely chose because of the opportunity to work together. Aside from a few out shots (scenes where the audience is allowed a bit more information about he background of the story and its characters) this film feel like a stage play, so finely wrought is the dialogue and the pacing of the piece. For those who saw and appreciated SEXY BEAST (also written by Louis Mellis and David Scinto and using some of the same actors), this film will reward. For those easily offended by foul language and physical violence this may be a film to pass.
Aging gangster Colin Diamond (Ray Winstone) is informed that his wife of 21 years Liz (Joanne Whaley), is leaving him and in complete disbelief and denial his emotions gradually unfurl into violence: he must discover the name of the lover. After sever beatings Liz tells him and we jump to a scene where Colin and his fellow crime friends are kidnapping the waiter Loverboy (Melvil Poupaud, whose intensity as an actor commands our attention despite his lack of dialogue) in a van. Loverboy is taken to a filthy room, beaten (we suppose) and is locked in a chest awaiting Colin's decision on how to handle the lad. Colin's friends include the mamma's boy Archie (Tom Wilkinson), the seemingly suave Mal (Stephen Dillane), the frankly gay Meredith (Ian McShane), and the evil Old Man Peanut (John Hurt): oddly enough the only background we know of these crooks is through flashback scenes with Archie caring for this mum (Edna Doré) and Meredith taking a call during a assignation with a nude lad on the sofa (Ramon Christian). The point the friends are trying to make is that Colin is losing his grip on life because of the devastation and humiliation of being betrayed by his adulterous wife. They urge Colin to kill both Loverboy and Liz, make a coin toss to decide whether the reluctant Colin kills or lets them go, and when the toss comes up with a thumbs down decision, Colin is left alone with Loverboy tied to a chair to discuss the future. How this discussion proceeds and how Colin arrives at his decision on how to complete this cycle is the bulk of the story.
So not much happens here with a script that is as foul as dirt and as powerful as a corpse- crushing machine - except the ability of this sterling crew of actors to bring to life characters who while they are terrifying on one level, show incredible support for their abused friend on the other level. It is a taut actors' piece, beautifully executed by actors and director Malcolm Venville. Not for the faint of heart but definitely for those who relish superb theatrics!
Grady Harp
Aging gangster Colin Diamond (Ray Winstone) is informed that his wife of 21 years Liz (Joanne Whaley), is leaving him and in complete disbelief and denial his emotions gradually unfurl into violence: he must discover the name of the lover. After sever beatings Liz tells him and we jump to a scene where Colin and his fellow crime friends are kidnapping the waiter Loverboy (Melvil Poupaud, whose intensity as an actor commands our attention despite his lack of dialogue) in a van. Loverboy is taken to a filthy room, beaten (we suppose) and is locked in a chest awaiting Colin's decision on how to handle the lad. Colin's friends include the mamma's boy Archie (Tom Wilkinson), the seemingly suave Mal (Stephen Dillane), the frankly gay Meredith (Ian McShane), and the evil Old Man Peanut (John Hurt): oddly enough the only background we know of these crooks is through flashback scenes with Archie caring for this mum (Edna Doré) and Meredith taking a call during a assignation with a nude lad on the sofa (Ramon Christian). The point the friends are trying to make is that Colin is losing his grip on life because of the devastation and humiliation of being betrayed by his adulterous wife. They urge Colin to kill both Loverboy and Liz, make a coin toss to decide whether the reluctant Colin kills or lets them go, and when the toss comes up with a thumbs down decision, Colin is left alone with Loverboy tied to a chair to discuss the future. How this discussion proceeds and how Colin arrives at his decision on how to complete this cycle is the bulk of the story.
So not much happens here with a script that is as foul as dirt and as powerful as a corpse- crushing machine - except the ability of this sterling crew of actors to bring to life characters who while they are terrifying on one level, show incredible support for their abused friend on the other level. It is a taut actors' piece, beautifully executed by actors and director Malcolm Venville. Not for the faint of heart but definitely for those who relish superb theatrics!
Grady Harp
Not quite the film you go in expecting
NateWatchesCoolMovies3 April 2016
44 Inch Chest is packed full of bloated, preening masculinity, cold hard chauvinism and dense, wordy exchanges that seem pulled right off the stage, an intense bit of British pseudo-gangster quirk with two writers who seem intent on heightening every syllable to near surreal levels of style. The same scribes are responsible for the glorious verbal stew that can be found in Paul McGuigan's brutal Gangster No. 1 as well as Sexy Beast, and while the level of viciousness here is left almost entirely to the spoken word alone, the elliptical sting of their script still hits home, and even ramps up a bit from those films. A mopey, consistently weepy Ray Winstone stars as boorish Colin Diamond, an gent whose wife (Joanne Whalley Kilmer) has been caught in an affair with a chiseled french pretty boy (Melvil Poupoud). He resorts to a melancholy, comatose state as his perceived manliness visibly circles the drain. His circle of friends arrives, each with their own flamboyant ideas for resolving the situation. Velvety Meredith (Ian McShane, cool as a cucumber) looks on in snooty amusement. Violent guttersnipe Mal (Stephen Dillane, replacing Tim Roth) has the brawn but neither the brains nor ambition to act. Archie (Tom Wilkinson) is the bewildered everyman. Old Man Peanut (a fire and brimstone John Hurt who devours the script like a lion feasting on a gazelle) is a bible thumping, crusty old pot of fury who suggests that wifey should be stoned to death for her indecency and betrayal. They spend the better part of the film pontificating like a babbling senate, whilst Winstone languishes in despair. One wonders what the point of it all is and where it's going, until we arrive at an oddly satisfying third act that somehow negates almost everything we've seen before it. Strangely enough, though, it works, if only to give us something we've never quite seen before, pulling the rug of genre convention out from under us and giving us a piece that almost could resemble a spoof of other works, if it weren't so damned straight faced and persistent in its execution. In any case, I could watch this group of actors assemble ikea furniture and it would still be transfixing. It's just a room full of talent shooting the breeze for most of the running time, and in a genre where one can scarcely here the performers talk over the gunfire and cheekily referential soundtrack a lot of the time, I'll damn well take something a bit more paced, quiet and stately. Winstone smears over his usual seething anger with a morose depression would almost be endearing if it weren't so pathetic. Wilkinson brings his usual studious nature. McShane is pure class in anything (even a few B movies I'm sure he'd love to forget) and he swaggers through this one like a regal peacock, getting some of the best lines to chew on. Dillane is detached and indifferently cruel, with seldom a word uttered, his lack of mannerism contrasted by the vibrant animosity of his three peers. Hurt is pure gold as the closest the film comes to caricature, just a vile old coot who belongs in the loony bin raving to the walls about awful things that happened 'back in his day'. Different is the key word for this one, and one might be easily fooled by the poster and synopses into assuming this is a revenge flick populated by action and violence. Not so much. Although a lot of the time that is my cup of tea, it's nice to get a welcome deviation once in a while, and this one is a real treat.
Awful
alex-rankin-748-1796426 May 2010
Such a bad film... it is built up in writing as being witty and revenge filled, in actual fact it is neither. The only bit of action that happened was a woman getting punched in the face. The plot drifts from daydream to reality, neither of which are remotely entertaining, and ends in the biggest of all anti-climax.
If you like watching a group of aged men sit down, swear and talk about things which they might do (but never actually do), then watch this film.
If you prefer watching a film that is entertaining, do not watch this.
Rubbish
If you like watching a group of aged men sit down, swear and talk about things which they might do (but never actually do), then watch this film.
If you prefer watching a film that is entertaining, do not watch this.
Rubbish
Absolutely Boring
larcam11 January 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
