Skip to main content

Well, Satan is in deep shit!

Split Second
(1992)

(SPOILERS) Greta Thunberg’s favourite movie. Probably. Well, her “people’s” anyway. Somehow, I managed to miss this one when it came out, although its lousy reviews probably had something to do with it. I was nudged into taking advantage of its current, Bezos-sanctioned availability by an Empyre take that called it “glorious” and suggested “As a showcase for a mischievous Hauer behaving badly… it’s almost matchless”. The recently departed Rutger Hauer is on magnificently over-emphatic form, it’s true, and there’s frequent amusement to be had from the dialogue and chemistry between the star and sidekick cop Neil Duncan, but Split Second lacks a crucial sense of gusto as it crunches through its B-, straight-to-video, supernatural sci-fi serial-killer buddy movie clichés.

The unwieldy mashup quality is such that the heart-extracting serial killer – “A psychotic with a psychopathic personality” no less – of a drowned 2008 London turns out to be a mutant, DNA-absorbing (of its victims) xenomorph-looking mofo obsessed with astrology and some kind of Satanic quest. This can apparently be traced back to the picture’s “straighter” origins, whereby the ritualistic murder plot skewed a bit too close to The First Power (1990). Such demands can’t have helped in delivering the budget production – Wiki lists it as $7m, but I’d be surprised if it was that high – which duly put veteran Riddle of the Sands (1979) director Tony Maylam through the mill; Ian Sharp had to finish the picture off and gets a nod in the end credits.

Stone: The only thing we know for sure is that he’s not a vegetarian.

The setting ultimately appears to be pretty much irrelevant, but scrupulously endorses Greta’s favourite subject, under its then catchphrase. London of thirteen years ago is suffering “the devastating effects of global warming” and “The warnings ignored for decades have now resulted in undreamed of levels of pollution where day has become almost endless night”. Cue much use of establishing night-time shots of London. There are also a few early scenes with ankle-deep water and the odd mini hovercraft to drive home the illusion (the Thames is currently at its highest level since Black Monday 1999). Posters warn that “Smog kills” (and also reference to “Plague Pits” – it's like they could see ahead to 2020! Oh, wait...)

One could imagine an art director let loose having a lot of fun with this scenario, but what we mostly get are a lot of damp-looking tower blocks and the occasional fetish club (told he must order two drinks minimum, Hauer’s Harley Stone responds “Get me two coffees, extra sugar”). The club owner is none other than Ian Dury. 

Thrasher: He’s worked in every hellhole in the world. And been fired from all of them.

Stone has a psychic link with the murderer, anticipating his moves, on account of his having been injured by the killer years back (that would be the DNA thing). During which Stone’s partner was killed. For which he’s feeling guilty, on account of having an affair with his partner’s wife (Kim Cattrall, obligingly on hand to show her breasts in lieu of having any degree of characterisation). Hauer is up to 111 throughout, living off chocolate, coffee and cigars (before racing up the stairs of a tower block, he makes sure to light up – with a blowtorch).

Durkin: There was a rat, so I shot it.
Stone: You shot my kitchen, that’s what.

He also seems to have inherited Withnail’s kitchen – “Sorry about the pigeons. I can’t kill 'em” – and the accompanying dump of a flat to boot. Naturally, Stone doesn’t get on with his haranguing boss (Alan Armstrong) or an antagonist fellow officer (Pete Postlethwaite). He’s also less than pleased when Duncan’s Dick Durkin is made his partner. At first. In tried-and-tested buddy-movie fashion. 

Durkin: We’re getting big guns, right? That’s where we’re going, to get big guns.

Durkin is bookish and reserved, despite the alleged fact that he “gets laid every night”. As the picture progresses, though, Duncan manages to achieve the unimaginable, stealing the spotlight from Hauer. Particularly so when Durkin is shot in the chest by the killer (“Oh dear”) before returning from the grave, thanks to a bulletproof vest, with new resolve. He’s positively wired (“We’ve got to get bigger guns!”) and Stone duly pumps him full of caffeine, sugar and nicotine.

None of this is enough to offset the sluggish pace (even at a slender ninety minutes). Nevertheless, that seems part and parcel of the picture’s determined B-ish ness and in keeping with much of Hauer’s output from that period (see also 1991’s Wedlock). The reveal of the monster – knocked together by future instigator of Sean Connery’s retirement Stephen Norrington in three weeks – is wisely kept until the end, and takes place in a flooded subway (this was mostly Sharp’s contribution). As we now know, the events of 2008 were nothing like those in Split Second. They were much, much worse.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the