BUY FROM AMAZON: CLICK HERE!STUDIO: Magnolia Home Entertainment
MSRP: $22.49
RATED: R
RUNNING TIME: 93 minutes
SPECIAL FEATURES:
* Charles Bronson Monologues
* Making of Documentary
* Training Tom Hardy
* Interviews
* Behind-the-Scenes Footage
* Trailer
The Pitch
Charlie Bronson really likes beating the shit out of people and is really good at it too.
The Humans
Tom Hardy, Tom Hardy, Tom Hardy, Tom Hardy, Tom Hardy
Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn
The Nutshell
Light on plot/details and heavy on flamboyant artistry, Bronson is a fever-dream biopic of Charles Bronson. Not Charles Bronson the Lithuanian-American cinema badass. Charles Bronson the infamous British personality billed as “one of the world’s most violent criminals,” who has spent a majority of his adult life in solitary confinement. Presumably because he’s such a huge pussy.
The Lowdown
Bronson is what I’d call a “cusper.” Sort of like James Cameron is a cusper – he’s either the most brilliant of the Hollywood by-the-numbers men, or he’s the crappiest of the auteurs. Your pick. Bronson is straddling the line between good and great. It’s either the smartest kid in the general class, or the dumbest kid in the honors class. Where you put it really just depends on what you think is a more flattering position. I think it’s better to be the dumbest kid in the honors class, so that’s where I’ll put Bronson. It’s a crummy great film.

The film ostensibly tells the tale of how low-end low-life Michael Peterson (Tom Hardy) transformed himself into the headlines-making legendary asskicker Charles Bronson. I say ‘ostensibly’ cause while the film does indeed show these events happening, it never really tells us the tale. But I’ll get back to this in second. First let’s talk about what’s great here, because there really is a lot of fantastic shit in the film.
If you’ve read anything at all about Bronson before you’re already aware of the applause and booyahs being heaped on Tom Hardy’s performance. He’s a monster in the movie, and not just in the muscled sense (though he’s fucking yoked). The dude disappears into the character, unrecognizable in everyway. Truly bizarre and inspired, Charlie Bronson is one of the weirdest yet brilliant performances I’ve seen in a while. Right up there with Daniel Plainview. “You’re ridiculous,” Bronson is told in the film. Too true. The way Hardy clenches his fists, the way he herky-jerks when he walks about, the way he uses his nutty mustache, the way he cocks his head – Bronson seems like a silent film comedy star. The fact that the character can then turn believably frightening at the drop of a hat is a great thing to behold. More than any movie I’ve seen in recent years, Bronson’s quality rests entirely on the performance of the lead. Kinda like Napoleon Dynamite, if Hardy’s work doesn’t do anything for you, I’m not sure there’s much else for ya here. (Napoleon Dynamite didn’t do it for me, btw.)

This artwork looks suspiciously familiar.
That said, Refn has a presence here too. Bronson could’ve been told in a straightforward presentation – The Hurricane with more face punching. Instead Refn went for a heightened reality. The whole film is scattered with amusingly unreal characters and interactions, and most scenes are staged in overly interesting one-offs. It’s basically the most violent Wes Anderson movie ever.
Refn delivers some excellent moments too. From small character stuff, like when Bronson gets out of prison and is taken back to his parents’ new and much smaller home; the way Refn places the camera, Bronson seems comically just too big for the home, a bull in a china shop. To emotional camerawork, like a simple one-shot scene of Bronson pacing in his cell, the camera whirling 360 as it follows him, that makes you feel just as stir crazy as he does. To moments of gleeful tension, like the film’s opening fight where we meet Bronson, naked and covered in black paint, pistoning up and down as he waits for the approaching guards to open his cell door and come in. Good stuff.
Speaking of fights… there are a lot of fights in the film. Refn does a good job of staving off monotony, which is fairly impressive given that everyone one of Bronson’s fights is essentially the same – many dudes attack him, he punches a lot of them until they hog pile him. Though like I noted above, Refn really shines in the moments leading up to the fights, as we see Bronson readying himself for battle. Sometimes it is tense. Sometimes it is funny. The most hilarious moment comes when Bronson kidnaps a prison librarian and makes the poor sap grease him up as he awaits the arrival of the guards.

And speaking of naked… if you want to see Tom Hardy’s dick a lot, you’re in luck. Homie is completely nude seemingly every other fight. The film’s climactic fight scene really gives Eastern Promises a run for its money when it comes to lengthy wiener-filled battles.
These are the elements that make Bronson a great film. What is holding it back from full on greatness – and making it a cusper – is that what I’ve just described is really all there is to the movie. Tom Hardy gives an amazing performance… out of basically thin air. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, so to speak. After I saw the Halloween reboot I said that I didn’t need to know more about Michael Meyers and what turned him into a monster, but I desperately wanted to know more about what made Michael Peterson become Charles Bronson.
The film opens with Bronson directly addressing the camera and saying, “I’m Charles Bronson and for as long as I can remember I’ve wanted to be famous.” But why? He says that his parents were great and that he had a normal childhood. So what happened? We briefly see that he has a wife and a child, but neither ever play a role in the film. I loved seeing Bronson with his parents again mid-film, but it is all too brief. By definition Bronson is a character study, but I walked away from the film with little understanding of the man. Refn wants to convey that violence is Bronson’s artistic expression/outlet, but to me that felt contrived purely for the film, Refn’s vision of a man he seems to know little about.

back in time to learn more about the army of the Twelve Monkeys.
The film features numerous scenes of Bronson addressing the camera directly. In these scenes he’s always wearing outlandish clown make-up, which I took to represent the aspect of Bronson that is always performing. It seems to imply that Bronson is kind of full of shit. In reality I assume he is. Bronson is after all his creation. Yet the film is unable to delve past this, as though the real Bronson was literally controlling what we got to see. Which is a shame, as the dude is a fascinating subject. And there was a lot of talent working on this film. I’d never heard of Charlie Bronson before this. Maybe the film plays better if you have. I can’t say. I personally was left wanting more.
A great mediocre film, or a mediocre great film? You can judge for yourself. Undoubtedly worth your viewing.

The Package
Like the film itself, the DVD is almost amazing. Some of the features are excellent, like a video detailing how Hardy beefed himself up to Bronson size, and the DVD’s true centerpiece: a lengthy monologue/interview with the real Bronson. But the behind the scenes talking-head featurette is completely redundant if you’ve watched the interviews (from which the talking-head piece was assembled), and Refn I thought came across a bit dull and full of himself. And I would’ve loved a mini-doc about the real life Bronson. It’s like the movie is trying to prevent you from learning anything about the man that he doesn’t want to tell you himself. Hey, maybe that’s the theme the film was going for. Who knows?





10 comments
My problem with this film is the same problem I had with There Will Be Blood… the main character has no arc. They are both exactly the same at the end of their respective as they were at the beginning and I personally find that boring. The individual moments are great but taken as a whole it becomes monotonous.
available on netflix instant march 11th!
@#1: A character arc isn't necessary if the point of the film is that the character in question will never really change. This clearly the case in TWBB (I haven't seen Bronson), where, instead of changing, Plainview is building toward a violent eruption of catharsis.
Agreed with #3 — who made it a rule that every character MUST arc?
If you find DDL's Plainview boring, you're just not getting it.
About character arc comment of #1 (and dude, I'm not attacking, everyone's allowed their opinion, s'all fine by me) that's kind of exactly what I like about film noirs. In that genre the main guy almost never has a character arc, and they almost always leave the movie the same as they entered it (or they're dead). No lesson learned in film noir, just another crummy day.
If the events changed him he wouldn't be the same character anymore. Maintaining in spite of the events is one of the strongest defining character traits in this and TWBB (Ya I didn't use the full title. I'm one of those guys).
It's not the lack of character arc that hurts the film… it's the complete lack of point. It's stylistically fascinating and Hardy is amazing, but it all adds up to nothing. No insight into the character, nothing interesting to say, nothing even vaguely though-provoking. Just a repetitive series of fisticuffs designed to make us think that violence can be a valid form of artistic expression. Well, maybe if it's shot in slow motion by a Kubrick devotee and scored to opera, otherwise it's just a dullard punching things.
I liked this review. And agree with the general sentiment that Bronson is heavy on Hardy, slight on story. But Refn must have done something right, because it left a fairly indelible positive impression in my head, so much so that I'm considering buying the Blu Ray and I promised myself I'd only buy REALLY FUCKING GOOD MOVIES on Blu Ray.
I had the same opinion of the film… Especially after seeing the Pusher Trilogy, "Bronson" comes off as Refn's art film… a kind of calling card where he flexes his visual storytelling muscles, only there's not much story he's telling here (I just received his "Fear X" with John Turturro… and am eagerly awaiting "Valhalla Rising"). Only thing is, as Joshua points out in his review, it seems as if we are being kept from essential details of Bronson's story that would make the character even richer onscreen. Hardy's performance is outstanding, and the film has the artful energy of "A Clockwork Orange" and "Natural Born Killers" in its use of music, mise en scene, and pure visual artifice to tell the tale. And while Bronson has no real character-arc in the film (short of redemption, what else have you got… this ain't necessarily "Raging Bull"), truth be told, the real-life guy is still in prison and has enjoyed being there most of his life (only now is he coming around to the itch for release (check out his website… he's also a writer)… so it's not like he changed much in reality… which in adapting his story, Refn and Brock Norman Brock (!) probably realized they had a difficult time in finding the arc that might lift the film to true greatness, and instead decided to tell his story in violent vignettes. It's worth considering that much of Bronson's interaction with folks in prison (and out of prison) is purely in his head… he's only great in his own mind, and nuts to everyone else.
I gave the film four starts on Netflix… couldn't push to give it five. The Pusher Trilogy proves Refn can tell human interest-type stories (violent and ugly though they may be) and develop full-blooded characters that gain our sympathy as much as revolt us. Bronson is too one-sided… they probably didn't want to offend their subject. The film is definitely worth watching (twice for me)… I saw it on Blu-ray and it's a beautiful looking film, no doubt about that… and Tom Hardy's performance is one for the ages… it's basically a one-man show, and a brilliant one from that perspective (Tom Hardy is NOTHING like the character he portrays… it's an amazing performance).
I am interested in seeing this movie as I've heard great things about Hardy's performance, yet biopics of gangsters/hardnuts/whatever usually aren't my cup o' cha. With that in mind, I just wondered if any Chewers can give me a heads up on how it compares to Chopper, a film I finally came rather late in the day to (and enjoyed) after seeing some of Eric Bana's later work. I figured that these two flicks look almost like spiritual blood-brothers. Am I off the mark? Cheers, guys.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.