Victor Films | Release Date: May 1, 1992 CRITIC SCORE DISTRIBUTION
26
METASCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 15 Critic Reviews
Positive:
0
Mixed:
4
Negative:
11
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
38
The Seattle TimesMichael Upchurch
Sloppy writing, inconsistent tone and gaping plotholes make this film look more like instant video product. [1 May 1992, p.34]
25
LARGE GROUPS of highly paid Hollywood people spend a great deal of time deciding on titles for new movies. Rarely do they succeed as well as with ''Split Second,'' whose title perfectly describes the length of entertainment in store for the moviegoer. [1 May 1992, p.3G]
25
Unfortunately these characters are stuck in a picture that is little more than a gory mess, heavy on the smoke machines and thunderous sound track, but with no suspense and not much interest. Split Second is just a series of killings that come, one after the other, until the movie hits feature length, and then it's the bad guy's turn. Since these killings all consist of a heart being yanked out of a human body, Split Second isn't pretty. I've long since lost my weak stomach, but this movie is definitely not for the squeamish. [2 May 1992, p.C3]
38
This one has all the usual cliches. The serial killer. The strip joint scene. The bad-tempered superior. The villain that won't die. The graphic gore. Hauer plays a suspended cop, of course. To these it adds a fairly creative scene of Hauer and Duncan stalking and shooting at the beast in a morgue, plus very damp streets and a vision of the future that is bleaker than usual. [2 May 1992, p.C04]
38
Chicago Sun-TimesDarel Javens
It's too unfunny to be comedy, too ordinary to be sci-fi and too flat to be action. But give the cinematographers credit: All that dark mood lighting does make it much easier for moviegoers to snooze. [5 May 1992, p.31]
25
For a B-movie, Split Second contains a surprising amount of talk -- dull talk. The film could use more action sequences; even those it does have are badly handled and unexciting. [7 May 1992, p.F8]