MovieChat Forums > Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017) Discussion > I say "Nay" and here's why: (SPOILERS...

I say "Nay" and here's why: (SPOILERS)


OK, after watching your review, I've softened a bit: (SPOILERS)

1. Yes, Vince Vaughn did a good job of reinventing himself.

2. Yes, there's some bits of acting worthy of note, e.g. Jennifer Carpenter, though her character left me flat & the always complex Udo Kier, whom I liked even in Warhol's "Flesh for Frankenstein". I do hope Jennifer isn't anorexic or on meth. She looked dangerously skinny. That's no reflection on her acting nor the film, just an observation as a human being.

3. I did find it interesting, in that I wondered why a few things happened (see below) and wondered how things would turn out. There was one nice surprise, the reason Eliazar wanted Bradley in Block 99. However, that didn't pan out in a way satisfying to me. It ended up just a staged fight, where the three assailants waited to fight Bradley one-on-one instead of rushing him, esp.after he face-flattens the first guy. Kudos to Roman's voice, though. Wow!

But:

1. An unlikable protag with vague motives, if any. He's smart enough to foresee many of others' moves yet makes some dumb ones of his own with no explanation.

2. Plot holes and unanswered (or late-answered) questions abounded. E.g. Why did Brad-ley not escape? He was free and clear, but went back to shoot (it turns out) his employer's employer's guys. But later, we find out those two weren't killed. Really? after all those splatters?

3. No character arc for the protag. What did he learn? How did he change? My take: He learned he is expendable, even to himself. There were other options he could've at least tried.

4. No discernible over-arching theme. Or was the Guardian writer right that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do?"

5. Lack of satisfaction in mano-a-mano showdowns.

6. Mary-Sue-ism of Bradley. Where did he learn those fighting skills and how did he stay in practice? Having tried boxing as a teen-ager didn't convince me. Those were MMA moves.

7. Sad maiming of really good characters, such as Andre and that other guard who gets busted up, probably permanently. No remorse from our supposed hero? No selectivity as to whom to bust up?

8. Gratuitous yet unsatisfying > accidental < killing of WIlson (?), that nasty guard at Block 99. The final confrontation with Eleazar was also weakly supported: why the crook was there and why spend that money, effort, manpower and risk just to get Bradley there? and unsatisfyingly played out. Stomping Eleazar in the same manner as his other kills, with only an impossible beheading via shoe-stomp as the payoff. Ugh.

9. Weak writing in the use of unexplained "mistakes" by otherwise competent characters, e.g. the aforementioned Bradley going back to shoot at cops, and Gil choosing to work for/with a dangerous slimeball like Eleazar. They had it made before that decision, which was never explained.

10. Non-sequiturs, like Bradley sending his wife to Gil after Gil's treacherous liaison with Eleazar PLUS Gil doing nothing for Bradley, such as getting him a good lawyer, judge or compensation for his time in stir.

Not a flaw, but I did yearn for one thing: Back-story or a sequel about the "cat-man" lurking in Block 99. He reminded me of the loyal dog-man in "Island of Lost Souls" If nothing else, I was curious how he was going to use that stun gun to "amuse himself" in his cell.

I wouldn't call this film "garbage," but I wouldn't recommend it except to a Caucasian fan of 70s Blaxploitation.

reply

You're missing the whole point of this movie. All of this was just an excuse to make man beats up a car scene. That scene alone is worth to make a movie around it.

reply

You lose me at "unlikeable protag." Why do characters in a fictitious story have to be "likeable"? It makes no rational sense.

reply

I'll attempt to address a few of your points.


1. He was in a tight financial bind, and took a job that he knew would eventually bite him on the butt, but he did it to repair his marriage with his wife because he loved her.

2. Bradley went back to help the cops. The movie subtly hinted that he was former law enforcement or served in the military, hence his stature, demeanor and discipline. He didn't like seeing the cops being maimed by the thugs he partnered with for the job. Hence, it showed he had a moral standard to his character.

3. His character arc wasn't about what he learned but what he was willing to do to protect his wife and unborn child. The movie picks up AFTER he's already had an epiphany and is trying to turn his life around. But it gets turn around again, so he ends up back in a life of crime after trying to get out of it. He attempts to resolve the matter by making sure in the end his wife and child are (somewhat) safe.

4. Pretty much a man had to do what he had to do.

5. I thought the fight scenes kicked butt and were brutal and visceral.

6. The movie hinted that Bradley had a very dark and disturbed past, filled with lots of violence, as evident with the way he was introduced by beating up a car with his bare hands. Combine that with maybe some stint in the armed forces and it all makes sense.

7. Eleazar wanted Bradley to suffer for costing him his money. Bradley paid him back for his efforts by beheading him. Seemed satisfying enough.

8. Gil was in for a big payday working with Eleazor. There are a LOT of people like that in the world.

10. Gil didn't betray Bradley, so it made sense why he would send his wife to him. Also, had Eleazar not screwed Bradley over, he would have gotten in and out of his stint behind bars in no time with good behaviour.



reply