Split

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. (21/01/2017)

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)

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)

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)

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)