Split (M. Night Shyamalan)

[TGM]

SPLIT

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4972582/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

[TGM]

So I had a free pass to an advanced screening of this, and was a bit hesitant to go, as I've heard the horror stories of the kinds of crowds that these sorta screenings tend to attract. However, I'm happy to report that the crowd was actually very well behaved. And not only that, they actually had a guy posted in there who was kicking people out for using their phones. That guy is my movie theater hero!

As for the movie itself, well, it took him about 18 years, but Shyamalan finally delivered on a new satisfying twist worthy of his original reputation. Seriously, this is likely his best since Unbreakable. Genuinely good stuff here!

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, I'm really liking what I'm hearing about this. Had to miss a screening to this last week, but looking forward to it.. a Shyamalan movie.... in 2017.

(I should note that I am someone who will always love and defend everything he made from Sixth Sense to Lady in the Water.)

[Dukefrukem]

Now that you mention it, I haven't had a bad theater experience on opening weekend in a long time.

[Skitch]

James McAvoy is one of the best actors of this generation. Hes twice the draw for me here than M. Cant wait to see it.

[TGM]

James McAvoy is one of the best actors of this generation. Hes twice the draw for me here than M. Cant wait to see it.

Oh yeah, McAvoy's really damn good in this. Dude has a knack for picking some really interesting roles, and this is no different. ;)

[Morris Schæffer]

Very interested in this.

[Skitch]

Oh yeah, McAvoy's really damn good in this. Dude has a knack for picking some really interesting roles, and this is no different. ;)

Did you see Filth?

[TGM]

Did you see Filth?

I have not. Would you recommend it?

[Skitch]

I have not. Would you recommend it?

I thought it was great. My friend hated it. Its McAvoy's Bad Lieutenant, sort of.

[transmogrifier]

I don't like McAvoy. Always seems kind of... try hard. I don't know. A lot of that stems from Wanted.

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, it's crazy to think that Joaquin was supposed to be the lead up until the eleventh hour. I really like McAvoy though, so definitely looking forward to him here. Just have to wonder how wild (and wildly different) Phoenix might've been.

[Henry Gale]

Guys. Okay. Aside from saying how good McAvoy is and talking about how Shyamalan is back in much more stable and interesting form (if still tonally shaky and thematically questionable at times), I don't know how to talk about my strongest feelings about this without spoiling major things. I'll just say that if you've ever been a Shyamalan fan, particularly for his earlier thrillers, then this is very much worth seeing, and also mention that it does two very specific things I've wanted to see in film for a very long time, and pulls them off pretty damn well.

Those two things being a film that you walk into, enjoy on its own terms and then see it reveal itself to be a sequel or in the universe of another film entirely. And the other thing is that for the last 17 years as a huge fan of Unbreakable, I've wanted Shyamalan to return to that, and boy if his intentions come to fruition with these two films merging, I am now a million times more excited for his work than I thought I ever could be at the beginning of this decade.

There were very nice hints at the connection(s), and I even kinda decided in my mind that it would be the case at some point, though not really knowing how it would reveal it. But that barely-post-credit scene still quickly threw me over the moon to feel like it all blindsided me.

Definitely not a great movie, but one that does a couple of great things.

[DavidSeven]

He's baaaaaaack.

Wow, this surprised me. Even before the awesome ending that put a shit-eating grin on my face, I found this to be supremely entertaining. The little details of the characters, the craftsmanship, the performances, the music. It all works in a way that we stopped expecting it to 15 years ago. When you put it in the context of his body of work, it's even more fun. Obviously, McEvoy shines in a role that easily could've been played way too hammy. He brings the proper intensity without ever becoming laughable. And as much as I dug his performance, Betty Buckley's Dr. Fletcher might be my favorite aspect of the film -- a type of character that feels really unique to the modern money-maker.

Sure, Shyamalan oversteps at times in terms of drama and themes, but he's always been guilty of that. But this takes me back to a time when you could count on his films being flat-out fun and layered. Return to form? Absolutely.

[Peng]

Its treatment of mental illness is pushed far over-the-top into almost outright fantasy that it doesn't feel ill-advised to me, especially in retrospect. What does bother me is one lurking aspect of the backstory, where Shyamalan's recognization of its gravitas and his attempt to be "tasteful" about it only make its placement stand out uncomfortably in ickiness all the more. Asides from that, I really enjoyed what is probably Shyamalan's most unhinged direction to date, in the best way possible. And both James McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy are able to match up with him shot-for-shot, especially in long close-ups (which reveal the latter's ability to give Emma Stone a run in the big, expressive eyes department). Bring on his next project! 7/10

[Spinal]

Those two things being a film that you walk into, enjoy on its own terms and then see it reveal itself to be a sequel or in the universe of another film entirely.

Other people seem to enjoy this about the film, but it annoyed me so much that it really spoiled anything else that I liked about the movie. Ugh, what a bait and switch.

[transmogrifier]

Some good stuff here (intercutting near the end, the acting), but ridiculously talky and the other two girls might as well not be there for all the use they are to the narrative. I knew about the reveal at the end, and was looking forward to it, but it's unforgivably clumsy in execution ("What was his name?" Come on..).

[Stay Puft]

I don't know about this.

I'm pretty drunk right now so bear with me.

I spent half the mmovie trinh to figure out of I should be offende or not. I don't like when genre films use mental illness as a theme. but I wasn't realty offended actually. this movie literally says nothing about mental illness. figured out pretty quickly it's an exploitation film, like maby mental illness is the KEY TO THE Supernatural whow YOU'RE BOWING MY MIND but not really. literally the only thing different about this movie is that it actually calls it dissociative identity disorder. that might be a first for Hollywood. but the representation is still cliché. even one of the alternates has ANOTHER mentall illness (OCD) and THAT is also conveyed with cliché signifiers (oh, he keeps repositioning the candy tray or whatever. but WHY? why does he care about that? these movies always conflated compulsive behavior with personality disorder, it's not the same).

no that actually didn't bother me as much. childhood abuse as a plot device? COME ON. come on. like what is this movie even trying to say? it's an exploitation film, fine, I get it.

it's basically just, hey, what if billy millgian was a supervillain. fine. as an exploitation film that's kind neat. I get the appeal. it's unusal and compelling and lends itself to a psychological horror puzzle plot or whatever.

but then it turns out this is ALSO a sequel to Unbreakable. now I really don't know what to do. as an exploitation film it's neat, it twists and turns and messes with the audience. but the big twist at the end here is like... like henry says it's wild, I didn't see it coming, how many times has this been done? but like trans says the scene itself is clumsy, kinda dumb, I dunno. I waited how many years for a sequel to un breakeable and what I get is a mediocre genre thriller? I dunno. I dunno know about that.

as a genre film it's maybe slightly above average. it's neat but it's not terribly original or interesting. it twists and turns but doesn't say much. as a you know what it leaves a lot to be desired.

I voted nay.

I'm sorry for drunk posting. is this my first time drunk posting on match cut? I think maybe I posted about the wonder girls once when I was really drunk. they're breaking up now and I'm super sad about that. I only admit stuff like that when I'm drunk.

this movie was ok I guess. I GUESS. but I voted nay. I wanted a lot more from a sequel to unbreakable. maybe split 2: dissociatve identity boogaloo will be more interesting. I don't know. don't think shyamalan is terrible or anything but still don't have a lot of faith in the guy right now honestly. still think he's kind of charlatan. has his moments tho.

whew I dunno. am I done posting now? I dunno.

gonna regret not deleting this post maybe.

[transmogrifier]

Wow, you took the Wondergirls break-up hard.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Regarding the epilogue, I didn't have the same reaction as Stay Puft, since I didn't read that epilogue as a sign that this film was a covert Unbreakable sequel. It felt more like a bonus tag for Shyamalan fanboys than as something essential to the story. On the one hand, I loved loved loved hearing that Howard cue again in the theater ("Visions," for fans of the soundtrack), and I like the idea of Kevin as someone who operates along the same sort of heightened biology that gave rise to David Dunn.

But I also don't think the Shyamalan who made Unbreakable really exists anymore (he's transitioned and found new value), and part of what makes Unbreakable attractive to me is that it doesn't have to operate like a traditional comic book story. It was revelatory because you realize that if a superhero actually had an origin in our world, it'd play more like The Dead Zone than Captain America. The more comic book archetypes and tropes Unbreakable brings in (like a diverse rogue's gallery), the more it risks losing that uneasy quality that made it so special.

[Gah, but on the other hand, I want to make fanart now with David Dunn, Mr. Glass, and The Horde. And that is such a good name for a supervillain. Damn it.]

As for Split itself, as a movie, I found it about the same quality as The Visit, worth a watch, not great, but appropriately creepy and funny and in line with Shyamalan's new mode as camp thriller meister. He used to get those comparisons to Hitchcock, but these two recent films recall the sub-Hitchcock still-fun potboiler style of '50s movies like I Bury the Living and The Bad Seed (not an insult, not really). James McAvoy here is absolutely fantastic, communicating so much with posture and facial expression and his overall physicality when creating these characters. You never get lost trying to keep up with his alters, how many matter, which one is talking, etc. Betty Buckley's theories are half-baked and sorta land with a thud (maybe it would've been better off dramatized with a secondary client as opposed to fed piecemeal through her monologuing), and I'm also not sure I liked how it handled the sexual abuse subplot (it threads and registers as true thematically but doesn't seem to feed back into the present drama, not until the very end). Overall, though, happy to call this another victory in the Shyamalanaissance.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Also, if that epilogue builds to something, then the current power ranking of cinematic universes:

1. Shayamalanaverse
2. Giant Monsterverse
3. MCU
4. DCU

[Morris Schæffer]

Oh boy that finale. It's probably not right to give a movie 4 stars solely on the basis of the last 5 seconds, certainly not this one, and so I will refrain from doing that, but that ending!

At one point, more towards the end, I also felt I was watching a really good X-Files episode. I like how this seems to go over the top, but somehow never derails and in the end stays well within the boundaries

it has set out.

[Rico]

I find it funny that a general audience in 2017 will see Bruce Willis at the end of this movie and be like WTF? Why is he in this movie? And never link the cameo to Unbreakable because lets face it, Unbreakable never caught on with the mainstream audience and it's memory is only kept alive by us cinephiles.

Shyamalan somewhat shoots himself in the foot with that cameo. Instead of judging Split on its own merits we're now judging it on whether or not it's a worthy successor to Unbreakable. (Frankly it's not) Still, it makes the possible sequel a little more intriguing.

[dreamdead]

Enjoyed this well enough, as the many asides about being supernatural or special felt very true to form. Taylor-Joy has a strong facial presence and makes up for far more one-note sketched characters alongside her, but I rather wanted just a bit more to anchor her flashbacks to the contemporary story. At times they feel like a surface juxtaposition and don't seem fully logical. Further, Hedwig is such a fun creation for McAvoy that it's a shame that few of the other in-characters stand out to the same degree. That's code for the rap dance song being far more interesting than several of the Dennis and Dr. Fletcher scenes.

There were a few instances where Shyamalan could have gone far creepier or sketchier and made a more interesting film. There's ways in which the girls' undressing is not overly lingered upon and that thus redeem the central B-film plot, but there's also ways in which that scenario could have been explored with greater coverage to highlight something interesting about either of the other two girls' personalities, who are otherwise bodies that don't have anything interesting to do or say.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjhgHNlC4Qk

[Grouchy]

Hahah, that Honest Trailer nailed something that kept bugging me throughout the whole movie. Can I at least get a glimpse at the other fifteen personalities? Grant Morrison wrote a character called Crazy Jane with this exact same schtick for his version of Doom Patrol (in fact, I'm pretty sure this is where Shyamalan got the inspiration - The Beast being the equivalent of Black Annis) and part of the fun was how a previously unheard of personality would pop up for a specific scene or moment.

Shyamalan's bizarre career arc is so unique. He peaked with Unbreakable and has since acted the cinematic equivalent of a chastised husband stuck in a vicious relationship who hasn't stopped apologizing for The Happening when he proceeds to unfold The Last Airbender on his audience. So it makes sense that, for a film which is a return to form, he'd do an Unbreakable connection. I don't get people who say that this ruined the story for them. It's not as if the whole film is a "secret sequel". It's just one little coda at the end.

Anyway, McAvoy is as excellent as everyone says. The story is really risky and compelling, cleverly combining Horror movie mumbo-jumbo with a more developed and modern approach to mental illness. Let's hope for less After Earth and more of this in Shyamalandingdong's future.

[Ezee E]

Where 10 Cloverfield Lane succeeded as a hostage situation and a creature sci-fi movie, this got pretty dumb when it turned into a creature sci-fi movie. The talent of M. Night was definitely there in that first hour, with his choice of blocking, acting, and style. I just think its spirals downhill after the Doctor visits the house.

Much is obviously made about the ending, and I think it's because it covers up how horrible that last thirty minutes is.

But happy that there is a return to form for M. Night. Even if it was just for a hour.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh late to the party here but enjoyed this quite a bit.

[Skitch]

Ditto. MacAvoy will win an Oscar one day.

[number8]

lol what a terrible psychologist.