Bruiser

I was sadly disappointed upon seeing George A. Romero's latest film, Bruiser. I bought it used on VHS with no doubt in my mind that it would at least be visually entertaining and a cut above the typical slasher film genre.

However, I found it to be a bore and totally disappointing. On the plus side, the movie does have quite a bit going for it. The theme of "identity" and having an alter ego of sorts that pretty much plays out subconscious actions, is intriguing. I found the first third of the movie to be creative and suspenseful, as it played quite heavily with the mixing of fantasy and reality in the mind of the disturbed main character. Yet, shortly after this brief "tease", the movie descended into a typically plodding tale of a serial killer bent on revenging those who wronged him.

I think many of us can relate somewhat to the main character of this movie: a person who has been stepped on his whole life, is fed up being taken advantage of and wants to do something about it. The movie would have involved us more if it dared to be different. Making us doubt the goings on in the main character's mind or blending the real with the unreal would have made for a more cerebral and provocative film.

I expect much more from Romero, who, in my book, is a virtual master of horror who gave us the always timely cult classic Night of the Living Dead, as well as a few other less prolific, but noteworthy horror movies. Yet there is no evidence of that Romero here.

The entire third act is set in a glitzy, highly cinematographic dance club with a blaze of color, lights and energy. Yet, Romero fails to take advantage of all this flash. He brings no visual excitement into these scenes, yet instead, cuts from scenes of performers to scenes of the killer and back again. This is from a man who has collaborated on films with Dario Argento and other horror masters. These final scenes would have been a great opportunity for Romero to show off some creative editing and faster pacing so that we could feel more of this energy and excitement.

I enjoy horror movies and will watch anything Romero comes out with in the future, despite the shortcomings of this film. Bruiser has a great premise, some wonderful dark humor and performances that transcend most others in this genre. The execution of the story and the action, however, seems to be missing much needed panache.

There were a couple of hooks that got me to watch this film. First, it was a chance to see a George Romero film that wasn't a "Living Dead" film. Then there was the poster with the faceless face; it looked very stylish. And best of all, it was free on On-Demand! Well, you get what you pay for. This film has a lot of visual style, but like many of the characters, zero substance. The plot had some good basics, but was often confused and muddling. Henry wasn't much of schlub; he was too good looking, had too much material wealth and didn't seem sympathetic enough. Mr. Romero should have taken some notes from some of the classic Twilight Zone episodes (anything w/Burgess Meredith for example). The rest of the cast is only fleshed out partially. For a visual film, I didn't get enough clues to let me know who's who. The one exception is Milo, who is WAAAAY over the top.

The are some good points in the film, most notably the Misfits being in the film and the use of the mask. The latter, is what sets Romero's Living Dead series apart from the rest of the genre. He makes a statement (living dead = mindless masses)with the film; in this case the faceless people who go through life being ignored and exploited. When the film touches on that theme, it comes alive and draws you in. Unfortunately, they are too few to make this film worthwhile.

Normally, I despise remakes, but I think this film would be a good one to revisit. As it stands, I give it 4 out of 10.

A man awakes one morning without his face - and he decides to take revenge on all people who betrayed him in a way.

This, in short, is the story of George A. Romero's first feature film since 1992's "The Dark Half", a decent if not really convincing adaption of Stephen King's story of the same title. And even though "Bruiser" is not a very spectacular or action- and goreloaded picture, it undoubtedly is Romero's finest film since his third zombie-epic "Day of the Dead" back in 1985.

It's a unique movie, rather quiet and sensibly developed: something You've see far too rarely in the last few years. The acting is also first rate, above all Jason Flemyng as the lead character. Peter Stormare is once again delicious, this time as the eccentric, sex-mad publisher of the "Bruiser"-magazine (you never really get to know what the magazine is all about, but it is obviously kind of a lifestyle magazine) and therefore Flemyng's character's boss. Stormare's enthusiastic acting is everything but annoying.

There is also some well placed humor in the picture, which has been present in most of Romero's films, only that this time it's more obvious than in his earlier pictures. The humor doesn't destroy the melancholy touch, though, that makes all of Romero's pictures so unique.

An audience who expects to see another "Dawn of the Dead" or "Creepshow" surely will be disappointed at first - but who ever said that "Bruiser" is a pure horror movie? It is more similar to "Martin" or even (in a metaphoric way) "The Crazies". One thing that's out of question is that Romero proves himself to be a real auteur, and it's always good to see new films from him - especially after an eight-year hiatus!

Highly recommended.

In BRUISER, evidence of a surreal paranormal event is almost perfectly captured on film by George Romero. The film's protagonist, Henry, weakly worms him way through life until the morning he awakens to find a blank, white mask where his real face once was. At one point, it's suggested the mask frees Henry to indulge in his rage fantasies, and then to logically murder those who have wronged him. Henry's innate goodness won't allow him to kill innocent people, but it's interesting to see that Romero never apologizes for Henry's murder fantasies. Henry is, like all of us, capable of brutal, heinous acts, if only in our heads.

As an idea, Henry's "Faceless" identity is fascinating, as it is believed that Henry has psychically formed the blank face from the material of his submerged rage. The problem becomes when Henry, and the film, decides to become parody, amused by the circumstance of the Faceless-ness. Henry's revenge, when he takes it on the vile cast of his wife, his boss, and his best friend/financer, does not reflect Henry's rage. The revenge is muted and lacking real anger, though much is made of what Henry will do when he goes after these people.

Romero made possibly his technically-finest film only to lose the incredible surreal event that changed his believable, solid main character into a vengeance machine, which weakens the story and its conclusion considerably. The instant Henry understands that the mask is truly HIS face is a great moment, and there are moments in BRUISER that stand up well with the best Romero has done.

It should also be pointed out that Romero comes from another time and mentality in filmmaking, when the idea of sex, sex by naked people, on-screen, in all it's almost-realism, was not ignored and disregarded...namely the 1970s, when there was something to be said for people getting it on that didn't require cutaways and soft lenses. It's almost refreshing in these puritanical days of zero-actual-sex in films, and talk talk talk of sex in every medium, and the threat of sex on "real TV" shows, to find Romero willing to show a little legs over the shoulders. Even if everyone who has sex in BRUISER is unrepentant scum, that still doesn't change the fact that we, the viewer, are witness to sex that isn't a slow-motion fantasia starring Jeremy Irons.

BRUISER is a fascinating film that suddenly unravels at the end, like an old baseball hit too hard. Still worth it, just for the great attempt at something original by an original, in Romero.

The first 3/4 of George Romero's Kafka-esque, existential meditation on identity is so terrific, it's all the more frustrating that it falls apart with such a chintzy, uninspired last act. But until then, it ranks high in the Romero canon. It has a fascinating, irresistible plotline--similar to "Martin"--about one man's journey to discover his own identity, fine acting (particularly from Jason Flemyng and Leslie Hope, though Peter Stormare's goofy scenery chewing is an acquired taste), and beautiful production values, echoing the autumn of the protagonist's soul. (There is, in particular, one unforgettably haunting shot of shadows falling like tears on Flemyng's blank visage.) But Romero lets himself down with an unenthusiastic, the-well-ran-dry conclusion. It's as though he left the Toronto set to go back to Pittsburgh for the weekend when these scenes were shot. Despite those who claim that Romero's films are merely E.C. comic books brought to life, his films are always much deeper than that and reflect a very sophisticated philosophical view of life and the universe, in the manner of Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. In any event, this is a film whose reputation should soar about ten years from now.