Split Second (1992)

There are movies out there which sound great on paper, but you know the actualized product will never be as awesome as you imagine. This is one such movie. Rutger Hauer does battle with a serial killer monster in a flooded futuristic London. And somehow the movie manages to be disappointing. It's not without it's merits; it's even quite entertaining by and large. But there re some big ideas in this movie which get side-tracked or else completely ignored in favor of a been-there-seen-that cop movie where all the characters are archetypes.

I have yet to see Rutger Hauer phone in a performance. His character here, though, is so stock that he isn't given very many moments to shine. See, Harley Stone is a cop, and he's on the edge. He's a rogue, who plays by his own book, and what he wants most is to avenge his dead partner. It feels like Rutger did well by playing down the fact that he was playing every renegade cop ever seen in cinema. The movie could have been quite garish if he had hammed it up, but simultaneously, he should have been written more interestingly. Split Second goes into especially familiar territory when a by-the-books rookie is assigned to be Harley's partner. What wacky hi-jinx will ensue, and I wonder if they'll ever see eye-to-eye. Yawn.

Rounding out the central character triumvirate is Kim Cattrrall as Harley's girlfriend. This movie falls in the middle of what we'll call the tolerable period in Kim Cattrall's career, but she disappears for long stretches in the movie and only resurfaces if she needs to be in peril. Or if she needs to show breasts, as in most of her career. Pete Postlethwaite also shows up to fill the obligatory jerk-cop role.

So. Split Second is full of cop clichés, like an un-funny version of Hot Fuzz. What's it got going for it? Mythology. The London of 2008 (aka: THE FUTURE) is submerged in a foot or more of water because global warming has melted the ice-caps and the Thames river is higher than ever. This not only shows that the film-makers are environmentally sympathetic, but it provides a distinctive look. The world is full of blues and greys, which makes the red of blood pop out so much more when it's seen. This water-world also provides plenty of rats which tie in to the central concept of the monster.

It's worth keeping in mind that this movie came out three years before the novel Relic was published. Otherwise, it would seem a blatent rip-off. The monster here is a creature which uses some form of recombinant DNA to absorb strengths and characteristics from victims. Unfortunately this is not reflected in the creature design. The monster also seems to absorb superstitions, as it ties both into satanic beliefs and notions that the year of the rat can bring about dark forces. Mostly un-mined is the implied notion of the cyclical nature of evil. Another thing which should have been addressed: Why is this movie called Split Second?

The almost Harry Potter/Voldemort-esque relationship between Harley and the monster is another interesting aspect to this movie. The monster's presence is felt throughout the movie by Harley, and this is expressed to the audience through a persistent and grating heartbeat. The film-makers wisely avoid showing the monster too early. The face of the monster is so lifeless that I wish they gave more time to the consistently interesting Michael J. Pollard, whose role as the ratcatcher is sadly too brief.

Ultimately, Split Second is more good than bad, but when's bad it's just boring. And nobody wants a boring monster movie.