M. Night Shyamalan's "Split" - January 20th, 2017

I enjoyed it and didn't find it to be a stinker at all. Was it silly? Sure. Was it ludicrous? To a degree yeah but then even flicks from Hitchcock would and could be all of those things and still be entertaining. As I stated, up until the final act it's entertaining.


Hey when is the last time a film from this guy got 74% at Rotten Tomatoes for critics and 83% for audiences?

It's no The Sixth Sense but it also ain't The Last Air Bender or The Happening.

 

Indeed, it seemed like the parts with Casey were from a much different film.

 

It was #1 at the box office last week making 40 million with projected earnings of 116 million. Not bad for a "stinker". No opinions just the facts.

 

So no movie that gets to #1 at the box office can be called a "stinker"? They're all great?

 

The movie lost me within its first 10 minutes - it's too stupid right out of the gate, and it never improves.

The entire Betty Buckley character exists to be Basil Exposition - a better-written movie would've been able to explain Kevin's mental issues without constantly grinding to a halt so a superfluous character can explain everything to us.

Spoiler

Oh, and if poor old Betty knew how to instantly make Kevin snap out of his "bad" personalities, shouldn't she have done so before he killed her?

 

I wouldn't disagree about Betty Buckley's character but I'm willing to overlook the flaw. The subplot involving Casey's past was compelling enough for me to forgive it.

I wouldn't say it's perfect but it worked for me as a modest thriller.

As far as the spoiler point I felt that it was a major flaw but, and I hate to go back to a ore talented film director, Hitchcock had moments like that as well just as just about every thriller does. Since you were already lost in the first 10 minutes, you didn't get caught up in the film. It's one of those infamous "ice box moments" that Hitch used to talk about. By then, well, they already have your money.

Having said that, there's nothing nearly as bad in this film as "The Happening". Personally, it's a step up from the crap he was putting out for a long while.

I don't think he's a particularly gifted writer. He's good with concepts, set pieces, staging, etc. but his writing isn't ground in any sense of reality--he really hasn't experienced "life" and that's what often makes a great writer. Hitch and other directors that could tell a good story recognized that they needed someone else to actually put together the plot, effective dialog and overcoming stupid moments in the script but--and this is the kicker--once a director reels you in, it's easier to suspend your disbelief. I had no expectations for the film beyond thinking that the premise was just absurd eniugh to be fun and I wasn't disappointed.

As a writer he's like George Lucas in that regard but without the opportunity to have other writers come in and improve his scripts. He also was great at borrowing and make it seem like it was new and all his own. That's something that MNS at first seemed capable of but he's a talented craftsman. I don't think he's developed into an artist but HE thinks he has (not to suggest that Lucas was like that either but he surrounded himself most of the time with talented folks rather than trying to do it lol himself) and that's MNS major flaw as a craftsman. He can't tells his **** from his shinola.

I didn't expect "The Sixth Sense" or even "Unbreakable I just expected something at least as good as "The Visit" and I wasn't disappointed.

 

No but if a fair amount of critics and audience members think it's pretty good...it usually means it's pretty good. Not saying it's perfect but neither was "Blade Runner", "Alien" (why go in the dark air shaft with only a glorified fire stick), "North by Northwesr" (why lure someone out to a secluded location the. Try and shoot them from a crop duster?) there are hundreds of movies with a couple of dumb moments in the script but it doesn't always mean the film is a piece of crap.

Ultimately I think that the performances sell the movie--McAvoy and the gal from "The Witch" do a nice job and the level of camp in McAvoy's performance for certain characters is perfect.

Whereas "The Happening" didn't have just dumb moments but was, well, just dumb escept for the opening set piece with people falling from buildings, killing themselves, etc

Ok, "The Happening" would be a great five minute movie. Maybe two. Without dialog. No Walhberg. Yeah that might work.

 

I'd argue that whether one loves or loathes the movie, the beginning is pretty inert. I can't imagine feeling anything beyond perhaps some level of boredom with the beginning. But the potential problems later in the film are *far* different from an arguably bland opening.

I'd say the opening, while reminding me of numerous other movies (I was flashing on that awful Halle Berry movie from a few years ago where she's the 911 operator), did have a few compelling moments. When the "girl from The Witch" sees the guy get in the car and does *nothing*, you at first wonder if she's in on it with him (reluctantly or otherwise). We later learn why she's so passive of course.

In any event, I have mixed feelings about "Split", but the beginning as I said was pretty inert at worst, and I've seen other movies (sometimes even movies *better* than this one) that have started out far worse than "Split."

 

I thought it was good.

Nice cameo.

I thought James McAvoy did a great job with all the different characters. Betty Buckley also did a great job.

 

I think a strong case can be made that it's a cheap gesture, and/or inappropriate in tone compared to the rest of the movie.

I'm not as down on Shyamalan as others have been over the years, but I don't sense he's someone who's particularly a strong candidate to write that sort of sensitive abuse subplot.

I can only imagine Shyamalan would contend he was trying to treat that story element with the utmost sensitivity, but it did kind of come across more as a lazy plot device to explain Casey being able to use a gun, and her character's frame of mind in general. I'm not opposed to past abuse being used to explain her character's frame of mind, but they just did some weird things tonally in this film that seemed arguably inappropriate. Not massively so, just tonally odd. They could have cut the one scene with the uncle down, the point was made well before Casey walks around and sees him.

I'd also argue that while this film is very "PG-13", the scenes with the other two generic captive girls running around in their underwear was a bit odd, especially because Shyamalan never explores much how one of the "personalities" has nefarious proclivities in that area. The doctor mentions a few times that one of the characters likes to watch girls disrobe or whatever, but it's never explored beyond that. Which is fine, but then one could justifiably wonder what the point of *keeping* those girls in their underwear was beyond the obvious. It's almost like the director and producers came up with some sort of weird PG-13 compromise where one girl keeps her pants but loses her shirt, and the other keeps her shirt but loses her pants.

This is all pretty nitpicky stuff, but it all goes to a general feeling I have that Shyamalan is not a personal, introspective director and is probably better served to either steer clear of that sort of stuff in his twisty, sci-fi-ish films, or he needs to actually stop and do a real drama with no twist endings or pseudo-superheroes, etc.

 

No. I'm just stating the evidence for this film not being a "stinker" is piling up all around you. So you're left with only your opinion.

 

I'm guessing that "stinker" maybe means different things to different people, with some likening it more to box office performance versus a 100% subjective opinion about the film.

I think "Avatar" is a stinker. But it wasn't a stinker at the box office.

I *do* think Shyamalan is in a weird way capitalizing on lower expectations (on the critical side of things, not box office). I don't see a ton of people saying "Split" is just AMAZING! I'm hearing a lot of "Wow, that wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be!" and "It's actually not too bad!"

As for box office, I think that has much more to do with Shyamalan continuing to infuse his films with some of the cheapie horror "Blumhouse" formula; I think some of the people seeing "Split" are the same young people who go to see "Ouija 2" and "The Purge 7" and "Paranormal Activity 14" and "Unfriended" and all of that.

 

I wanted something better than "The Visit" - which I thought was pretty lousy!

 

There are plenty of movies with "dumb moments" that I like - I can accept stupidity if the movie gives me other reasons to like it.

"Split" doesn't. I think it's a package of "dumb moments" with little good to sustain it.

From the second Kevin gets in the girls' car, the movie indulges in copious amounts of illogical material - and it doesn't compensate with enough to "forgive" these problems...

 

That's the scene the loses me - not because Casey's passive, but because Kevin gets in the car and waits to subdue the girls. Why just sit there and give them a chance to escape?

This seems even dumber since he knocks out the girls in the back seat but does nothing to Casey for a long time. Why? Why give her a chance to fight back or attempt to escape?

Again: makes no sense - just like so much of the rest of the movie...

 

The girls in their underwear was the best part of the movie!

 

And yet life moves on!

You can't "prove" a movie is good or bad. You can say "but all these people liked it" - that doesn't make it true.

It's art - there's no right/wrong or correct/incorrect...

 

I think the point of him sitting there was to emphasize how vapid/dumb/self-centered the two other girls are; they literally don't notice some random dude just got in their car because they're not paying *any* attention to something very obvious; they're presumably paying attention to themselves or their phones or each other or whatever it was.

We also learn during the movie that he has been stalking/following/researching these two girls; I'm guessing we're supposed to think he knows they'll be so self-absorbed as to not notice. Plus, whatever that spray is appears to completely incapacitate someone *immediately*, so there's probably minimal chance any of the girls would get away. They may cause a scene/ruckus as he subdues them.

I'm not saying there isn't an element of plot convenience here meant to offer some insights into the characters (the two girls are vapid, Casey is weird, the guy is a prototypical creepy, reserved kidnapper, etc.). But none of it rose to "makes *no* sense" status for me.

 

And that's probably part of why I thought the film had tonal problems, because that element of the movie (as well as the Casey flashbacks) felt at odds with the tone of the rest of the movie. It's still creepy those girls are parading around in their underwear; while the actors are all over 18 (it appears they were 20 and 21 respectively when shooting the film), they're *supposed* to be underage most likely (I suppose one could argue all three girls are seniors in high school and all over 18, but that seems unlikely, especially considering the doctor's reference in the film to one of the personalities being into girls undressing, etc.).

No, the stuff with the girls in their underwear isn't super egregious or anything. But they're *probably* supposed to be minors in the context of the movie, and showing some (thought not a lot) of scenes with them in their underwear struck me as a "Blumhouse" move for young male viewers.

 

After some thought and a few conversations about this film, I've decided that subplot is a cheap gesture, and while this film is suspenseful, it's also exploitative and shot through with Shyamalan's own special brand of regressive stupidity. Skillfully made, but hollow, and not nearly as serious as it would like to be. It has its moments, just don't think about it very much.

 

First, I'm not trying to prove it's a good film, you assumed that. I enjoyed it, you didn't, you're right, life moves on. Lastly, you expecting "art", maybe that's your deal. Do you really think on that set they thought they we're creating art, give me break. They were trying to make a film that would put some butts in the seats and it looks like they may succeed at that. They got your bucks didn't they, even after that horrible excuse for a trailer.

 

You missed part of what I said: the fact he waited to incapacitate Casey was the biggest stretch of logic in that scene. She's right next to him and the most able to fight back, yet he leaves her alone until she starts to try to exit the car.

Makes. No. Sense.

And I don't think that scene paints the girls as vapid. C'mon - they're teen girls. They hear someone get in the car and they assume it's the dad - why wouldn't they? Why would they look up from their conversation when they have good reason to believe it's the dad?

 

"Art" is a broad term. No, I don't think MSN felt he was making something that'd win Oscars but "art" covers any creative endeavor.

If a 3-year-old makes a finger painting, that's still "art" - it might be crude but it's still a form of artistic expression, as is every movie.

So "Split" = "art"...

 

If you guys want to read a critic who really, REALLY hated this movie, check out David Edelstein at Vulture. Besides Anya Taylor-Joy, he liked absolutely nothing about the movie -- in fact he found it totally reprehensible. Couldn't even enjoy the girls in their underwear.

 

I read that and much agree, especially how Shyamalan "exploits the trauma of childhood sexual abuse for his own stupid, meretricious ends." He also pins the director as a cultural reactionary and a prude, which I think is fairly accurate. Shyamalan at his worst is a primitive, campfire-story teller, and a narcissist. That those qualities are kept at bay here keeps Split from being a total disaster, but Edelstein's review makes a lot of very strong points that I think are worthy of attention.

As far as the "girls in their underwear," do we need any further evidence of this film's exploitative nature? Let's be grown ups: that kind of thing isn't funny, and in a movie that seems to want to raise this genre to a higher level, it lays bare just how far the director falls short.