George A. Romero’s ‘Bruiser’ (2000): A Disappointing Detour in the Master’s Filmography

by

#11 in my ranking of George A. Romero’s filmography.

George Romero waited eight years after “The Dark Half” to make his next film, which was later released directly on video. This is somewhat disappointing, but the movie itself isn’t particularly great. It has an intriguing concept and visual elements at its core, but the narrative lacks structure and focus, squandering opportunities that would have made it more effective. The film seems to have lost direction early in production, as if Romero didn’t shoot enough footage or, by the time he reached the editing room, was simply trimming the movie to its absolute minimum length to secure any release at all. It does have some impactful scenes and its fractured themes are somewhat intriguing, so it’s not a complete waste of time. At least there’s something there.

Henry (Jason Flemyng) works at the magazine Bruiser, owned by the flamboyant Russian immigrant Milo (Peter Stormare). Henry’s life isn’t going so well – his wife, Janine (Nina Garbiras), is dissatisfied and they live in an unfinished mansion due to a lack of funds. His investments, managed by friend Jimmy (Andrew Tarbet), aren’t yielding the desired results. At work, Henry’s career advancement seems stagnant, possibly because he’s friends with Milo’s ex-wife Rosie (Leslie Hope). Janine is frustrated with their lack of progress and begins an affair with Milo at a barbeque he throws for his employees. During this event, everyone creates face molds and paints masks from them. After a heated argument with Janine, Henry goes to bed angry. The next morning, he wakes up with a white mask permanently attached to his face, which turns out to be his own face as it bleeds when he tries to remove it.

In simpler terms, the story revolves around Henry accusing Janine of stealing his identity. The main theme is that Henry is insignificant, and the mask symbolizes this insignificance. However, as the movie progresses (particularly when we reach its conclusion), it seems like the mask, the key visual element in the film, appears to have been given less thought.

The main theme of the story revolves around the protagonist, Henry, asserting himself in the end. However, this is complicated by the excessive violence he displays throughout the narrative. He ends up killing several individuals for various reasons, yet it seems these deaths are unwarranted or disproportionate to their actions. Consequently, Henry appears to be a villain, but the filmmaker seems to encourage empathy towards him as he’s portrayed as a tormented individual overwhelmed by life. This contrast is intriguing, especially considering that in movies like ‘Falling Down’, Michael Douglas grapples with his transformation into a wrongdoer. In ‘Bruiser’, though, it appears neither the film nor Henry acknowledge this transformation into a monstrous figure.

A standout moment is when Henry claims his first victim – a mysterious housecleaner who appears seemingly out of nowhere and without any prior connection to the story or other characters. She stealthily takes small items like silver and money, prompting Henry to react violently by killing her. The question of justification arises, but it’s not clear-cut. As the movie progresses, this woman is never mentioned again, and Henry never seems to be held accountable for his actions. Throughout the film, he emerges as a complex character: someone who seems driven to violence by his past experiences, yet inflicts harm on individuals who don’t deserve it, making him appear as an ‘understandably’ flawed protagonist who ultimately needs to face consequences for his actions.

To put it simply, the movie appears to show a man who becomes malevolent, but it seems George A. Romero may not have intended this interpretation. Instead, he might have seen it as more of a generic horror story about a menacing figure killing people. Although Romero claims it’s not a horror film, I can understand his point of view, as the movie does focus on a man. However, I find Henry to be unappealing and uninteresting. The character development for Henry appears thin, which makes it challenging to support such a profound theme. Initially, I didn’t get the impression that he was particularly downtrodden in the early scenes. He seems to have a strong career, as acknowledged by Milo, and his wife is attractive. It’s only at the barbecue that things start to fall apart.

In essence, the story revolves around Henry seeking retribution against those who have wronged him, climaxing at a masquerade event with a metal theme. From an external perspective, the movie is visually striking, filled with vibrant colors, dynamic action, and multiple events as the police chase Henry while everyone wears masks. Henry locates Milo to carry out his ultimate vengeance. Rosie serves as the central figure; there are hints of a past relationship between them, but these elements remain underdeveloped. The film is effective in provoking strong emotions, yet it ultimately concludes as the finale of a bewildering and hollow production that portrays Henry as a monstrous figure.

The image of Flemyng in the white mask is intriguing. The action sequences are skillfully executed. The climax is quite extravagant, but chaotic. Nevertheless, it’s disjointed and incomplete as a story. It seems out of place considering Romero’s eight-year absence from filmmaking. Despite his efforts to produce and create during that time, this is the end result? Frankly, I get the feeling something broke down during production or post-production. To be honest, it felt more suited for a direct-to-video release.

Rating: 2/4

Read More

2025-02-25 00:30