Bruiser (2001) Dir:  George A. Romero Cast:  Jason Flemying, Peter Stormare, Leslie Hope, Nina Garbiras, Andrew Tarbet, Tom Atkins Rated R, Approx:  99 minutes A Lion's Gate Entertainment Release DVD

"Revenge Has No Face."

It's Classic Romero in this Allegorical Revenge Flick...

Up until Lion's Gate finally released this title to DVD, George Romero had been away from filmmaking for far too long (his last feature was 1993's The Dark Half).  Filmed in 1999 and shelved until the US video distribution in 2001, the lack of a theatrical release was just one of the many injustices Mr. Romero's latest piece has suffered.  Panned by critics and moviegoers alike, if you believe all the bad press, Bruiser is an unwatchable piece of garbage.   Thankfully, you're a little more open minded or you wouldn't be reading this critique, yes?  The general consensus of fans is that George just seems tired, but I think a lot of people are missing the boat.  I'm obviously in the minority here, but I feel that Bruiser has endured an almost criminal amount of flack for no good reason.  Romero isn't necessarily interested in treading familiar territory (even each individual film in the director's "Dead" series is considerably different), and while his latest film may explore themes that the director previously has explored (especially in Martin and the underrated Jack's Wife) Bruiser isn't just a rehashed amalgamation of old ideas.  It's a fascinating and endlessly compelling story as simple or as complex as you want to make it.  It's a story of revenge on the surface but much more than that, it's an interesting study of identity in this modern age of materialism.

This is the story of Henry Creedlow (Jason Flemying), a moderately successful businessman living what appears to be "the good life" at first glance.  Married to a gorgeous wife (Nina Garbiras), working for a successful fashion magazine and owning a large home are all attributes of Creedlow's life.  Beneath the surface however Creedlow isn't much more than a pushover floor mat.  Burdened by a constantly nagging wife ("I fucked my way to the bottom."  She tells him), a best friend (Andrew Tarbet) who steals money from his investments at every turn and a boss (Peter Stormare) who merely gets off on the notion of having so many people work for him, Henry's life could be better.  He isn't overly happy, he fantasizes about killing himself as he gets ready for his daily grind and drifts into violent revenge fantasies throughout the day whenever someone pisses him off.  Regardless of his inner feelings, Henry is too gentle and permits just about anyone to stomp all over him.  The last straw snaps when he witnesses his wife and boss indulging in a sexual act.  Henry is plunged into a state of anonymity when he awakens the next morning without a face.  His features are obscured by a blank white visage.  Now separated from the confines of consequence (no face, no identity), Henry transforms from the gentle 'nice guy' into a faceless murderer who takes a therapeutic revenge on those who have ground him down.

Bruiser is Romero at the top of his game and the story of Henry Creedlow is an exceptionally interesting one.   Comparisons between this and American Psycho have arisen and while both films may be thematically similar, they're also quite different in their mission statements.  Whereas American Psycho takes a hysterical look at the soulless, shallow belly of corporate America, Romero's film is very much a 'psychological cleansing' for its main character.  Perhaps one could argue that this film is set within the world of Bret Easton Ellis' story as both films provide darkly funny, exaggerated send-ups of the yuppie way of life.  In Bruiser Romero displays a plethora of reprehensible characters that aren't the fully fleshed out, rather they're delicious archetypal amplifications.  The fact that Henry's boss is obsessed with sex and money and thusly may appear as a shallow one dimensional character is not so much a flaw on the part of Romero's writing, but rather a heavy handed way hammering the point home.   Henry's wife and best friend also succumb to this notion; the cheating wife and scheming chum play more as examples of what exactly Creedlow is rebelling against than actual characters in the story.

As Creedlow embarks on his quest for revenge, he finds solace in his boss' wife Rosemary (Leslie Hope), the only character in the story that displays any real respect for Henry.  Romero draws interesting parallels between Henry and Rosemary (as a hobby she actually makes blank life masks-like the one Henry's face has become), as both characters are essentially prisoners of their immediate surroundings.  He's trapped in his shallow lifestyle whereas she is stuck in the rut of a thankless marriage.  Both characters seem content to wallow in their environments until one finally takes action.  With his spree Henry forges not only a new life for himself (and Rosemary for that matter), but his revenge begins to act as a sort of gratifying self-help process for him.

American Apathy?

Bruiser raises several interesting questions about the presented material.  In a vein similar to Martin, it's unclear as to whether or not the blank visage is simply a psychological hallucination on Henry's part (which would explain why the character dons a blank mask over his non-existent face in the final half), or some sort of unexplainable phenomenon.  Just as audiences are still debating the authenticity of Martin’s main character some 25 years later, this is just as ambiguous on the same level.  Much more than a contemplative Death Wish (as some critics have cited), Romero makes his statement about the current state of American society with this film.  It's on display everywhere in Bruiser:  a radio call in program which exploits the suicide of a caller, the aforementioned sleaze ball characters concerned simply with sex and power and finally the finale where a masquerade ball disintegrates into nothing more than a bizarre and sleazy freak show (if that's not a comment on society all unto itself, I don't know what is!), this is vintage Romero from start to finish..

A strong cast enhances the biting material

To accent the interesting ideas in the script, Romero stacks the cast with a group of excellent performances.  It's really hard to dislike Jason Flemyng as Henry; he makes the character an extremely likable and sympathetic one.  In Henry, Romero has created a character that I believe anyone can identify with and Flemyng puts a lot of life into the part.  As the villain of the film, Peter Stormare's Milo is hilariously over the top.  The intended shallowness of the character is blatant allowing for Storemare to run wild with the part.  It's damn near impossible not to laugh as Stormare takes the part and turns him into a reprehensible caricature.  Some have chided the performance for grating on the nerves but I couldn't disagree more.  He connects with the material and steals a great number of scenes he's in.  As Milo's unhappy wife, Leslie Hope is a sympathetic heroine even though her character isn't the major focus of the story.  Genre fans will certainly be pleased to see the presence of Tom Atkins in this film.  While Atkins has the role of (what else?) a grizzled detective searching for the 'faceless' killer, it turns out to be a memorable role in what would've surely been a thankless part in the hands of almost any other actor.

The supporting cast does a good job of backing up the leads and there's even a great appearance by the punk band The Misfits (Romero directed an excellent music video for their song 'Scream' around the time this film was made; the video is available on the DVD) towards the end of the film.  Set at a grotesque costume ball (which was originally intended to be an isolated island in the original script according to Romero's DVD commentary track), the Misfits seems right at home amongst the freakish party goers and really add to the atmosphere.

This film also serves as an example of the state in which the film industry is currently in. When such a complex and fascinating piece such as this can not only be denied a theatrical release but receive an overwhelming plethora of scathing reviews and go largely ignored by not only the horror genre, but mover goers in general it's hard to not be repulsed.  What's refreshing and admirable about Romero though is to see that he's maintained his integrity throughout the years.  He's never changed his underlying style for the benefit of making a film more 'accessible'.   He's made films as consistently interesting as any talented filmmaker working today and it's a crime that his latest offering goes squeaking by without fanfare.  Anyone looking for a film that requires and rewards multiple viewings should give this picture a fighting chance.  It doesn't necessarily demand repeat viewings, but I can't help but enjoy the film more with each watch.  While I don't want to compare it with his previous works such as Night of the Living Dead, Martin or Knightriders, I don't have any trouble saying that Bruiser easily holds its own against anything the director has done.  A work as thoughtful and interesting as any in George's cannon, it's not the example of the director's fleeting abilities as some have proclaimed but rather the opposite.  It's a showcase for Romero's surviving abilities.  They've survived intact and with any luck, we won't have to wait another eight years for Romero's next film, in this market saturated with thoughtless garbage, Romero is still making films as he was back in 1968, ones that will be appreciated and studied for years to come.

Matt's Rating: * * * *  out of 5 Reviewed by Matt serafini  5/22/02