Split Second

As a throwaway 80's B-movie you could do much worse. Hauer, as is his way, plays the rough and silent type, this time a cop with Scot Duncan as his partner. There is enough gore, monsters and violence to satisfy but a good plot is sadly lacking and worst of all, they even managed to make Kim Catrall look unattractive. Read full review

It’s hard to think of a less satisfying creature feature in recent memory than the simply terrible Split Second, which by the end not only has allowed few glimpses of the beast in question but hasn’t even explained where the big guy came from or what kind of animus, supernatural or otherwise, is responsible for its strange m.o. It’s a monstrous cheat. Read full review

Split Second is an extremely stupid monster film, boasting enough violence and special effects to satisfy less-discriminating vid fans. Read full review

This derivative eco-horror movie recycles dozens of disposable plots, flinging together all-purpose action man Hauer, a futuristic setting, and a reptilian alien. Hauer could do this stuff in his sleep, and the film looks as though Maylam did. Read full review

Within the genre of supernatural thrillers, Split Second is fairly dull. Mr. Hauer's Stone is an expressionless, unsympathetic lug who grunts his lines in a near monotone that sometimes becomes unintelligble in the movie's muffled soundtrack. The film is so desperate to create tingles that poor Miss Cattrall has to endure two protracted nude scenes -- one in a shower, the other in a bathtub -- in which she is menaced. Neither is especially spine-tingling. Read full review

Split Second turns out to be one of those dreaded “so-bad-it's-good” debacles, and a marginal one at that. Ed Wood, where are you when we need you? Read full review

Very fast-paced, SPLIT SECOND is an example of the men-versus-monster genre, with a British setting providing a fresh twist. Read full review

Scriptwise, you'll be left thinking "if it only had a brain." Like last year's "Hardware," this British effort is simply too talky. Those who seek deeper meaning will enjoy the astrological and satanic explanations, even if they make no sense. Read full review

Sloppy writing, inconsistent tone and gaping plotholes make this film look more like instant video product. [1 May 1992, p.34]

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]

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]

While entertaining and often genuinely frightening, thanks to a remorsefully blue cast to the cinematography, this thick stew can be tough to swallow under Tony Maylam's bumpy direction. [3 May 1992, p.C7]

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]

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]

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]