"44 Inch Chest"

44 Inch Chest - Directed by Malcolm Venville, written by Louis Mellis and David Scinto, starring Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Ian McShane, Stephen Dillane, and Tom Wilkinson - Rated R (Available on Blu-ray and DVD)

This movie had some real potential, but it ended up forgettable.

When I first read about this film I was nearly salivating: the cast was unbelievable and it was written by the writers behind Sexy Beast. Did it live up to my expectations? Not really. This is not to say that 44 Inch Chest is a terrible movie, it's just not what I was expecting.

The film is about Colin Diamond, a recently cuckolded man who, with four of his friends, has to decide whether or not to kill his wife's new lover. I suppose I should have known this wasn't going to be Sexy Beast part two from this setup alone. This film is much more pyschological (though Sexy Beast does have some psychological elements). This may be considered a SPOILER, but it turns out that this is one of those films where you're not sure what it real and what isn't. Personally, I always go with the straightforward explanation. If something happens on screen, then it really did happen...unless there is a strong suggestion that reality is a bit off. There are scenes that are definitely in Colin's head in this one, but I think it's up to the viewer if the rest of the film is.

The reason it's possible to interpret the film in different ways is because Colin is an absolute mess. The film introduces this very well. The opening scene slowly shows the aftermath of a fight in Colin's living room. The camera works its way through the destruction as "Without You" by Harry Nilsson plays. The camera comes to a stop on Ray Winstone laying on the ground, a blank stare on his face. Then Colin is collected by his friends, who then kidnap his wife's lover, and place him inside an armoir (or chest, if you will) in what looks like some kind of safe house. The set up is very Hitchcockian and has a play-like quality to it as well. That may be why I can see the more psychological side.

In or outside of Colin's head, whichever you prefer, there are other characters and they play off of each other quite well. Tom Wilkinson seems to be the voice of reason in the group. Stephen Dillane plays a slightly untrustworthy friend (the weakest character of the group in my opinion). Ian McShane is the calm, charismatic, and lucky member of the group. And John Hurt is the cranky elder who expects bold action from Colin.

John Hurt is definitely the best part of the film. I could listen to his outbursts for an entire film. His back and forth with every character is hilarious. McShane is right there with him, though. He plays cool as good as anyone. His story of winning a sizable amount at a casino is my favorite scene in the film. Wilkinson does a fine job, but as the voice of reason, he doesn't get anything interesting to say or do, which is very unfortunate. I would go so far to say that he is wasted in this film.

Winstone is very convincing in this. He plays an emotionally destroyed man to perfection. It's not just outbursts and fake sobbing. It's in the facial expressions. You can see the anguish in his eyes in every scene. The film hinges on his performance and he carries it well.

The problem here is that the story is a bit boring. I guess the writers thought of this as well because the film is filled with anecdotes. It seems every character gets their own little side story to tell. That's fine, and the stories are interesting, but the problem is that the character developing side stories were far more entertaining than the main plot. I wish this film was just about the day to day workings of this group. I don't call them a gang because I'm not sure if they are a gang. It is obvious they have a history together, but a history of what? And Colin, aside from being a distraught husband, has no discernible characteristics. He's a very boring character.

As strange as it may sound, I wish this film had been more like a typical, unoriginal gangster movie. Make it about a heist or something. It can still be a character driven film without the adultery plot. Maybe that takes away the possibility of a theory or two about the movie but so be it. I don't think that this movie earns a dissection.

So the film tries to be deep. Some viewers may buy into it, but I didn't. With this cast the film really should have had a lighter tone or a sharper focus on a more interesting character. Instead, it's a passable effort with a very good moment or two. I'll be recommending Sexy Beast to people for the rest of my life, I'll probably forget what 44 Inch Chest was about by the end of the year.

"Edge of Darkness"

Edge of Darkness - Directed by Martin Campbell, starring Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, and Danny Huston - Rated R

The Evil Kurgan is a Mel Gibson fan.

Edge of Darkness marks the first time Mel Gibson has starred in a film for nearly eight years. It’s a shame Mel waited this long, because he’s still got it. Maybe you feel differently about him after all the controversy of the past few years. If his remarks or actions made you hate him, this film isn’t going to bring you back on his side. If, like me, you ignore controversy and just watch a movie, then you’ll get a nostalgic feeling while watching Edge of Darkness and you’ll wish that Mel never took a break.

The film starts off simply enough. Boston police detective Tom Craven (Gibson) picks up his daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) from the train station and they head home. They’re not home for long when Emma is viciously gunned down on Tom’s front porch. At first Craven thinks he was the target and Emma was just collateral damage. It’s a bit more complicated than that and Craven ends up going on a mission involving shady government operatives and privatized military companies (PMCs).

I’ll leave the story at that. Just know that Mel Gibson doesn’t react well to the death of his daughter. Some people have tried to categorize this as Taken with Mel Gibson. While there are some basic similarities, the two films are quite different. And Edge of Darkness is a better film. It’s also a more complicated film. The government operative and PMCs might have you scratching your head. But if you pay close attention, the story shouldn’t lose you.

The slightly complex story makes this a film that is more about talking than fighting. Sure, you get a few excellent scenes with Gibson laying down some vengeance, but you see him talking much more often. This is a thriller in the tradition of Gibson’s mid-90’s work, when a film didn’t need constant violence to be entertaining. In other words, this is a film for adults or people with attention spans longer than one minute. That’s not to say this is a boring film, though. There is some extreme violence in it, it’s just not constant. I believe that director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) took a page from films like A History of Violence and Inglourious Basterds. Those two films show that violence is most brutal and effective when it is set up very slowly and then happens in the blink of an eye.

The violence sticks out a bit, but this film works best in dialogue. The scenes with Craven and shady hit man Jedburgh (Ray Winstone) were my favorite moments. Winstone has a quiet animosity in his voice that adds tension to every scene. It also helps that his character, a hit man who is possibly developing a conscious, is just as interesting, if not more, than Craven. Craven’s story arc is quite simple: find the people who killed my daughter and return the favor. Jedburgh, on the other hand, is trying to decide what his mission is throughout the film. The audience doesn’t know whether or not to root for him, which makes him very interesting. Jedburgh’s character also allows for some much needed comic relief like when Craven ends one encounter with the line, “By the way, thanks for not killing me.”

Winstone is great, but this is still Gibson’s film. No one sells the loss of a child like Gibson. He’s one of the few actors who can pull off an anguished yell and not provoke laughter. But better than that, he shows such convincing anger that it transfers off the screen. I felt angry right with him throughout the movie and as he exacted revenge I felt like cheering him on. This is nothing new for Gibson, though. Just look at films like Braveheart and The Patriot. It’s nearly impossible not to be on Mel’s side in these films.

Gibson’s performance always makes a villain better, too. When he gets you on his side, you start to really hate the villain of the film. And even though Jack Bennett (Danny Huston) isn’t a very memorable antagonist, you still get a decent sense of hatred for him. For the record, Huston does a fine job as Bennett and it’s always good to see him in higher profile releases like this. It’s just that the character isn’t particularly interesting.

The villain isn’t the greatest and the film itself will not likely be remembered as one of Gibson’s best, but Edge of Darkness is definitely a worthy film for Mel Gibson’s return to starring roles. I just hope that he keeps it up because seven and a half years is far too long to go without hearing Gibson say things like, “You had better decide whether you’re hangin’ on the cross, or bangin’ in the nails” with utterly convincing ferocity. So just forget about Mel Gibson the man if you have to and let Mel Gibson the actor take you on a vengeful and entertaining trip.