Infamousta
brilliant actors, brilliant editing
Clarissa Mora
The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.
Staci Frederick
Blistering performances.
paulymaxwell
First watched this movie late at night about 20 years ago with my wife, and it has since been, one of our go to films. Video worn out, DVD worn out and now on Blu-ray. It's a fantastic B movie and Rutger Hauer, along with Neil Duncan are perfectly casted and make this a film that can be watched and watched over again
Rob-316
I have not reviewed a movie on IMDb in over ten years, but when a movie's this bad, I can't help myself.I wanted to like this because of Rutger Hauer and his performance in Blade Runner. The first time I tried to watch this movie, I turned it off because it violated my rule of sucking within the first ten minutes. However, I gave it a second chance. Big f**king mistake. I honestly don't see how this averaged 6.2 on IMDb."Split Second" rips off Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, and countless others. I see why the killer isn't really shown until the finale. At first, I thought it was to build more suspense like in Jaws or Alien. No, it's because the killer/villain's costume was a piece of s**t."6.2"...get the f**k outta here.
atanas_n1-1
Hauer is a great antihero, the mood is dark and hopeless, the monster is quite funny, and there are enough jokes and enough tension to keep you fascinated also nice is that no one cares to exactly explain what or who that monster is, providing the movie with a bit of mysterythis movie works more like alien or seven, or maybe even blade runner - on the psychological level, do not expect it to be action loaded, but enjoy the darkness and tension insidea great plus point for the movie is that they didn't make a sequel. i guess they had no money for it, but still great - most movies do not benefit from a second partso as i already said - i loved it, but i can see that not everyone will still - give it a try
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.
