Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

bowmanblue I'm going to say now that I enjoyed 'Split Second.' Partly because, as I alluded to in the title, it's an underrated B-movie, but also because I saw it as a child and I am looking at it with a deep sense of nostalgia. It's probably not as good as I say it is! Back in 1992 pretty much all B-movies/monster-munching fun was set in America, so the sight of London flooded in 2008 (hey – it was a long time in the future when I first saw this!) was quite a novelty, let alone a beastie who runs around ripping people's hearts out and leaving them for the police, or at least one particular police officer – Rutger Hauer. He got attacked by the killer a while back and, even since then, has been experiencing visions and is psychically-connected to it.Now, the monster is in London and Rutger – while totally hooked on coffee, chocolate and pretty much anything else that's bad for you (except alcohol – he quit that!) teams up with squeaky-clean copper called 'Dick Durkin' (*snigger*). Therefore you kind of have a 'buddy cop' movie with the end of the world at stake.You may notice my slight titter of laughter at the character name 'Dick Durkin.' I don't feel too immature for that reaction, as the film is kind of tongue-in-cheek and knows that it's hardly on a par with Shakespeare. It's a B-movie. Therefore, don't expect much in the way of a budget. And, when I say 'budget' I basically mean the monster itself. You don't really see it all the way through, so if that bothers you this might not be your cup of tea (or coffee in Rutger's case). Plus the other downside is the script itself. It really does let the whole thing down. The atmosphere is great – dark and foreboding and the characters are fun, making the film good. It's only some of the lines which sound as if they've been written by a work experience kid that let the whole thing down. That and the lack of visual sight of the monster, obviously.If you've see Split Second before then you'll probably be happy to give it another go. If you haven't and you're into B-movies, then make sure you're in a forgiving mood and don't expect too much in the way of special effects and you mind just find it an undiscovered little gem.

851222 Greetings from Lithuania."Split Second" 1992 is superb movie for a lovers of these kinda of films. By saying "these" kind i mean it'a macho stuff at it's best, with a very cool villain at the center. I saw this picture countless times when i was a kid, loved every frame of it, Rutger Hauer was the ultimate hero / bad ass type of character. This is a monster movie, predator, buddy cop movie at the same time. It has very coll art direction, it's dark, yet very atmospheric. Overall, 1010 for "Split Second" as it is my childhood flick, with ultimate hero at the center, great character development. very Good villain, you can't ask for more, if you love these kind of pictures, you will love this film.

chambersjad Well, 8 stars comes with an "*" attached. It was exactly the right movie to watch the first time I saw it. I was looking for a somewhat witty, kind of suspenseful, action thriller. And that's exactly what "Split Second" is. Since then I've seen it a couple more times. And it was deliberate. I was in the mood for that type of movie, and so I watched it again. It's not "10-star" brilliant. It does a few things right, does not take too many chances, and gives some witty lines to some OK actors. In the end it's success is that it had nothing in it that annoyed me or put me to sleep. It may not have been great or superb, but it was never bad for one second. I thought about giving it a 6 or so for that, but the extra for the 8star rating came from the fact that this movie is just so fun. So if you're looking for a somewhat clever, suspenseful, action packed movie, you are in for exactly what you want

MisterWhiplash Oh, Split Second, what fun it was to be with you for that hour and a half. You're not a very good movie. You also try and have your cake and eat it: you cast an actor, Rutger Hauer, who will take a role seriously even if it's just as a guy at a bus-stop giving directions to someone (actually, that sounds like a role he should take up sometime, it would be the bit-part of the decade), while also putting him in one of those post-apocalypse-future settings where his fellow actors are playing at characters all copied and pasted from other movies. There's the nerdy partner to Hauer's Harley on-the-edge cop (well, seemingly nerdy as he runs five miles each day and has sex every night); there's the love interest who Harley hooked up with after her former lover, his ex-partner, bit the big one by a big-bad monster only to later break up with her and then, as the story opens here, is back with her perhaps against better judgment in 2008; there's the hot-headed cops that Harley has to answer to and take crap from who all are there just to be hot-headed without much reason or purpose otherwise.Oh, and it's the future so there's strippers, and grime, and rats, lots of rats. Movie, where's Wesley from Wanted when you really need him? Perhaps it's not all of your fault... OK, it is, you're a movie. You should have some cleverer writing, some faith in your actors who are at least capable and at best staggeringly talented, and as well a clearer head in directing action scenes or just simple little moments that come off as awkward or badly timed. One of these I must point out to you is how you go back and forth when Harley and his partner are at a bar having food and a drink and talking about the case while back at Harley's apartment the big creature-thing-whatever monster (could be Lucifer?) is sneaking up in like in a Brian De Palma movie (not to be mistaken with Hitchcock, mind you) on Kim Cattral having a shower. I couldn't get any suspense out of the shower bit, and I couldn't get invested at all in the conversation, whatever good there was in it, at the bar. Take a pick.Oh, and Hauer. How do you take this guy and make him so... uneven? There are moments, granted, that he comes in totally ready to kick the crap out of someone, or just to act crazy or have that edge that one would hope Hauer brings to the character. But at times he's also left unfortunately at the mercy of your screenplay, which has him noodling between being one of these archetypal futuristic cowboy dudes who go around town with a bunch of guns and a cigar and don't take anything from anybody and having a soul and being tortured by psychic 'feelings' (hence, I guess, the title, since it's a split-second before the monster is somewhere that he feels the presence). Other actors don't even have that kind of odd dimension, as Cattrall and Pete Postlethwaite are left scurrying for whatever little they can do in a given scene (Cattral especially is like a sexy leaf in the wind here). Only the partner, Dick Durkin played by Duncan, shows some real chutzpah in the final act.And why do you torture me with having scenes that see-saw between totally unintentionally hilarious moments and some that are just the head-scratching kind you get with average-to-low-average genre material? It's a fun time to have with friends, don't get me wrong. It's a great find if you've never seen it - not to be confused with great movie, heavens no - especially if it's a Rutger Hauer night at the movie-house or time to dig up a weird oddity in semi-British science fiction film-making. And yet for all of the delirious action at times, and for the totally (legitimately) funny action spectacle of the finale at the train station, and for a few one-liners and a particular shot you pull off where a character reiterates ALL of the exposition of the plot so far that's happened just to pad out the running time that makes it quite campy... quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a (total) damn. It's just... OK.