Split Second (1992) Poster

(1992)

User Reviews

Review this title
110 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
A cheesy monster serial killer B movie starring Rutger Hauer? I'm all the way in.
oneguyrambling28 December 2011
Split Second is hardly essential film-making, but it is a prime example of how to make a low budget film more entertaining than it has a right to be. Put another way, if there is a calculation that divides a budget by entertainment value, Split Second might not lead the way, but it is a damn sight ahead of many so-called 'blockbusters' in value for money.

But still you can't ignore the fact that this film runs on the smell of an oily rag, it's evident from the first frame all the way to the reveal of the shonky 'beast' near the end, a creature that elicits more chuckles than screams.

In 2008 the global pollution problems created rising water levels, which left London largely underwater, stricken with a huge ongoing vermin problem, and created an almost endless night.

Or perhaps you missed it… (I love it when the 'movie future' becomes the past.) Rutger Hauer plays Stone, a hard nosed, grizzled veteran who works alone and ignores everything in the rule book. He is a hard drinkin' loose cannon who does things his way, and has done ever since his partner and best friend was killed by a notorious and as yet on the loose serial killer.

Well imagine our surprise when said killer reappears on the scene, literally ripping hearts from bodies and taking bites from his victims. Reluctantly allowed on the case only due to his previous experience with the killer, Stone is aghast (p*ssed might be more accurate but is a worse scrabble term) when he is saddled with a younger partner named Durkin who is everything he is not: a straight-laced, clean living logical thinker who not only follows the book but practically lives by it.

As the gnawed on bodies of the innocent pile up and Stone and Durkin nearly cross paths with the unseen killer many times it grows more evident that this case is perhaps more personal for both Stone and the pursued, with the lines between hunter and hunted becoming increasingly blurred. The last straw comes when a human heart is express posted to Stone – with a large bite already taken from it.

This is a fairly standard set up for many sci-fi flavoured films, the thing that differentiates Split Second is the humour. While hardly Beverly Hills Cop or Red Heat this film is laced with lashings of black humour of the driest kind, much of it from Durkin, who it would be fair to say is hardly the comedic type but still manages many of the best lines, his rant about finding 'big f*cking guns' after first contact with their prey still elicits a chuckle and his progressive hardening up as the film progresses is quite humorous.

The rest of the film is to be frank amateurish, when revealed the killer and most of his previous actions make no sense whatsoever. How a 10 foot tall long fanged alien/monster can lurk in nightclub corners unseen, manage to package and address a human heart to the right recipient and also write notes for his pursuers is beyond me.

Equally confusing is the presence of Kim Cattrall as a sex-object. As someone who has had the misfortune of seeing 12 minutes of Sex and the City any possibility of attraction is long since dead, despite the fact that when this was made she is in her so-called 'prime'. But here she is the dead partner's ex-wife, who is there to be occasionally nude and vulnerable… There is some mystical supernatural crap designed to justify – or distract us from – the situation, but misguided symbolism or not Split Second is less about the logic and more about the fun in watching Rutger Hauer play a bitter and violent cop as he chases some sort of monster.

Obviously cheap and filled with blood and a few laughs, Split Second provides a stronger budget : entertainment ratio than a thousand Transformers or Harry Potters ever could. It still isn't amazing but you could do a lot worse.

Final Rating – 6 / 10. Split Second might not even be around any more – I bought it many years ago on VHS and dragged that out the other night – but if you even pretend that you are a Rutger Hauer devotee you owe it to yourself to check it out.
30 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
enjoyable fluff
revcosmo19 December 2005
If you don't like B-movies, then you should stop reading this review right now, and drop any interest in Split Second.

If you do DO like B-movies, check this one out, because it is a quintessential cult flick. Great hammy acting by Rutger Hauer and some of the supporting cast. (Note that great hammy acting is considerably different than great acting). The director actually did pretty well, establishing the post-apocalyptic mood with reasonable skill. The effects are godawful, but neat, just as it should be in this kind of movie. Lots of great one liners, especially from Hauer.

All in all, if you enjoy those good-because-they're-bad sci-fi flicks, this is a mighty enjoyable one. If you're looking for meaningful cinema... ummm.. well what are you doing looking up a movie about an alien serial killer?
57 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Get yourself some bigger guns and enjoy this early 90s cheese classic.
Hey_Sweden12 January 2021
Rutger Hauer plays one big walking cliche in this amusingly, knowingly routine B flick that does have a sense of humour about itself. Hauer plays a surly, slovenly detective named Harley Stone in London in the "future" year of 2008. Global warming has resulted in the city being partially submerged in water. Stone stalks through this unusual setting in search of the serial killer who slaughtered his partner once upon a time. This particular killer loves to taunt Stone, and has a penchant for EATING the hearts of their victims. What Stone learns is that the psycho might be something other than human.

Excellent urban-Hell production design and moody cinematography are assets of this deliberately drab-looking cop vs. killer programmer with a true grungy aesthetic. Some people may feel that projects like this were way beneath Mr. Hauer, but the truth is that he always remains fun to watch, and he's clearly having a good time as this tormented protagonist. Kim Cattrall, on first glance, seems under-utilized as his love interest, but then she *does* get to help out during the final assault on our inhuman villain. Hauer has good odd-couple chemistry with Alastair Duncan as the eager-beaver new partner with book smarts regarding serial killers. Duncan is very amusing, and fun to watch himself. The supporting cast includes a couple of familiar faces: Alun Armstrong, American character actor Michael J. Pollard (popping up briefly to do his typical shtick as a rat catcher), Pete Postlethwaite, Ian Dury, and Tony Steedman.

The movie further benefits from its relentless and seemingly impossible-to-kill murderer, as well as a pretty good pace that results in a trim run time of just over an hour and a half. Its dialogue may sometimes be silly, but it's good that screenwriter Gary Scott Thompson (future creator of the "Fast and the Furious" franchise) and director Tony Maylam ("The Riddle of the Sands", "The Burning") refuse to ever take any of this too seriously. Viewers will also love the over the top gore and Stephen Norringtons' design of the monster (bearing more than a passing resemblance to a Xenomorph from the "Alien" franchise).

A good, mindless way to kill 91 minutes.

Seven out of 10.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good But Never Rises Above Its Straight to Video Status
no-skyline12 July 2005
Split Second is great at what it does delivering fast paced action filled b-movie sci-fi / noir. The acting is actually quite good, the plot interesting and well constructed and the action sequences just about deliver the goods on what was no doubt a tight budget.

Rutger Hauer does OK as the tough guy cop Harley Stone without ever really excelling, congratulations should go to Neil Duncan who brought humour to the movie as the irrepressible Detective Dick Durkin, Kim Cattral makes a pre sex in the city film appearance and does OK with the limited scope she's given.

It's an entertaining bit if sci-fi fluff the influences are obvious Blade Runner, Predator and Alien instantly spring to mind It never scales the heights of those films to transcend it's genre and as such is unlikely to appeal to anyone who doesn't go for this kind of B-movie style entertainment. However it does provide a good hour and a half of solid entertainment in an interesting environment, the rain lashed semi flooded London is an interesting premise and is explored as much as budget allows.

If you want good plot, fine acting and very big guns wrapped in a nice bit of trashy sci-fi then this could be the one for you. 7/10
36 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
great b-movie fare
cthomas1234515 July 2003
For a serious horror movie, look elsewhere. For a b-movie that's right up there with Army of Darkness for amusement value and quotable lines, watch Split Second.

Stone and Durkin are the Gritty Cop and Sidekick who hunt down a mystery killer who taunts them at every step. It has supernatural strength and speed. They have guns. Big F***ing Guns.

Definitely worth renting, and buying too if this is the kind of movie you like.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Marvelous character development
vinnielt15 June 2007
Dick Durkin (Neil Duncan) is the reason to watch 'Split Second'. Dick's plenty competent as the newly assigned partner of Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer) as the beginning unfolds, but he clearly questions whether Harley is fully sane.

However, as his character evolves along with the evidence of the case he's on, and especially in the moments immediately after the conversion of his partnership with Harley, the presentation of 'Dick' by Duncan is pure fun just to watch.

Decent action, decent suspense, plus a portion of horror and sci-fi. But watch it for Dick Durkin.
29 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun movie
megoobee24 March 2005
Yes, it's another futuristic doom and gloom type story and yes, the story is a little thin but it's fun regardless. I don't know if they meant for it to be a comedy but it's hilarious. Keep an eye and ear out for the one liners that are randomly tossed around during the course of the movie. You can't help but feel for the poor police chief. They didn't give him much to work with but he plays his role great. The way pre "Sex and the City" Kim Cattrall's acting is pretty bad but for this movie, passable. If you are looking for mindless entertainment and don't mind profanity, this is your type of movie. There is mild nudity and a lot of ketchup (ie: fake blood) splashed about so you might want to keep the little ones away from this one.
30 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Awesomely stupid, incredibly inept, a complete waste of time
Erewhon1 September 2001
Yet another movie that wastes the abilities of Rutger Hauer, SPLIT SECOND also wastes the time of anyone foolish enough to watch it. Incredibly derivative, it crams together elements without any idea why they worked in the movies they were lifted from. The Monster is supposedly The Devil itself, but looks like the Alien. Shotguns have laser sights! London is supposedly flooded, but aerial views show not a drop of water. Lumbering, oafish and cursed with some of the worst dialog ever written, this is as close to a complete disaster as a movie can get.
19 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Split Second, all it takes to like this film.
spanky_boz25 January 2004
This is one of those films you see on ITV at 2.20am Thursday morning. Its consigned to forever be overlooked, stepped on and pushed away. But it's also a b-movie of extraordinary magnitude. A mix of horror, action, breasts(Kim Cattral's, not Rutger Hauer's!) and witty one liners. It never seeks to be better than it is, and in doing so is all the better for it.

With a name like Dick Durkin in the credits, you know you're in for a treat. True, the ending crumbles somewhat(kinda like monty python + holy grail i thought), but the rest of the film is low budget gold. The use of London is great, and the supporting characters such as Cattral and Pete Postlethwaite lend some gravitas to the movie also.

Its a fun way to spend a few hours if you dont have the company of a good women.

Any film where a police officer can call a guard dog a 'dickhead' has to worth it's weight in platinum....

Remember....if you're gonna watch it, be sure to get some BIGGER F**KING GUNS!!!!!!!
102 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
IMDB Average Score For This FIlm Is A Joke
damianphelps19 January 2022
I love Rutger Hauer, he has made some classic movies but this is not one of them.

It only has a couple of redeeming moments that prevent the film from scoring a 1.

Only hardcore fans should watch this and only when they are feeling nostalgic.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How many cuts of Split Second are there?
hawk23-211 June 2008
I got a copy of the movie I recorded from the TV, and a DVD release. I was sorry to find out that the movie on DVD lack some crucial scenes that cripples the atmosphere. For example, there's no scene when Stone asks the girl on the steps of the residential house if she saw the monster. Just after the scene when Stone starts firing and get all the cops on himself here goes the scene in the men's bathroom. No ambulance, no nightmares, the scene, when Durkin sees Stone's scars and gets curious, is cut. So is the scene with Durkin's wife when he and Stone just drop in to warn her. Is there a theater cut on DVD? And is there a director's cut then for TV?
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An underrated B-movie
bowmanblue30 August 2015
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.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Cross Between Blade Runner and Waterworld, But Bad
gavin694225 September 2007
In the future, global warming has caused ocean levels to rise. This makes London a particular wet place during high tide. Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer) is a detective living off of caffeine, nicotine and chocolate. He does things his own way -- violently (not unlike Stallone's "Cobra"). So what happens when the man or beast responsible for killing his partner returns to kill again, and Stone sense some sort of psychic connection?

The most important thing to know about this film is that it's not as cool as it sounds. Big man with a gun in a dystopian English future, fighting a man-beast that can rip hearts from chests. Sounds good. But it's actually rather lame. Hauer can't act or deliver lines worth a darn. The monster makes little or no sense. And the weirdest thing is that after the opening makes a big point of establishing the effects of global warming, I don't think the rising waters really played any part in the film.

Kim Cattrall's character (Michelle, Stone's girlfriend) is very odd and very out of place. She seems to just be in this movie so there can be a woman in the shower at some point. So, if you're looking for Cattrall's breasts, this is your film. Other than that, her role doesn't really have a place and there's something dreadfully wrong with her hair. Sure, this was filmed in 1992 and hair was different, but this hair is just bad.

I liked the detective who accompanies Stone (I think his name is Dick Durbin, or something). He was weak but funny in a very subtle way. The most memorable part of the film for me has Durbin getting blown out of a window by gunfire. I don't know why, but this just really sunk in for me. It was pretty intense, and yet somehow pretty funny.

If you like "Blade Runner", "Waterworld" and "Predator" (all of which are great movies) and want to see one that's not half as good and really cheesy, check out "Split Second". I still haven't figured out why it's called that, but I can tell you all your expectations are going to be missed. Unless, of course, your standards for quality film are even lower than mine.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
You people make me laugh
The nerve of some of you. "I was expecting a Hollywood masterpiece" WHAT?? It's a Rutger Hauer movie you mindless spawns of ignorance! For what it was, It was a damn good film. Anyone with a brain knows before buying it, renting it, that it it ain't Oscar material folks. It's a low budget sci-fi that happens to be pretty damn good. I thought the alien was good, and not cheesy or hokie looking, the idea of the flooding and constant raining was pretty clever, and the time frame was believable to me. Lighten up losers. This "B flick" blows away a lot of "A flicks" see "War Of The Worlds". Yes, different strokes for different folks, but those of you who thought this flick was a waste of time, should't be renting sci-fi videos but probably should be sticking to your typical mainstream cinema, you know the stuff you think is so "movie genius", like Broke back Mountain.
109 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well done action/horror film.
Peach-25 July 1999
Split Second was a blast to watch. This movie has all the great elements of action and horror, with a bit of the absurd to border on a cult film. Rutger Hauer is very good in this kind of film. The film is tight and there aren't alot of wasted frames. I enjoyed the characteristics of Hauer's Stone character. Watching Rutger Hauer take on a monster and scarf down some chocolate donuts was very cool. The monster itself was a very imaginitive creation and I liked that it attacked so quickly. Split Second is a great film for a rainy day or a late night feature.
64 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Cliched, stereotype-ridden junk.
g-hbe13 November 2022
We lasted about 25 minutes before we turned it off. What a collection of comic-book tough-guys (Hauer) and world-weary coppers (Armstrong). The acting was absolutely terrible, almost as if they were reading their lines straight off the page. As for the appearance and direction of the film, it reminded me of a cross between an 80's pop video and and one of those 'Comic Strip Presents' productions such as 'The Bullshitters'. I did entertain the thought that this film may be a spoof of stuff like The Professionals and that the bad acting was deliberate, but somehow I don't think so - it was too bad even for that.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining, but feels like it could have been so much more!
AverageJoesDriveInPodcast22 October 2018
This is one of those weird movies from the early 90's that both very much feels like it should have had a theater run and also gone direct to video. Think movies like Cyborg & No Escape. The production value is decent, but it doesn't feel quite as epic as it should. Like they had this grand plan but didn't quite have the money to make their vision happen. So, they worked with what they had and managed to pull off a really good looking film.

While this isn't what I would call a great film it manages to be highly entertaining. It's a bit unbalanced, but the films weird quirks actually work in its favor. You get to know the characters, their idiosyncrasies, and go on an adventure as they hunt down a mysterious serial killer. In a lot of ways, this feels like something that might have been adapted from a comic book. Even the character names feel like they were taken out of a comic.

It's a pretty middle of the road film in all aspects. Not to action-heavy, not too gory, not too funny, but it has a little of all those things. The acting is okay, albeit over the top at times. In the end, it all comes together and manages to be rather entertaining. I think I would pick this one up if I ever came across it for cheap. If you like a film that's about as mixed genre as you get. This is one to check out. It's an easy viewing, one you can just sit back, enjoy, and not have to think a lot about.

My Rating: 5.5/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Classic B-Movie
kevinkishin28 July 2020
This movie is a good companion too Blade Runner because of the setting & tone, Rutger Hauer is the Link that puts it together also this movie stands on it's own merit, if you're a Rutger Hauer fan you'll enjoy this.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a wonderful "no brainer"
Pascal-1217 May 1999
This is one of my favourite Rutger Hauer flicks. You might argue this movie lacks a good story, good special effects and decent acting, but that is exactly why this movie is great. Come on people, you can't take a movie about a giant, man slaying aqua-monster in a flooded-because-of-sea-level-rising-after-global-warming London seriously. At least Rutger Hauer doesn't. You can see he's just having fun in this movie. You can even catch him looking straight into the camara a couple of times, with a tongue in cheek look in his eyes. Officially, this is a horror flick, but in reality it's a very funny comedy. I would compare it to "An American Werewolf In London". (In London as well. Coincidence? I think not.) Just sit back, grab a beer or a coke, popcorn, nacho's or potato chips, turn off your brain and enjoy the movie. Don't analyse, criticise or scrutinise. Just make "we need bigger guns" your motto.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Please...
dr_lundqvist9 August 2001
Sorry, this film is not exciting. It is too much of a British "I-wanna-be-a-real-American-action/horror-movie". Acting and special effects are below-par (triple-boogie).

Save some time and don't spend one split second watching this!
12 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fun 90s movie
kosmasp26 August 2020
How did I not see this until now? A crazy movie that is far out (to use a saying that may still mean something or not). Lots of blood, a splash of nudity here and there and a buddy cop story that is borderline insane. So is the character that Rutger Hauer portrays of course, but we wouldn't like it any other way.

Really good effects (for the time), a social message (with some eco thinking), but more importantly just a lot of fun. Who in their right minds would start making out while in the middle of fighting the big bad evil of the movie? Well if you guessed it, there are not extra points. Now this is tongue in cheek and very self aware ("I thought I saw a rat" is probably the best/worst excuse for total destruction). There's still a chance this won't tickle you or get you in the right mood. It doesn't mean anything more than this not being your cup of tea. Try to take this for what it is though and it may bring you a lot of joy ... lots of it! Maybe even more than blood being spilled here ...
23 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Enjoyable if flawed sci-fi horror
manticore-646824 January 2022
Like many here I'm sure I watched this for the late great Rutger Hauer. The concept was interesting, 2 detectives in the future slums of London are on the hunt for a seriel killer, who turns out to be inhuman in more ways than one. The film itself ended up being both, as entertaining as I hoped, and also not as good as it could have been.

The actors all do fine jobs, with Hauer and Duncan being great and charismatic leads. The story and writing are weird, but in an interesting and good way. For the most part the horror is solid, good and bloody with great atmosphere.

Unfortunately the directing is pedestrian at best and the editing is fine at best and horrendous at worst. I can't comment on the action as I honestly couldn't tell what was going on most of the time.

The final nail is the ending. Without spoiling, it feels like a second and lesser movie. This is also our only good look at the Killer, and while the effects were solid, the design and his usage in the climax were very disappointing.

Split Second is enjoyable and worth a watch for its characters, actors and odd but compelling plot, but it is far from flawless and the editing may be off putting to a few. I'm glad I watched it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Meaningless Moniker
CuriosityKilledShawn5 September 2015
I remember Split Second being a rather popular rental title in the early 90s and everyone seemed to have seen it but me. Even the reviews I read at the time were generally favorable despite the dubious plot synopsis. Now, all this time later when I had all but completely forgotten that the movie even exists, I gave it a go. It's not good.

Set in a future 2008 London this is not a city permanently haloed by TV choppers circling the HSBC building capturing footage to illustrate the recent banking crisis to half-witted viewers. No, this is a gloomier alternate London that has no financial district and has been flooded by global warming and torrential rain. Rats thrive in the shadows, decay and despair have stained every backdrop, and a serial killer is stalking the streets. Tough cop Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer, slumming it as usual) has a vendetta with said killer after the death of his partner but uses a new-found psychic connection to his advantage. His new, goofball partner immerses himself in occult research and tries to deliver expository dialogue on the nature of the killer but it's all a load of codswallop.

Split Second tries to present itself as a low-budget hybrid of Blade Runner and Predator 2 but instead is more like Friday the 13th crossed with Alien. The final "reveal" of the killer is very disappointing and makes no sense whatsoever. Not only does it look like it was made out of bin liners and paste but its physicality does not fit with anything that it has done throughout the movie. And why is it wearing a helmet? Even the tagline makes no sense. "He's seen the future and now he has to kill it." Say what???

The filmmakers have no clue what this thing is supposed to be. Extra terrestrial? Mutant? Demon? Devil? All of the above and none of the above? It's never defined, it doesn't add up. They chuck a smearing of hokum into the exposition hoping that some of it will work but it simply doesn't. Fast and Furious creator Gary Scott Thompson is the man behind the script but it's obvious that London was not the original location (perhaps New York as it is liable to flooding in the future) and has merely but cut- and-pasted despite localisation issues (UK cops are not armed with guns).

The movie has some satisfyingly rough edges, particularly in the overlit and grainy cinematography that will remind of other British horror films of the same vintage such as Hellraiser or Paperhouse. Kim Cattrall shows us her pleasing breasts a few times, and the cheap synth score (by no one you've ever heard of) fits the grimy atmosphere. There are a couple of nice aerial shots of a London long gone but that's it for establishing the location.

Since the climax was helmed by a completely different director I can't shake the notion that there was some behind-the-scenes trouble. The ending is so disappointing and rushed but I was still sort of glad that it was over. Split Second squanders the potential of the setting and theme and is never all it could be.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Rutger Hauer rocks!!!
Rutger Hauer rocks!!! As he always does. Now I may be a bit biased as I am a huge fan of the mans work. Has been ever since Bladerunner. This movie has an extreemly thin plot, campy acting, moody gritty alleys, a big scary monster and big cool guns. Hauer is awesome in his leather coat, cigar, sunglasses and with the biggest baddest handgun ever. This movie rocks. Watch it!
58 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
We are not chasing it, it's chasing us.
hitchcockthelegend17 August 2011
Split Second is directed by Tony Maylam and Ian Sharp and written by Gary Scott Thompson. It stars Rutger Hauer, Kim Cattrall and Neil Duncan. It was filmed in London, England, predominantly at the Hartley Jam Factory in Southwark, with Clive Tickner the cinematographer.

London, 2008.

"After forty days and nights of torrential rain, the city is largely submerged below water, a result of the devastating effects of continued global warming. The warnings ignored for decades have now resulted in undreamed of levels of pollution where day has become almost endless night..."

and something is stalking the watery city and tearing hearts out of its victims...

Plot follows a familiar course, and in truth there's no surprises here. A psychic link between Stone and the killer is sadly never fully formed, which is a shame because it had the potential to make the film more interesting. To offset that though, is that there is some nice babble involving astrological and satanic matters which are thrown up during the search/investigation. In its favour as well, is that Maylam and his team sensibly keep the perpetrator hidden for most of the film, instead choosing the odd flashing glimpse of a clawed hand, or a murky torso running across the frame, while the idea to only show the bloody aftermath of a kill hits home harder than if we had actually viewed it.

The look is spot on for an apocalyptic sci-fi piece, all greys, silvers and low lights, while the cheap production design works well in context of the tone of the picture. There's even some Schwarzenegger like cheese dialogue, the likes of which the big Austrian would have got paid millions to speak at around the same time Split Second was released. The killer, once revealed, will disappoint many, mainly because it looks overly familiar, but it does impact for the finale set at a flooded tube station. While the music (co-scored by three different people) is ideal as it sounds very tinny, in fact it's very 1980's like.

Judging by the critical reaction to it you have to think some folk were taking it a bit too seriously. Never fully convincing as a lead man, Hauer pitches this just right, with tongue in cheek, a grizzled personage and a swagger to match the glint in is eyes. He's playing a burned out cop character called Harley Stone, his partner, who of course is the polar opposite, is named Dick Durkin! Take this seriously? Never! Cattrall is merely here to be a love interest, to scream and show some flesh for the discerning hound dog, while her haircut, some black dyed German Helmet effort, is totally unflattering. Duncan does a fine job as the nerdy copper, working the comedy off of Hauer very well, while fleeting support comes from great British actors Alun Armstrong and Pete Postlethwaite. In cameos we get song man Ian Dury and Michael J. Pollard.

Leave the brain at the door and you have a good chance of enjoying this low-budget British sci-fier. 7/10
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed