MovieChat Forums > Split Second (1992) Discussion > This movie's good, but could have been b...

This movie's good, but could have been better

posted 20 years ago by zajonlumtok
11 replies | jump to latest

This movie would have been so much better if the director had injected more intelligence into the ending. It was just a bunch of explosions and shooting. In the movie, the creature leaves Harley messages, which made it a mix between the fair game hunter element of Predator and the raw animal violence of Aliens, but there is no effort to really understand the creature in the movie except its origins. Why is it tracking Harley, besides the fact that it got his partner and missed him? Well, I still liked the movie. Hauer gives a fine performance as a hardened detective but still with a heart. London has a post apocalyptic look, but isn't overdone. And Harley's partner provides some fine humor relief, especially in the gentle ending, with the partner narrating before Harley interupting, giving a break from all of the action. Still a fine sci-fi film, just needs a little work.

[–] liamolf 20 years ago

It has been revealed that there was an unexpected change of director when it came to the ending. This is why it says that it was directed by Tony Maylam AND Ian Sharp.

I do agree, the ending was a big let down in what was a brilliant low budget gem up until that point. They could have done without Pollard as well. I'm not denouncing his acting credentials, but only having him in one scene just makes his involvement in the film feel like a last minute afterthough to pull the viewers.

It needs a re-make IMO with a slightly higher budget for higher quality props...

[–] megoobee 20 years ago

No remake can do justice to the original Police Chief. That guy is great.

[–] johntrevy 20 years ago

It is my opinion that the monster was Stone's old partner Foster all along. when the monster grabs Stone by the head he quietly says "Foster?". Also Foster planted the gun at the murder scene, "This is my partners gun".
Paulsen: "i got the results from the anaylsis"
Stone:"oh??"
Paulsen: "one set.."
Stone: "did you pull him in??"
Paulsen: "NO!!!"
Stone: "why not??"
Paulsen: "BECAUSE THEY WERE FOSTER'S!!"

Which explains that the monster that put the gun there, was Foster.

[–] liamolf 20 years ago

That would explain a lot of things but why did he think he was the devil? It's that bit that doesn't really make any sense...

[–] dragonwing_344 20 years ago

havent been watching the film long enough to no whats going on for one stone as got a scar on him meaning the monster will be back to get him and kill him as you can gather when the girlfriend is bitten and laid in a trap waiting for stone to rescue her and the foster is dead and killed by the monster so how can he be the devil and since foster looked around 5ft odd and the monster towered over 7ft what did the monster do strecth him naw all in all a great movie and judging by the way climate is going london could still dissappear on tons on water especially now the dam euro tunnel is being slapped there we may never no :)

[–] ace-192 19 years ago

Hi,

I don't think the monster was Foster. Wasn't there something about the monster taking on the DNA of the creatures it attacked?

Adrienne

[–] jacolby65 19 years ago

Absolutely right, the creature absorbed the DNA of it's victims (including Foster). You guys thinking it's Foster should watch the film again more carefully. It's all explained perfectly.

[–] BathMatt 19 years ago

I actually agree that the creature was orginally Foster. It is the angle I was going to emphisis in my comic. (See 'good pics of the Creature' thread for more on that little project.)
I think the biggest clue is toward the end, when Stone is stalking the Beast in the Subway Car. He hears a sound/feels a presence (not sure which) behind him and turns around, asking for "Foster?" as he does so. It explains why it fixates on both Stone AND Michelle, when she turns up. (She's Foster's Ex.) Sure, this can be explained by the DNA thing, but I think the Foster monster idea adds a whole new personal level to the story, not mention being a little more fun :)

As for why he becomes a demon...feh, it's a B-Movie. Who needs explainations? Maybe he went mad over Stone & Michelle's affair and turned to The Man Downstairs for help? A case of petty revenge gone wrong. Dark Lords in fantasy have been created by less.

[–] jrgen-thuresson 19 years ago

I have another theory.Fosters DNA and spirit or whatever became dominant when the creature absorbed it.So the creature essentially became Foster after eating him.

[–] ldunin 19 years ago

Good beginning, some very funny moments. Best part was that the movie did not take itself too seriously (thing like Durkin falling out the 5th story window and coming right back upstairs). I found overall it was good, but ending felt like it was rushed and pointless. No answers on where it came from, no explanations, kinda leaves you hanging.

[–] king_of_bob 16 years ago

It's not Foster, it has Fosters memories. So while it's not Foster, it remembers everything Foster would remember.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!