Split

It’s not that I didn’t want to shout “Mr. *****!” (mentioning that name would be a spoiler) while listening to the first notes of James N. Howard’s soundtrack classic in the movie. And not that I didn’t get chills down my spine at that moment. But in Split, which has practically no point or moment of surprise, this plot “extension” doesn’t serve any purpose, which is a proof that Shyamalan – despite all the wounds on his soul caused by his fall from grace in Hollywood – did not become a superman. But even so, the film was two hours pleasantly spent. Shyamalan has an irresistibly unique style, which I like to remind myself of by watching his divine trilogy. (08.02.2017)

I’m split with this film, to put it mildly. On the one hand, Shyamalan holds a strong card with James McAvoy, who delivers an amazing performance. It’s also well crafted, several parts manage to generate a dark, almost evil atmosphere, which is contributed by a cacophonous score and nice cinematography. On the other hand, I was unable to overcome the sensation (at least during the first viewing) that the mythology behind the story is utterly stupid, even ridiculous in some places. My experience was like riding a rollercoaster: nice… nice… nice.. pretty good… nice.. hell, this was stupid… nice… nice… oh no… But when I look back at the mythology, it doesn’t seem as stupid as it did during the screening (for instance, it has some interesting analogies about faith and religion), and now I’m more inclined to believe that the execution is a bit sloppy. For the time being, I’ll leave it at three stars, though it’s leaning towards four (and a second viewing might help). In any case, I think The Visit was better, but, this one’s nowhere near the low levels Shyalaman’s films reached between 2008 and 2013. And a spoilery PS: It is very sad that the first Czech review (yeah, Fuka’s) is not only built on spoilers, but also the result of a misunderstanding of the film or of inattention to it, or a distortion or embellishment of the plot. Specifically in these passages: “At the end of the film, Kevin’s doctor also goes into his cellar, and she knows the terrible truth: There’s a 24th identity hidden in Kevin, one that’s not human but a supernatural monster!” Or “During the entire climax, it never occurs to the main character to repeat Kevin’s full name to render him harmless again.” Those are pure lies. Alas, the post-truth era. It doesn’t matter that someone is using bullshit as an argument, what’s important is that they have a strong opinion and trash the film. EDIT: After a week, I’m adding the fourth star. I keep coming back to the film (in good will). In this case it would be a pity to rate it as average, even if the complaints listed above remain, but they are no longer so intense. (19.01.2017)

The King is back in full force. While others pound it into you for two hours and go soft at the end, Shyamalan spends more than half the film escaping to comedic proprieties that are quite creepy knowing that three young girls are being held against their will in the basement. While McAvoy is cutely tripping on his tongue, or strictly driven by OCD (if the Academy wasn't so exclusive to certain genres, the Oscar nomination would have been there for him), somewhere in the back you begin to sense a creeping evil. The last half hour is pure phantasmagoria driven to the extreme, but so precisely handled cinematically that the dark vibe will knock a hole out from within your head. Anya Taylor-Joy will be a big star one day (hopefully outside the genre). PS: The bar scene isn't gratuitous - it's a confident and bold joke that harkens back to a time when some people and some things made us feel confident. (19.01.2017)

Behold, infidel, who said that the genius visionary and director with Indian roots M. Night Shyamalan is well past his prime. After a series of commercially not very successful (but in my opinion definitely not bad) movies, he presents a film that deals with an incredibly interesting idea, which is also supported by practically perfect acting performance by James McAvoy. I have no idea what’s going through Shyamalan’s head when he’s coming up with such complicated premises, but I have to say that he’s doing a terrific job of putting his ideas on the screen, and mainly, he’s stirring up such emotions in me that I’s never come up with them myself. While watching this film, I actually felt that I was watching something that is rewriting the history of film and something that there will be lectures about in universities. That’s the kind of impression this movie made on me. (22.01.2017)

McAvoy's captivating showreel, which is very good for a long time, then sometimes it gets quite bad (because it is unreasonably long) and boldly sophisticated during the meta-closing... Or desperate that already missed the bus. I do not (yet) know, since neither I don´t have a clear opinion on this. It will depend a lot on whether or not it's over, because it's not finished. (19.01.2017)

An uncompromising thriller about everything bad being good for something. James McAvoy shines fully, supporting characters deliver adequately, and if it weren't for the fact that the script occasionally pushes too much, I would leave with nothing but applause. The subject matter, which is professionally close to me, is just sufficiently overdone at the edge of the supernatural, so it could perhaps open the eyes of a few people. M. Night Shyamalan is, to my great delight, once again being hailed by the public as the king, but I don't plan to welcome him back. Because, for me, he never left. (19.01.2017)

McAvoy is a master. And there’s girls running about with shotguns dressed in their bras… Shyamalan has returned to what he does best. Slightly chilling, weird thrillers which, due to peculiar camera work, the studio mistakenly classifies as horror movies. Split has a fine premise and, even if McAvoy has far too many people on his plate (only about four characters are important), the screenplay doesn’t go off into exaggerated descriptions of the situation – just about enough not to spoil the fun. The leading girl’s flashbacks seem slightly random, but in the conclusion they fit into the fragmented puzzle about the uncle with a liking for little girls. Shy has nothing to be ashamed about, on the contrary, this will likely hoist him onto a wave of success. Let’s hope he deals with it wisely this time. (22.01.2017)

They say Shyamalan is back with this film, but I have the feeling that he never fully left. With a few exceptions, he's still doing the same stuff: ghost stories, or at least thrillers, often with naturalistic elements, where the primary role is played for 90 percent of the film's running time by a crystallizing twist that more or less shocks at the end. But once the rules are set, it's good to stick to them. And so, when the whole film has the undertone of the reality of the laws of physics of the contemporary world, it is good to stick to them for the whole duration, because that final game-changer irritated me a lot. And this is one of the reasons why Now You See Me, which pissed off many a film fan with its digital trick escapades, was a flop. Maybe at least McAvoy will get an award for his performance, it was awesome! (29.01.2017)

Finally! A couple of years after I declared war on Shyamalan, the formerly miraculous revelation of mystery cinema, and condemned his more recent works with a series of expletives, the stubborn Indian managed to hold his own and in less than two hours didn’t make me sleepy, angry or bored. Split may not match the claustrophobic atmosphere of Signs or the subtlety of Unbreakable, but the overall concept of a narrative based on the gradual unveiling of the two main characters, the hunter and the victim, is outrageously appealing and, hand in hand with the impeccable performance of McAvoy, and Taylor-Joy and the director's renewed sense of intense and believable tension, creates an impulsive whirlwind of interesting filmmaking ideas and games. I was a little disappointed by the lack of any truly surprising twists, but if Shyamalan has longer term plans for this fictional world (as the final scene suggests), as an interlude, Split is more than satisfying and successful. The climax with the shotgun in the gloomy corridors is the best in years. (18.04.2017)

Sixteen years after Unbreakable, M. Night Shyamalan returns with another story about an extraordinary individual. This time it's an acting tour-de-force by James McAvoy, who succeeded in portraying his incredibly split personality to perfection – Hedwig and Dennis were the most impressive. The film is suspenseful from the initial kidnapping of the girls to the final denouement – even though I saw Unbroken after Glass. The setting of the cellars beneath the zoo had the right oppressive atmosphere, and everything was underscored by the unmistakable musical score. I was also intrigued by the story line around Casey's childhood and I liked the cameo of a certain unnamed character at the end of the film. A solidly made thriller about the dark corners of the human soul, which in this case are as convoluted as the corridors of a labyrinth – and it was a really dangerous labyrinth. (20.01.2019)

Probably not entirely kosher for a film that tries to swim in a pond already dredged by the 17-year-old Unbreakable and labels itself a thriller and a horror movie, when the best thing about it for me was the concept of the ending credits and the line about Hooters being as if Henry VI ran a fast food franchise (in the film they say Henry V, which is a mistake imho). It doesn't help that I've always found McAvoy to be an overacting hysteric, and this is like someone lending an insufferable child a camera for the holidays. Because of this, I couldn't shake the impression of an overwrought Saturday Night Live sketch meant to parody the Hitchcock canon in the spirit of modern teen horror movies from Blumhouse (who produced it). And I'm sorry, because with a little care it could have played on the right strings, with the tension built by the promise of the arrival of the abstract Beast and the final gradation, based on the original premise of an ubermench resulting from the cooperation of split identities, could have been properly and entertainingly deviant, whereas this handling of it kind of fades into the void, or rather into a spin-off between a $75 million intimate drama from 2000 and a $9 million horror movie from 2016. Oh how the fates twist and bend unpredictably. It makes you wonder about the pettiness of life and all our endeavors. (26.04.2017)

M. Night Shyamalan is back in top form. Split is a clever thriller (a bit more complicated in terms of believability, but that's up to the viewer) that exploits depressingly cramped locations to the last inch and most importantly (and perhaps for the first time ever) makes full use of James McAvoy's acting potential. What's more, Shyamalan proves that he's still very much an original filmmaker in the fields of writing and directing. This can't even be described as "dark in atmosphere", because it has a very specific atmosphere typical of Shyamalan and hard to describe in an exact way. What I mean is that the phrase "dark, dense, depressing thriller" is used quite often, but this is completely inappropriate for Split. My impression is that it's all just playful, absorbing, nerve-wracking, and just terribly suspenseful right up to the end. (26.06.2019)

There are two categories of actors: the ones you notice and eventually find out that you've actually seen them in a movie before, but their acting wasn't distinctive or interesting enough for you to remember them. James McAvoy represents for me the other category, the actors that win you over the first moment you see them. And as funny as it is, McAvoy won me over with his role as Mr. Tumnus in Narnia. He's been one of my favorites for years, and after Split I declare him a god. What he can do with his face and voice is remarkable, he can be cute, creepy, scary, but also sensitive; at times he scares you and gives you goosebumps and in the next scene he moves you to tears. An acting tour-de-force. It was only after the second viewing that I was able to properly appreciate the depth of the story and the importance of the last personality. Not that it wasn't understandable the first time around, but the second time you can take in more of the details and context, and most importantly enjoy McAvoy's impeccable performance to the fullest. The actresses also did very well, I really liked the character of the psychologist, whose fate can be a bit predictable. And Casey was good, too, but poor girl! The ending may seem a bit far-fetched, but I personally didn't mind it at all. I mustn't forget the beautiful central musical theme, which immediately became part of my soundtrack playlist. Great experience. (29.04.2017)