Bruiser

I got the chance to see Bruiser at a small screening in the presence of George A. Romero himself when he visited my college campus. I thought it was very interesting, a well written story as well as tightly directed. At the time I met with Romero, he wasn't sure if it would be released theatrically or move straight to video/DVD. He did tell me that it was produced by a small Canadian film company and may not be released in the U.S. for quite some time. Still, the Romero fans that I watched this with seemed to enjoy every second of it, as did I. I would refer this film to anyone who enjoys the dark comedy/cult classics such as Pulp Fiction or A Clockwork Orange.

Bruiser (2000) was the long awaited return for horror film maker George A. Romero. While it was great to see old George back in action, the end results were a mix bag. A pseudo thriller about a brow beaten man who wakes up one day without a face! The guy uses this new (or lack of) identity to strike back at those who have wronged him in the past. Will this new face have any drawbacks? Can George A. Romero still make a watchable movie? You'll just have to watch Brusier!

The movie wasn't bad (but it's neither a classic) like some people have stated. It was a chance for Romero to get back into action after many film projects have died on the vine in the past ten years. He made a watchable movie on a real tight budget. Let's hope he'll get the opportunity to make more films.

Recommended for fans of George A. Romero. Others will not be so forgiving.

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.

"Bruiser" tells the story of a man, lacking a personality, who wakes up one morning to learn that his features have gone blank as well -- how's that for in-your-face symbolism? An intriguing premise, to be sure, but our hero follows the path of other faceless avengers like Darkman and Hollow Man and is only interested in taking revenge on those who have done him wrong, thereby reducing this film to little more than standard action fare with a gimmick.

The fact that I'm a real Romero devotee and this film is his first in seven years made it all the more sad that my fingers had the occasional urge to press the fast forward button. I enjoyed the first ten minutes (my companion shrieked and turned pale when the woman got hit by the train) but I stopped wishing for the best after Peter Stormare's first annoying appearance (damn, I adored the guy in "Fargo").

More than thirty years after its release, "Night of the Living Dead" is still the film Romero's best known for. Although Romero went on to sporadically make jewels like "Dawn of The Dead", "Knightriders", and "Day of The Dead", his debut is and will remain the highlight of Romero's career. Films like "Bruiser", which went straight to video here in Holland, definitely won't change that sad fact. The big bearded man himself regards this film as his best work. I beg to differ. As will many others.

*1/2 out of ****

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.