108 reviews
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.
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.
The young executive of a publicity agency Henry Creedlow (Jason Flemyng) is a man that has repressed morbid thoughts and is walked over by most of his acquaintances: his wife is cheating him with his boss and stealing money of his investments with his best friend; his housemaid is frequently stealing his house and offending him in Spanish; even his annoying poodle does not respect him. While in his daily morning routine listening to a talk show on the radio, he hears a man committing suicide live because he had been felt miserable and disrespected for a long time, and Henry feels impressed with the tragic event. On the next morning, he wakes up with his face covered by a white mask, changing his personality and seeking revenge against those that have humiliated him.
"Bruiser" is a very weird and one of the worst (if not the worst) movies of George A. Romero. The theme about a man that has a breakdown after years of failure and bad treatment, causing the loss of his identity and making him faceless to murder those that have somehow damaged his life is original, but something does not work well in the screenplay of this movie. In my opinion, the character of Henry should be more developed before the supernatural mask appears in his face, and the behavior of the nasty and extravagant character of Milo Styles, performed by Peter Stormare, should be more restrained to make him believable. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "A Máscara do Terror" ("The Mask of Terror")
"Bruiser" is a very weird and one of the worst (if not the worst) movies of George A. Romero. The theme about a man that has a breakdown after years of failure and bad treatment, causing the loss of his identity and making him faceless to murder those that have somehow damaged his life is original, but something does not work well in the screenplay of this movie. In my opinion, the character of Henry should be more developed before the supernatural mask appears in his face, and the behavior of the nasty and extravagant character of Milo Styles, performed by Peter Stormare, should be more restrained to make him believable. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "A Máscara do Terror" ("The Mask of Terror")
- claudio_carvalho
- Jun 30, 2007
- Permalink
- HumanoidOfFlesh
- May 21, 2005
- Permalink
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.
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.
- robotman-1
- Oct 28, 2001
- Permalink
- dbborroughs
- Dec 24, 2008
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Captain_Couth
- Feb 20, 2005
- Permalink
Jason Flemyng plays Henry Creedlow, the peon poster child, in this unusual film from George Romero. Flemyng's wife constantly berates him. She's having affairs behind his back. His boss is a jerk. His "best friend" takes advantage of him. He gets no respect at work. Even his maid is ripping him off. He feels faceless, and so he becomes. Can Henry find his identity? What will he have to do to get one?
Unfortunately, a large part of what makes this film unusual for George Romero is that it's so bad. Nothing in it ever quite works, although I had hopes for the first five minutes, before Romero began his attempt to tell a story/allegory.
There are a couple things that aren't complete disasters. The cinematography is nice enough, the production design isn't bad (and there are a couple fabulous eye candy homes), the music is okay, and there are appearances by Tom Atkins, one of my favorite character actors, and The Misfits, who are at least interesting. That's it. Those are the sole reasons I gave this a 3 rather than a 1 or 2.
In a nutshell, the problem with Bruiser is this: there's not so much a story as a collection of "quirky touches". Romero, who both wrote and directed, doesn't bother to explain anything, but there are a number of things that are very weird. Now, I'm usually a big fan of weirdness, surrealism, etc. But beneath the quirky touches, there is an extremely pedestrian story with a revenge motif. At one point, there must have been a script (Romero admits they had many rewrites) that had Bruiser as more of a noirish thriller, although only the slightest hints of it remain. The combination makes the quirky touches more annoying than satisfying. They don't seem authentic. Romero has never seemed like a surrealist/absurdist and it doesn't ring true here either. So it's difficult to say why the quirky touches are there except that Romero was aiming for metaphor and allegory. But that aspect doesn't work, either, because he tends to bash you over the head with his metaphors. They're so obvious and advertised that they no longer function as metaphors, but just a very incoherent script.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about above. Creedlow works for a magazine named Bruiser. Yet, it's a fashion magazine. Why is there a fashion magazine named Bruiser? Who would buy that? We're never told. I figured that maybe it was going to be the last name of the publisher, Milo (Peter Stormare). It wasn't, his last name is Styles (wouldn't that guy in that industry name his magazine "Styles" in that case?). If Bruiser had been Milo's last name, that would have made it nicely ironic, but still sellable in the context of the story. It's probably still supposed to be ironic, and a commentary on the fashion/beauty industries. But it's too in-your-face to work the way it's presented. Additionally, we spend a lot of time at the magazine--in the offices, with the publisher, with other employees in various social situations--so why don't we learn more about the magazine and the personalities involved in it? All we know is that there's a fashion magazine named Bruiser, and they pick out cover models by hanging a number of pictures on a lightboard and "voting". That's it.
Another example: Stormare is extremely annoying as Milo. He's supposed to be over-the-top and annoying, but it's too ridiculous to work, unless intended as comedy (it isn't, and it isn't particularly funny unintentionally, either) or absurdism, but remember that Romero isn't really an absurdist so it seems inauthentic as that. Obviously, we have to see Milo as one of the primary villains and that's why Romero has Stormare play the part this way. Instead, I saw Romero as one of the primary villains for his direction; he should have reeled Stormare in. It also made me hate Creedlow instead, because he should have killed Milo in the beginning, at the meeting (if the film would have more followed Creedlow's fantasizing, Romero might have had something).
There are also many examples in the details. For example, why does Creedlow walk to his train station in the middle of the street? Is he trying to get hit by a car? Or, why would anyone have a party where they make masks that are like those awful 1980s porcelain-white, featureless wall hangings, and then ask guests to paint them? It takes awhile to paint something, it takes supplies, etc. What kind of party would that be and why do we only see one person (Creedlow) working on it? Again, this is instead a heavy handed metaphor, but ridiculous for that. There must be better ways to show people putting on false public faces at social events.
For that matter, Henry's facelessness was just as heavy-handed. The production design, with the unfinished house, served the same purpose and was much more subtle and effective. Why not just stick with it, or come up with something less ridiculous? Probably Romero figured we wouldn't pick up on the metaphors if they weren't advertised in neon. We're not idiots, George.
Even Tom Atkins ended up annoying me, because he was mired in all of these garish metaphorical non-sequiturs (the "masquerade party" of the climax really irritated me). If I end up not liking Atkins, something is seriously wrong.
Although Bruiser turns into a thriller with a number of death scenes, these are poorly staged, with minimalist effects. Probably Romero was trying to distance himself from his past work. With the exception of the maid, most of the death scenes are lame and relatively bloodless. Yet the film still got an R. At least give us something more visceral to make up for the awful script. Horror fans, with their past support, enabled Romero to make Bruiser. Don't just tease us and walk away.
Unfortunately, a large part of what makes this film unusual for George Romero is that it's so bad. Nothing in it ever quite works, although I had hopes for the first five minutes, before Romero began his attempt to tell a story/allegory.
There are a couple things that aren't complete disasters. The cinematography is nice enough, the production design isn't bad (and there are a couple fabulous eye candy homes), the music is okay, and there are appearances by Tom Atkins, one of my favorite character actors, and The Misfits, who are at least interesting. That's it. Those are the sole reasons I gave this a 3 rather than a 1 or 2.
In a nutshell, the problem with Bruiser is this: there's not so much a story as a collection of "quirky touches". Romero, who both wrote and directed, doesn't bother to explain anything, but there are a number of things that are very weird. Now, I'm usually a big fan of weirdness, surrealism, etc. But beneath the quirky touches, there is an extremely pedestrian story with a revenge motif. At one point, there must have been a script (Romero admits they had many rewrites) that had Bruiser as more of a noirish thriller, although only the slightest hints of it remain. The combination makes the quirky touches more annoying than satisfying. They don't seem authentic. Romero has never seemed like a surrealist/absurdist and it doesn't ring true here either. So it's difficult to say why the quirky touches are there except that Romero was aiming for metaphor and allegory. But that aspect doesn't work, either, because he tends to bash you over the head with his metaphors. They're so obvious and advertised that they no longer function as metaphors, but just a very incoherent script.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about above. Creedlow works for a magazine named Bruiser. Yet, it's a fashion magazine. Why is there a fashion magazine named Bruiser? Who would buy that? We're never told. I figured that maybe it was going to be the last name of the publisher, Milo (Peter Stormare). It wasn't, his last name is Styles (wouldn't that guy in that industry name his magazine "Styles" in that case?). If Bruiser had been Milo's last name, that would have made it nicely ironic, but still sellable in the context of the story. It's probably still supposed to be ironic, and a commentary on the fashion/beauty industries. But it's too in-your-face to work the way it's presented. Additionally, we spend a lot of time at the magazine--in the offices, with the publisher, with other employees in various social situations--so why don't we learn more about the magazine and the personalities involved in it? All we know is that there's a fashion magazine named Bruiser, and they pick out cover models by hanging a number of pictures on a lightboard and "voting". That's it.
Another example: Stormare is extremely annoying as Milo. He's supposed to be over-the-top and annoying, but it's too ridiculous to work, unless intended as comedy (it isn't, and it isn't particularly funny unintentionally, either) or absurdism, but remember that Romero isn't really an absurdist so it seems inauthentic as that. Obviously, we have to see Milo as one of the primary villains and that's why Romero has Stormare play the part this way. Instead, I saw Romero as one of the primary villains for his direction; he should have reeled Stormare in. It also made me hate Creedlow instead, because he should have killed Milo in the beginning, at the meeting (if the film would have more followed Creedlow's fantasizing, Romero might have had something).
There are also many examples in the details. For example, why does Creedlow walk to his train station in the middle of the street? Is he trying to get hit by a car? Or, why would anyone have a party where they make masks that are like those awful 1980s porcelain-white, featureless wall hangings, and then ask guests to paint them? It takes awhile to paint something, it takes supplies, etc. What kind of party would that be and why do we only see one person (Creedlow) working on it? Again, this is instead a heavy handed metaphor, but ridiculous for that. There must be better ways to show people putting on false public faces at social events.
For that matter, Henry's facelessness was just as heavy-handed. The production design, with the unfinished house, served the same purpose and was much more subtle and effective. Why not just stick with it, or come up with something less ridiculous? Probably Romero figured we wouldn't pick up on the metaphors if they weren't advertised in neon. We're not idiots, George.
Even Tom Atkins ended up annoying me, because he was mired in all of these garish metaphorical non-sequiturs (the "masquerade party" of the climax really irritated me). If I end up not liking Atkins, something is seriously wrong.
Although Bruiser turns into a thriller with a number of death scenes, these are poorly staged, with minimalist effects. Probably Romero was trying to distance himself from his past work. With the exception of the maid, most of the death scenes are lame and relatively bloodless. Yet the film still got an R. At least give us something more visceral to make up for the awful script. Horror fans, with their past support, enabled Romero to make Bruiser. Don't just tease us and walk away.
- BrandtSponseller
- Apr 1, 2005
- Permalink
But not in the way we were led to suspect from the packaging. If you believe the box, Bruiser is a thrilling joy ride from acclaimed director Romero, or something like that.
What Bruiser really is is psychological melodrama/thriller, mixed in with some wicked black comedy. Jason Flemying is excellent as Henry, and Stormare surprised me incredibly as the flamboyant, bad-ass publisher of the in-movie magazine, entitled (what else?) "Bruiser."
I've grown used to seeing character actor Stormare in character roles, usually benign or slightly creepy (Dancer In The Dark, Million Dollar Hotel), and Flemying as vaguely menacing (Lock,, Stock; From Hell), but here both actors play against their normal image to reveal great depths of skill...both are totally believable in their roles, which adds a lot to the film.
For those who know nothing about it...Flemying plays a mag exec who is downtrodden and stomped on by nearly everybody...Romero really makes you feel the depths of Hell this poor guy's in. One day, he wakes up to find that his face has been replaced by a featurless white mask...what does this say about his identity? Who IS this faceless man?
Over the rest of the film, Flemying and Romero explore the subject ruthlessly (with plenty of violence, of course, because, well, this is George Romero here)...and the viewer is left with a conundrum similar to the end of a Lynch film: Did this happen? And if it happened, well...what next?
For lovers of challenging film, this one is a keeper....bizarre, disturbing, and ultimately meaningful, this is Blue Velvet's benign nephew. Go see it or rent it ASAP.
What Bruiser really is is psychological melodrama/thriller, mixed in with some wicked black comedy. Jason Flemying is excellent as Henry, and Stormare surprised me incredibly as the flamboyant, bad-ass publisher of the in-movie magazine, entitled (what else?) "Bruiser."
I've grown used to seeing character actor Stormare in character roles, usually benign or slightly creepy (Dancer In The Dark, Million Dollar Hotel), and Flemying as vaguely menacing (Lock,, Stock; From Hell), but here both actors play against their normal image to reveal great depths of skill...both are totally believable in their roles, which adds a lot to the film.
For those who know nothing about it...Flemying plays a mag exec who is downtrodden and stomped on by nearly everybody...Romero really makes you feel the depths of Hell this poor guy's in. One day, he wakes up to find that his face has been replaced by a featurless white mask...what does this say about his identity? Who IS this faceless man?
Over the rest of the film, Flemying and Romero explore the subject ruthlessly (with plenty of violence, of course, because, well, this is George Romero here)...and the viewer is left with a conundrum similar to the end of a Lynch film: Did this happen? And if it happened, well...what next?
For lovers of challenging film, this one is a keeper....bizarre, disturbing, and ultimately meaningful, this is Blue Velvet's benign nephew. Go see it or rent it ASAP.
George Romero has been remarkably inconsistent over the years, and BRUISER (unfortunately) points up one of his greatest flaws: he is overindulgent. (Even the highly-touted DAWN OF THE DEAD -the film for which he will be remembered when he's gone, it seems- suffers from this overindulgence.) BRUISER gets off to a slow and somewhat pedestrian start (the script is surprisingly derivative) and never seems to build any momentum whatsoever; it plods along at a snail's pace and even the "acts of retribution" lack any real power. Missing is the visceral violence upon which Romero's (deserved) reputation is based. It seems here that he's trying to somehow "rise above" his reputation as a gore meister- at the very moment he needed to push the envelope. Bad casting helps hurt this film as well; the lead has all the charisma of a wooden dummy. When he washes his face down the drain, all that's left is his personality... which he never had in the first place. Romero, while not a prolific filmmaker, has often done interesting work precisely because he's not part of the mainstream (I refer you to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, THE CRAZIES, KNIGHTRIDERS, and MARTIN), and I'm willing to bet he'll do even more interesting movies in the future. BRUISER, sad to say, isn't one of them.
Henry Creedlow is a businessman who's dead inside (knowing George Romero, he's probably dead inside because he's a product of "capitalistic society" or some such nonsense). One day he loses everything, including his face. Now a blank slate, he feels free to kill anyone who has wronged him in the past. Romero hasn't had a really decent move since 1982's "Creepshow", and his bad luck or awful tastes or what have you doesn't seem to get any better with this silly little turd of a movie. The only one who has any sort of chemistry in this film is...wait, no they all suck equally. Don't waste your time, you have too little left to waste.
Eye Candy: Nina Garbiras, Marie Cruz, and Kiran Friesan get topless
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Commentary by director George A Romero; and Misfits music video
Easter Egg: Click on the Lion's Gate logo for a Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "O", and "Faust: Love of the Damned"
Eye Candy: Nina Garbiras, Marie Cruz, and Kiran Friesan get topless
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Commentary by director George A Romero; and Misfits music video
Easter Egg: Click on the Lion's Gate logo for a Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "O", and "Faust: Love of the Damned"
- movieman_kev
- Aug 23, 2005
- Permalink
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.
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.
- rundbauchdodo
- Jun 17, 2001
- Permalink
Bruiser is a very good Thriller,it has some very funny moments & some weird moments!!! It's abit like American Psycho or reminded me of that film anyway as the main guy Jason Flemyng in an excellent performance as a bored frustrated business man who fantasizes about killing people & standing up for himself,these are people that piss him off or anger him & that is all ok & fun but what really stands out here is the end part the 3rd act at the big fancy dress Party that is all Awesome & fun, but TOM ATKINS is why i brought this film on dvd that is why i tracked it down lol as always TOM ATKINS the icon of cult movies & Horror is perfectly cast as a rugged tough cop (he was born to play that part) & once again like he always does tom steals the show & the film is so much BETTER just by having his presence in it other wise the movie would be still good But Atkins lifts it up & makes it a excellent instead of dull or routine so thank you again TOM ATKINS u tha man & Romero is a good director so Bruiser is actually a fun little Thriller it's very good just not great at first but it does grow on you if you watch it a few times like i did & now i TRULY see how excellent this movie is & how well made & relevant this movie is still today.
Also Bruiser has an old school crime Thriller feel to it & this is made clear with old jazz music in the score like an old Noir detective Thriller & with the added like i said brilliant Tom Atkins as the old school style detective who calls women dames!!! Very old style & very much like a pulp crime caper from the 40's it's actually alot of fun & has old school charm,nice to see a Romero film about something different like finding your identity & standing up for yourself & that's what makes Bruiser fun as it's so different & sometimes because of it's pulpy nature feels abit like a vigilante hero movie like The Shadow (1994)!!! Good weird pulpy fun that's really well directed by legendary Romero R. I. P An underrated underappreciated cult classic gem.
Also Bruiser has an old school crime Thriller feel to it & this is made clear with old jazz music in the score like an old Noir detective Thriller & with the added like i said brilliant Tom Atkins as the old school style detective who calls women dames!!! Very old style & very much like a pulp crime caper from the 40's it's actually alot of fun & has old school charm,nice to see a Romero film about something different like finding your identity & standing up for yourself & that's what makes Bruiser fun as it's so different & sometimes because of it's pulpy nature feels abit like a vigilante hero movie like The Shadow (1994)!!! Good weird pulpy fun that's really well directed by legendary Romero R. I. P An underrated underappreciated cult classic gem.
- lukem-52760
- Jul 21, 2018
- Permalink
A film about a man's faceless identity can be fascinating if done well...alas, this film is not one of those...
When I first heard about this movie being made I had high hopes. When I discovered it at my local cult video store I was wary when I realized it had never been released on the big screen. But I rented it anyway, hoping for the best...after all this is a film by one of my favorite directors, the wildly uneven George Romero, maker of the fantastic "Night" and "Dawn of the Dead" movies. Director of the very good "Martin", "the Crazies" and Monkeyshines." Unfortunately, while Romero has made his share of classics he has made more than a few terrible films -- "Day of the Dead", "Two Evil Eyes", "Creepshow" and "Season of the Witch" all come to mind. I'm sure there have been a few I'm leaving out.
This film is unbelievably bad. It is a comic book come to life filled with unrealistic dialogue, terrible, over-the-top acting and impossible scenes that make little sense. Read the plot from some of the other reviews. Take the glowing praise you read with a grain of salt, however, and don't rent this. Read a book or see the original "Night of the Living Dead" instead.
3/10.
When I first heard about this movie being made I had high hopes. When I discovered it at my local cult video store I was wary when I realized it had never been released on the big screen. But I rented it anyway, hoping for the best...after all this is a film by one of my favorite directors, the wildly uneven George Romero, maker of the fantastic "Night" and "Dawn of the Dead" movies. Director of the very good "Martin", "the Crazies" and Monkeyshines." Unfortunately, while Romero has made his share of classics he has made more than a few terrible films -- "Day of the Dead", "Two Evil Eyes", "Creepshow" and "Season of the Witch" all come to mind. I'm sure there have been a few I'm leaving out.
This film is unbelievably bad. It is a comic book come to life filled with unrealistic dialogue, terrible, over-the-top acting and impossible scenes that make little sense. Read the plot from some of the other reviews. Take the glowing praise you read with a grain of salt, however, and don't rent this. Read a book or see the original "Night of the Living Dead" instead.
3/10.
"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 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 ****
- marc_hendriks_2000
- Dec 23, 2000
- Permalink
Aside from this being another well written and well directed film by Mr. Romero, having Tom Atkins (Night of the Creeps, Halloween 3) and The Misfits (The Michale Graves Era Misfits) makes this movie so much more cooler. The story follows the main character who even as a adult is still greatly picked on and belittled. He wakes up one morning without a face and decides to go after those who have wronged him. Call it a revenge film if you want, I call it fun.
If you watch the DVD of Bruiser, be sure to watch the music video Romero directed for The Misfits. All the Misfits are zombies and are attacking a hospital. Very cool.
If you watch the DVD of Bruiser, be sure to watch the music video Romero directed for The Misfits. All the Misfits are zombies and are attacking a hospital. Very cool.
- danhainfit
- Nov 8, 2007
- Permalink
so that watching this piece of tripe might have been less painful. Then again, I would have had to listen to the dialogue.
Speaking of which, GAR needs to stop reading Mickey Spillane when it comes to cop dialogue. "Dame"? "Cup of joe"? Those references went out in, uh, 1955.
The concept of the doormat-cum-revenge seeker is fine, but the delivery just plain sucks. For example, the first kill is the maid, and made no sense whatsoever...it's even her first scene! There's no prior information that she's been stealing or anything, yet the first thing we hear is her loudly throwing silverware into a bag. Riiight. And she doesn't fit the mold of the next victims...all of whom have been deceitful and cheating for years.
Next is this mask thing he's supposed to be wearing. Dumb. There can be other, better ways a person can lose his identity.
And the relationship with Rosie. Wha? How did that happen? Where did it come from? There's nothing is the supposed backstory that shows why she would even give him the time of day, plus it does little for the overall story plot.
And the death scene of the Overacted Czech. A death laser. Sure. I guess it was nothing more than a stupid scene to a fantastically stupid movie.
Speaking of which, GAR needs to stop reading Mickey Spillane when it comes to cop dialogue. "Dame"? "Cup of joe"? Those references went out in, uh, 1955.
The concept of the doormat-cum-revenge seeker is fine, but the delivery just plain sucks. For example, the first kill is the maid, and made no sense whatsoever...it's even her first scene! There's no prior information that she's been stealing or anything, yet the first thing we hear is her loudly throwing silverware into a bag. Riiight. And she doesn't fit the mold of the next victims...all of whom have been deceitful and cheating for years.
Next is this mask thing he's supposed to be wearing. Dumb. There can be other, better ways a person can lose his identity.
And the relationship with Rosie. Wha? How did that happen? Where did it come from? There's nothing is the supposed backstory that shows why she would even give him the time of day, plus it does little for the overall story plot.
And the death scene of the Overacted Czech. A death laser. Sure. I guess it was nothing more than a stupid scene to a fantastically stupid movie.
- lschollmeyer
- Apr 11, 2002
- Permalink
great film from this modern master. he cleverly slices in social commentary about a man that loses his identity only to take revenge on those who have perpetually wronged him his entire life. a definite must see for anyone that has enjoyed romeros other work. this film is also chock full of black humor which bites the viewer and adds to the incredible feel of the movie.
- davealmost
- Aug 11, 2000
- Permalink
This film is not one of George Romero's best. Anyone expecting to see a film of Night of the Living Dead's quality will be extremely disappointed. Bruiser focuses on an odd story of the whiniest serial killer of all time. The main character never misses an opportunity to remind the audience of how mean everyone is to him. Unfortunately, all of the other characters in this movie are equally or even more unlikeable. Even the dog is unlikeable!
Bruiser mainly distinguishes itself from other movies through the use of the white mask. Rather than being unique or interesting, this gimmick comes off as weird and dorky. It also gives Romero another opportunity to symbolize the dangers of not being seen or respected by society. While a few interesting murders happen throughout the film, it's not enough to make up for the unlikeable characters and weird plot. This movie is possibly the worst of Romero's distinguished career. 3/10
Pros and Cons Summary
+Some interesting deaths
+Professionally produced and directed
-Incredibly unlikeable characters
-The mask gimmick is dorky
-Bad pacing in the second half of the movie.
Bruiser mainly distinguishes itself from other movies through the use of the white mask. Rather than being unique or interesting, this gimmick comes off as weird and dorky. It also gives Romero another opportunity to symbolize the dangers of not being seen or respected by society. While a few interesting murders happen throughout the film, it's not enough to make up for the unlikeable characters and weird plot. This movie is possibly the worst of Romero's distinguished career. 3/10
Pros and Cons Summary
+Some interesting deaths
+Professionally produced and directed
-Incredibly unlikeable characters
-The mask gimmick is dorky
-Bad pacing in the second half of the movie.
- kstice-25195
- Aug 28, 2021
- Permalink
Bruiser is interesting in that it shows that George Romero can venture outside the horror realm and still succeed. I enjoyed Bruiser, whereas most couldn't stand it. I thought it was good from start to finish. The acting was probably the best for a Romero film EVER. The violence wasn't as graphic as other Romero films, and somehow I feel that's what a lot of people were expecting. I didn't even look at this film as a horror, more of a social commentary, which seems a little too overwrought but it still works in the "Falling Down" sense. Therefore I place Bruiser and Falling Down in the same category. 7 out of 10. Serious horror fans proceed with caution, because this may actually make you think!
- hohumdedum2
- Nov 11, 2003
- Permalink
- CitizenCaine
- Jan 13, 2004
- Permalink
Writer and Director:George A. Romero nearly hits the bull's eye with this Clever darkly funny thriller. Henry Creedlow (Jason Flemyng), who has been always a nice guy sees that things are slowly changing around him. Herny has doubts about his cold hearted wife (Nina Garbiras), his best friend (Andrew Tarbet) and his sleazy overbearing boss (Peter Stormare). The only person that Herny truly finds as a sympathetic friend is the boss' wife (Leslie Hope).
Henry also has doubts about his job and his personal life. In just one morning like any other day for Henry. He wakes up with a new face that is completely white and almost emotionless and he thinks that it is only a mask on his face or only a dream. But then he finds out it is for real. Stripped of everything he has, including his identity. Henry takes all of his frustrations by going out on a bloody rampage. He is set to murder those who have betrayed him like his wife, a close friend and especially his boss.
This was Romero's last film until the upcoming long awaited Zombie film "Land of the Dead". This latest feature will be coming out this summer. Romero has not made a film since the Underrated "The Dark Half" (1993). In "Bruiser", Romero shows a unique style to this film and it looks totally different than most of his pictures. The only real fault in Bruiser is the last 20 minutes of the film should have ended more compellingly. However it is closer to the original premise that Romero wanted to film. It is still a very good and very underrated film.
Sadly, this independent production never received a Theatrical Release in North America but been released instead in Europe. It got released to video instead and received an Cult Following. What made this film work is the difficult lead role of Flemyng. His performance is extremely good and he adds depth with an amusing sense of humour. Simply because Flemyng gives a terrific performance. Stormare gives an amusing over the top performance as the film's unsuspected villain. Tom Atkins (Which Atkins worked with Romero before in bit parts in "Creepshow" and "Two Evil Eyes") are also star in the Film. Even Romero's Family appears in Cameos, including his wife (Christine Forrest Romero), His Daughter (Tina) and His Son (Andrew).
This film maybe be flawed at times (Because the film never really fully explained the curse of Herny's.) Still, the film packs a certain punch. It is certainly one of his most Unusual films along with "Martin" and "Knightriders". One of the film's highlights are seeing The Punk Horror Rock Band:The Misfits appears as Themselves at the Climax and the film features a Good jazzy music score by Donald Rubinstein.
DVD has an fine anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an good:Dolby 2.0 Stereo Surround Sound. DVD extras are an running commentary by the director and producer:Peter Grunwald, a music video by the Misfits and trailers. The film may be far from Romero's best films but it is nice to see Romero directed another film in years. Let's just hope his latest film "Land of the Dead" will be a huge hit and big comeback for Romero. Bruiser is worth a look. (*** ½/*****).
Henry also has doubts about his job and his personal life. In just one morning like any other day for Henry. He wakes up with a new face that is completely white and almost emotionless and he thinks that it is only a mask on his face or only a dream. But then he finds out it is for real. Stripped of everything he has, including his identity. Henry takes all of his frustrations by going out on a bloody rampage. He is set to murder those who have betrayed him like his wife, a close friend and especially his boss.
This was Romero's last film until the upcoming long awaited Zombie film "Land of the Dead". This latest feature will be coming out this summer. Romero has not made a film since the Underrated "The Dark Half" (1993). In "Bruiser", Romero shows a unique style to this film and it looks totally different than most of his pictures. The only real fault in Bruiser is the last 20 minutes of the film should have ended more compellingly. However it is closer to the original premise that Romero wanted to film. It is still a very good and very underrated film.
Sadly, this independent production never received a Theatrical Release in North America but been released instead in Europe. It got released to video instead and received an Cult Following. What made this film work is the difficult lead role of Flemyng. His performance is extremely good and he adds depth with an amusing sense of humour. Simply because Flemyng gives a terrific performance. Stormare gives an amusing over the top performance as the film's unsuspected villain. Tom Atkins (Which Atkins worked with Romero before in bit parts in "Creepshow" and "Two Evil Eyes") are also star in the Film. Even Romero's Family appears in Cameos, including his wife (Christine Forrest Romero), His Daughter (Tina) and His Son (Andrew).
This film maybe be flawed at times (Because the film never really fully explained the curse of Herny's.) Still, the film packs a certain punch. It is certainly one of his most Unusual films along with "Martin" and "Knightriders". One of the film's highlights are seeing The Punk Horror Rock Band:The Misfits appears as Themselves at the Climax and the film features a Good jazzy music score by Donald Rubinstein.
DVD has an fine anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an good:Dolby 2.0 Stereo Surround Sound. DVD extras are an running commentary by the director and producer:Peter Grunwald, a music video by the Misfits and trailers. The film may be far from Romero's best films but it is nice to see Romero directed another film in years. Let's just hope his latest film "Land of the Dead" will be a huge hit and big comeback for Romero. Bruiser is worth a look. (*** ½/*****).
Henry Creedlow (Jason Flemyng) is a weak-willed businessman who wakes up in the morning, and goes through his usual routine, doing things like showering, shaving, and brushing his teeth. He then puts a gun to his head and shoots himself... a fatal act he merely imagined. Henry is married to a high-strung, contemptuous wife , Janine (Nina Garbiras) who seems indifferent to Henry. Henry is picked up by his best friend, Jimmy Larson (Andrew Tarbet), where they drive to a their office. Jason at work is mistreated by the demanding, dishonest and reprehensible boss, Miles Styles (Peter Stormare), who mocks Henry's choice in front of him and his co-workers. Henry talks with Miles' wife Rosie (Leslie Hope), who works at the magazine as the lead photographer, and she is the only person who is casually nice to Henry. All of them push to the edge of sanity Henry around, but he never stands up for himself. That is, until the day that he wakes up to a blank white mask. Being 'Faceless' allows Henry to assert himself, he then settling scores and get vengeance. Meet the new face of terror !. Revenge has no face !. A fiend without a face !. If looks could kill !. Terror is Faceless !.
First film from horror icon George A, Romero in more of eight years offers a great central premise -after years of being tread upon and cheated on, a man awakens to find his face has a been replaced by a blank, white mask- but little else. George A. Romero told about 'Bruiser' that it wasn't just a terror film but more of a story of a man who is going through difficulties in his life. The film is a little bit boring and plenty of many unlikable roles, the worst of which is starring Henry. The last act is simply ridiculous and one can't help but wonder what has happened to the once great Romero. The main and support cast give functional interpretations. Jason Fleming is acceptable as a nice guy who gets used by everyone around him, Nina Garbiras is very beautiful as his cheating wife , while Peter Stormare overacting as his overbearing and vile stock broker. Along with other fine secondaries, such as: Leslie Hope, Andrew Tarbet, Jonathan Higgins, Jeff Monahan and Tom Atkins as police inspector who investigates weird murders.
There's an adequate cinematography by cameraman Adam Swica . As well as intriguing and atmospheric musical score by cameraman Donald Rubinstein, adding songs from The Misfits, a horror-punk band from New Jersey, that previously in 1999 George A. Romero had shot a videoclip titled: The Misfits: Scream!. The motion picture was unevenly and professionally directed by George A. Romero. Being George A. Romero's first film after ¨The Dark Half¨, after, in turn, an 8 year hiatus from filmmaking and first film of George A. Romero that wasn't part of the Living Dead series. Romero's first big hit was one of the most celebrated American horror films of all time, the classic ¨Night of the Living Dead¨ (1968). This chiller belongs to Romero trilogy formed by "Night of Living Dead" 1968 with Duane Jones , "Dawn of the Dead" 1978 and "Day of the dead" 1985 in which scientists experimenting on Zombies , while the fiesh eating zombies taking over the World . Romero's next films were a little more low-key but less successful, including ¨The Affair¨ (1971), ¨The Crazies¨ (1973), ¨Season of the Witch¨ (1972) (where he met future wife and screenwriter Christine Forrest) and ¨Martin¨ (1977). The success of "Dawn of the Dead" led to bigger budgets and better casts for the filmmaker. First was ¨Knightriders¨ (1981), where he first worked with an up-and-coming Ed Harris. Then came perhaps his most Hollywood-like film, ¨Creepshow¨ (1982), which marked the first--but not the last--time Romero adapted a work by famed horror novelist Stephen King. With many major stars and big-studio distribution, it was a moderate success and spawned a sequel, which was also written by Romero. The decline of Romero's career came in the late 1980s. His last widely-released film was the next "Dead" film, ¨Day of the Dead¨ (1985). Derided by critics, it did not take in much at the box office, either. His latest two efforts were ¨The Dark Half¨ (1993) (another Stephen King adaptation) and ¨Bruiser¨ (2000). While ¨Land of dead (2005)¨, a high budget played by Simon Baker,Asia Argento and Dennis Hooper, was another modern rendition on the Zombie world. Bruiser (2000) rating: 6/10. A so-so but passable film, only for George A. Romero fans and completists of his notorious career.
First film from horror icon George A, Romero in more of eight years offers a great central premise -after years of being tread upon and cheated on, a man awakens to find his face has a been replaced by a blank, white mask- but little else. George A. Romero told about 'Bruiser' that it wasn't just a terror film but more of a story of a man who is going through difficulties in his life. The film is a little bit boring and plenty of many unlikable roles, the worst of which is starring Henry. The last act is simply ridiculous and one can't help but wonder what has happened to the once great Romero. The main and support cast give functional interpretations. Jason Fleming is acceptable as a nice guy who gets used by everyone around him, Nina Garbiras is very beautiful as his cheating wife , while Peter Stormare overacting as his overbearing and vile stock broker. Along with other fine secondaries, such as: Leslie Hope, Andrew Tarbet, Jonathan Higgins, Jeff Monahan and Tom Atkins as police inspector who investigates weird murders.
There's an adequate cinematography by cameraman Adam Swica . As well as intriguing and atmospheric musical score by cameraman Donald Rubinstein, adding songs from The Misfits, a horror-punk band from New Jersey, that previously in 1999 George A. Romero had shot a videoclip titled: The Misfits: Scream!. The motion picture was unevenly and professionally directed by George A. Romero. Being George A. Romero's first film after ¨The Dark Half¨, after, in turn, an 8 year hiatus from filmmaking and first film of George A. Romero that wasn't part of the Living Dead series. Romero's first big hit was one of the most celebrated American horror films of all time, the classic ¨Night of the Living Dead¨ (1968). This chiller belongs to Romero trilogy formed by "Night of Living Dead" 1968 with Duane Jones , "Dawn of the Dead" 1978 and "Day of the dead" 1985 in which scientists experimenting on Zombies , while the fiesh eating zombies taking over the World . Romero's next films were a little more low-key but less successful, including ¨The Affair¨ (1971), ¨The Crazies¨ (1973), ¨Season of the Witch¨ (1972) (where he met future wife and screenwriter Christine Forrest) and ¨Martin¨ (1977). The success of "Dawn of the Dead" led to bigger budgets and better casts for the filmmaker. First was ¨Knightriders¨ (1981), where he first worked with an up-and-coming Ed Harris. Then came perhaps his most Hollywood-like film, ¨Creepshow¨ (1982), which marked the first--but not the last--time Romero adapted a work by famed horror novelist Stephen King. With many major stars and big-studio distribution, it was a moderate success and spawned a sequel, which was also written by Romero. The decline of Romero's career came in the late 1980s. His last widely-released film was the next "Dead" film, ¨Day of the Dead¨ (1985). Derided by critics, it did not take in much at the box office, either. His latest two efforts were ¨The Dark Half¨ (1993) (another Stephen King adaptation) and ¨Bruiser¨ (2000). While ¨Land of dead (2005)¨, a high budget played by Simon Baker,Asia Argento and Dennis Hooper, was another modern rendition on the Zombie world. Bruiser (2000) rating: 6/10. A so-so but passable film, only for George A. Romero fans and completists of his notorious career.
Romero has been on the downward slope since "Creepshow." With this one he just sails off the cliff. This certainly isn't frightening or suspenseful. And it doesn't make any relevant social points that it is so desperately trying to. Peter Stromyre's performance is legendary in its badness. Romero has to seriously rethink what he's trying to do, because this is an indication of a writer/director completely lost.