Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Bronson (2008)

Time Out rating

Average user rating

44 reviews

Synopsis

Danish director Winding Refn (best known for his 'Pusher' trilogy) tackles the life of Charlie Bronson, a violent jailbird from Luton

Movie review

From Time Out London

Since 1974, Michael Peterson, who uses the name of ‘Death Wish’ actor Charles Bronson, has been free from jail for only two short periods. The Luton-bred hard man first got seven years for robbery; most of the rest he accrued in prison for crimes ranging from kidnap to GBH.

The makers of this new film, in which Tom Hardy plays Peterson, offer a stylised, sympathy-craving portrait of the man, but it’s a shoddy and morally nasty film that leaves a terrible taste in the mouth. It takes us from Peterson’s childhood to the present via episodes in his life such as his incarceration in a mental hospital and the kidnapping of a prison art teacher. Much of it consists of brief, self-consciously arty but ultimately artless tableaux bolstered by voiceover or music, which betrays a flimsy, show-and-tell approach to filmmaking.

There are imaginary interludes of Bronson entertaining in a music hall, but these just suggest that Bronson craves fame: nothing too incisive there, then. One laughable sequence set at a prison party suggests an A Level theatre studies project after an outing to see ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’.

There’s a fatal tension between film and script: Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn (‘Pusher’, ‘Bleeder’) brashly channels Kubrick, with slowmo tracking shots set to obvious classical or choral music and looking to lend poetry to violence, while Brock Norman Brock’s pedestrian scenario is forever apologising for Peterson’s behaviour. Brock suggests that it doesn’t matter if Bronson tries to kill or kidnap someone as long as that person is a paedophile or, in the case of the teacher, a fluffy liberal who peppers his speech with Spanish.

Hardy delivers a committed if showy performance, but there are some awful smaller turns which smell dangerously of homophobia. The whole thing made me want to scrub my brain with Vim.

Author: Dave Calhoun

Time Out London issue 2012, Mar 12-18 2009

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

bex said...

Posted on Jan 19 2012 12:10 I thought this film was absolutely hilarious and agree that the TimeOut critic must have some personal problem with the film/director/actor whatever. Bronson has not done enough to warrant his time in prison so so what if the film is slightly sympathetic to him? I thought Tom Hardy was brilliant and hilarious and I'm still going round saying 'Onwards & upwards-a!' three months after seeing the film. Hilarious, classic has to be seen. Also, to all the people slagging off the film, acting, directing etc; if you are going to slag off someone's work please at least use spell check or something, as to state that someone else's work is, and I quote 'Boaring and pretencious' when you do not even have a basic grasp of the English language is a bit much, I think! Also got to love the person slagging off the film stating "I haven't read the book, but I imagine if the film had been made more similar (?) it would have been better!' WTF. Nowt as queer as folk!

Report as inappropriate
martin r said...

Posted on Nov 21 2011 00:08 Slow to get off the ground,unconvincing stunts.Actor is more like Alf Garnet!!!

Report as inappropriate
paul said...

Posted on Apr 04 2011 11:43 3rd watch. I think the reason Hardy was described commited/showy, was because he tried to capture Bronson but was too likeable. All that this film did was show how good an actor Hardy is, i found myself wondering where had they put bronson. The theatrics serve purpose in that they hit on his delusion of grandeur, and are not for the Clockwork o effect. Thumbs up for Hardy Thumbs down for makers of the film, and middle finger for the reviewer of this film. Last but not least, shame on the system for locking away a man who have done little in comparison to the atrocious things done in this world by sick silent bstards beneath Great Britains radar

Report as inappropriate
Alex said...

Posted on Mar 14 2011 13:38 Who is this Dave Calhoun guy you have reviewing films? His 'review' seems more like a biased rambling attack than a thoughtful valued critique. 1 star for this film? I'm sorry but Tom Hardys performance alone is worth recommending to some readers even if its not 'your cup of tea' which is the only reason I can see for you to rate this so lowly Dave.
Timeout, please employ some sensible, film educated reviewers, its like Claudia Winkleman on Film 2011 on here!
'Hardy delivers a committed if showy performance (?), but there are some awful smaller turns which smell dangerously of homophobia (?). The whole thing made me want to scrub my brain with Vim.'
need I say any more?!

Report as inappropriate
Phil said...

Posted on Jan 09 2011 10:10 Having seen the film a number of times and reading all the review's on here, it's obvious that the many many "Chritic's" have never lived in the real world ! To those who have "lived" will know being banged up aint no holiday when it's solitary confinement, and certainly not 30 years of it, For a man to be banged up for so long for doing so litte, is in it's self a crime for what he's done, and would agree with some, being in there has got to have taken it's toll on his mental state which it obviously has, especially when you have nonces who rape kids- murder kids -torture kids etc (the list could go on & on & on) and all they get is slapped wrists for their crimes, these are the one's who should be banged up not for 35 years but for a real Life till death sentences & without protection ! (rule 43) Tom Hardy is a great British Actor & played the part as he should have, the film, again was great, comical at times as it should be, being based on True event's, & people should think what the nick has done to C Bronson not just Mentally but Phisically ! What about his human right's eh. Bomber's, Nonces & other's have done much much worse crimes, & have, and get more right's & do less time ! Great Acting & Great Film.

Report as inappropriate
joseph said...

Posted on Mar 24 2010 15:08 very funny

Report as inappropriate
joseph said...

Posted on Mar 24 2010 14:44 a very mild verision of clock work of orange. it was funny

Report as inappropriate
Christopher Hancy said...

Posted on Feb 23 2010 12:31 A movie made that really challenges preexisting ideas in film making? Or one that superficially pretends to do so?
This movie is constantly compared with A clock work Orange.
At the end of A clock work orange we are left with a strange desire for empathy for this social psychopath named Alex and loathing towards the "big brother" system which has taken away the liberties of free emotion from him - a dangerous concept. In Bronson the aim is exactly the same but without the same brilliance development of character and insight into the characters own and surrounding sociology or psychological insight - we learn nothing about the motives or creation of the Bronson psyche. so We can not empathize with him.
The creation of Bronson appears as a shallow copy of pre- existing formulas -mentally ill are shown in all cliqued glory - each scene is Kubric , without Kubric being the one directing. but more annoying is the makeup of the main character Bronson in his "stage performances" - here we have a total surface copy of A clock work orange - there is no creative liberty taken what so ever, the whole farce can be seen as desperate attempts to make this movie "cool" instead of one that is really valid or honest as is Alex's much more masterfully delicate and personal monologues to the viewer in ACWO which delve into psychology and our undestanding and empathy of the main character.
Also Comparisons to the Australian "Criminal cultural idol" Mark Brandon "chopper" Read are numerously made. There is no comparison to be made - We see Chopper as a real violent psychopath - but we also see the almost redeeming cleverness and psychology in him - we see the creation and effect of his charisma the power of it - but we also get a chance to see its fallacy and his own weakness in character, in the times that fail him , we are shown his blatant lust for fame and that his physical presence and "gift of gab" as a mask of his own insecurities and there we may emphasize with him as he appears as a small scared little boy. We see also to some degree the inner social workings inside the Australian prison System between the inmates themselves and the wardens - we see the hierarchy in effect. we also see this insight when Chopper is "outside". In Bronson We do not . The fact that one movie is Realistic and one is not then does not become an issue. Bronson is superficial movie making in all senses of the word. Bronson is churned out following every institutional clique after another here you do not see a movie directed by a brilliant individual or the acting of any brilliant individual or the creativity , but you see the regurgitation of textbook theories on film making - a movie created by a university without real depth or soul or understanding or individuality, Bronson is asked what does he want? Bronson answers "What have you got"
Bronson is not like james Dean in rebel without a cause but he IS rebel without a cause. Bronson is cool.
What are you rebelling against Johnny? "what have you got?"
this is not a skillful comparison of character, but overly crude, blunt and cumbersome, as is any choice (or should I say copy) of vehicular or narrative devises used in the film making of this movie. The fact that Some people put in the effort to make a movie is applaudable, but to make a movie with the integrity to challenge Hollywood, this just is not the way. This movie constantly attempts to pull the wool over our eyes instead of melting us into its being or to allow us to be mesmerized or captivated into aligning with it - as is ONLY achieved with skillful mastery in movie work from all whom are involved . But here every scene is a blatant copy from somewhere other than the directors self, there is no directorial choice making or briliance is to be seen what so ever. the creativity is superficial as every "creative element" of this movie has been ripped and crudely glue-sticked and sticky- taped together. This film is a travesty to real creative film making and just must not be applauded for being so. It is a Tarantino movie without Tarantino's own original style of dialogue and character insight which gives credit to his more blatant cut and paste movie making than we see in other Hollywood films. But even a Tarantino movie has more subtlety in showing its influences and individual vision than this tripe. A Tarantino takes ideas and contexts and puts them in new combinations or awareness, for example; the western gunslingers, or samurai/kung fu warrior are shown in new situations now they are blended and in the playground of women in kill bill. a violent women anti hero being vastly unrepresented previously in Hollywood film making. Or presence of philosophically or socially comedic criminals in Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, unforeseen by the masses before Tarantino, even Inglorious Bastards in being such an obvious display of thoughtless entertainment is in a way credible in its awareness of being so. But here no similar new combinations or relevations occur. Bronson is a psychopath who goes into a criminal system and comes out and we the viewer ar asked to side with the criminal -nothing new there - its based on a true story so there is not really much creative freedom available to be experimented with plot wise. So the creators of this film should be under the obligation as self respecting "creative people" to experiment though other mediums than plot vehicles. but as we see this done in the film of the same subjects "Chopper" REALLY we do not gain any new insight or experience anything result of creative expression from watching this film. we dont even gain the simple indulgence of thoughtless entertainment that we can gain from a Hollywood block buster because this film pretends to be something else; it pretends to be groundbreaking and artistic. Perhaps it is the actual intention of this movie - to show the viewer how the guise of artistic credibility can be used to cover a superficial and pointless work to an artistically ignorant viewer. If this is the case then this movie is in fact GENIOUS, but for some reason i suspect this is not the case, and is an example of the perpetration.
Any display of the initiative required to make a movie in the first place is always applaudable. but we seem to be applauding this fact alone which blinds us to look at the actual validity of this movie in its heart and soul. It really is a pitty that what was made was such a display of institutional brainwashing comparable to that which occurs in Hollywood, but without the honesty of being what it is.
I cannot help but feel the scarce monetary funding available from government grants and awarding bodies to support young filmmakers could have been used much more wisely to support for more deserving and creative young players in the independent film industry. Young talents whom really risk new boundaries and challenge our preexisting views in society. Those directors and film makers whom question us the viewer through their work maintaining our loyalty and acceptance of the new ideas through mastery and skillful use of the film medium. Not those whom take an easy and pointless route embarking on constant immature and superficial quests for glory, recognition and cool-status from those still wishing to achieve the same thing themselves.

Report as inappropriate
dan patterson said...

Posted on Jan 26 2010 01:25 Where did you lot at Time Out london pick up this Dave Calhoun guy from, he actually makes money making his fevered rantings? firstly at what point was it craving sympathy? you then contradicted this by saying it was morally nasty, and that it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth( i'm ignoring sloppy, cause at no part in the film is it sloppy). you utter moron, it's a film about a mental guy in prison who paints swastika's on the walls in blood, its going to leave a nasty taste in the mouth with possible homophobic notions, it's supposed to be gritty, and yes theatrical, but its not a fucking pantomime. i personally think this is one of the best directed films i've seen for along time. The direction in photography is amazing, the musical direction counter pointed with build ups and releases of tension are spot on, especially with its use of classical music. and the comical narrated bits clearly help express the insane appearance of this guy's mind being played out to "normal" people. this film cannot be compared to chopper, in that they are both directed with completely different intensions in mind. this is an art house film, a very good art house film, but thats what you have to remember when going to see it. if you like straight cut fast paced hollywood action films than this probably isn't the right film for you.
think clockwork orange, if you hated that than you'll probably hate this.
awesome piece film making, five stars.

Report as inappropriate
Nick Cooley said...

Posted on Nov 26 2009 11:47 tryhard direction... tryhard story line... you want a grwat movie about a hard man prisioner? Get CHPPOER. UKs tryhard attempt at CHOPPER is this film ... what a joke. All you see is 400 fights of him going the cops. The comedy is weak and there is no storyline just weirdness that is meant to be artistic that some so called artistic people will call creative.

Report as inappropriate
Stanza said...

Posted on Nov 25 2009 13:01 This is the most boaring, pretencious film I have had the misfortune to see in some time. No story worth telling. If I could I would give it a zero star rating. Remove from your list and watch Fightclub or Beowolf instead.

Report as inappropriate
Paul said...

Posted on Nov 06 2009 21:02 The movies intention is let down by it's failing to portray Charlie Bronson properly,if at all. Because personally i found tom hardy to be too funny a character,very comical expressions which i assume were meant to be perplexed,at one point i likened him to the character Alf Garnett from sitcom In Sickness and in health,even more so when he visits uncle and struggles with opening gate.I don't agree with the review written by the complete snob with more interest in the presentation of the review rather than the content, do your job properly and don't compare a scene from a fairly good film like bronson to masterpiece like ofocn,it shows you jumped at opportunity to make the obvious comparison,which most probably noticed for themselves i'm sure.It's a good watch but as mentioned above it didn't hit on why exactly Bronson could only express through violence but rather paints modern day picture of prison being home for so many

Report as inappropriate
Dave said...

Posted on Oct 16 2009 22:57 A Comedy Classic.

Report as inappropriate
bob smith said...

Posted on Aug 25 2009 19:17 I always used to believe a good Time Out review. How wrong could you be about this film. You gave it one star the general public gave it an average of 3. People read these reviews and make their minds up as to seeing the film or not. If I were the film company I'd sue your arse as it would have lost them money. A British film company as well. I bet if it was a big Hollywood film company production the reviews would be more favourable. I for one (and I'm not alone here) will not trust a Time Out review again. You have disgraced yourselves on this one.

Report as inappropriate
mel green said...

Posted on Aug 16 2009 17:57 Im somewhat surprised at Times outs review as I found Hardys performance engaging and the 'one flew..' scene quite interesting. But im not a trained critic and enjoyed learning more about the notoriety surrounding Bronson which may have coloured my view.But it cant be denied that Hardy puts in a brilliant performance despite the motives of the script.

Report as inappropriate