Splinter

so, i've seen this at a preview screening. here's my commentary: i don't know how many people go to blockbuster, but i'm sure anyone who has, regularly, has noticed over the years, a slew of low-budget "gang" films. well, those movies hitting the shelves, seem to only bring to the viewer the basic, generic love affair, doubled with an attempt (a poor one) at the "tough feel" better captured by classics like "american me", and "south central". well, after actually renting a few of those, i'd say they were more than a let down, they were HORRIBLE. but then again, they WERE low-budget. i can go on about these titles, bad acting, bad editing, etc. and rarely, anything new brought to the table.

with splinter, it seems (finally) someone decided to actually jump off the cheap bandwagon, and make more than just another "urban"/mi vida loca/boyz in the hood b-flick. the best way i've heard it described is "memento" meets a modern "blood in/blood out". sizemore fits his character so well, you forget he's not really a messed up cop. ed olmos' deadpan look and stern dialogue also do great in the story. the main "gangsters" themselves, especially "dreamer", also do a good job, portraying these characters as more than just average street criminals, but people with messed up lives.

anyways, i definitely recommend this if you want to see a "gang life" movie with some good twists and turns, along with numerous scenes of gratuitous violence. this is one i wouldn't be surprised HBO picking up.

An hour into this movie, and I thought "okay, enough now; this is as much as I can take of this crap." I haven't seen the ending, and I really don't care.

This inept piece of garbage would have even Ed Wood splitting heirs over its numerous flaws. Olmos, who is I assume either the son or nephew of that other Olmos - the one that played in "Blade Runner" - made this amateurish junk, proving for the umpteenth time that nepotism doesn't work. Not in movies, not anywhere. Movie-making is not DNA-based.

Awful acting, phony-sounding "ghetto dialogue", muddled editing, an ugly look, and a dull plot. What more can one want?

Though not completely awful, this film disappoints. Though independent directors bemoan the studio system and how it stifles creativity, there is at least one thing that the studios have done fairly consistently: they've been able to remind directors that good acting is highly desirable. Too many indie directors take a concept and some creative ideas and then simply relegate the acting to the lowest priority possible. That's one of the problems with "Splinter"...budget-level acting. I don't consider Sizemore to be an outstanding actor, but he truly embarrasses virtually every other actor in this film, especially Atis, who simply appears amateurish and uncertain in every scene.

So, sorry...can't recommend this one at all. Crummy acting condemns a movie, regardless of the concept, story, and other production values.

Lost among millions of Hollywood flicks and translations of life in the barrio, urban thriller fiction and urban friction have never been translated and amalgamated into a digestible and acceptable product until the conception of Splinter. In the footsteps of its successful filmic predecessors "Ghost World," "History of Violence," or possibly "The Walking Dead," one might consider this to be another wonderful comic book/graphic novel come to life. However, not quite manufactured into an actual tangible book like its famed literal leaders, Dark Horse Films (Sin City, HellBoy) along with director Michael Olmos give life to an inner-city story that follows the conventions of traditional story telling in movies, but flesh out the skeletal in such a purposeful and personal way as to entrap us in the confusion that binds all of its characters. Entwined in a lysergic and cathartic weave, everyone, actors and audience members alike, will find themselves trying to escape from the volatile streets of Paradise Gardens and Greenville Heights acid-mimetic tirade. Supported by such talents as Sizemore, Olmos, Almeida, Gugliemi, Atis, Rivera, and Cypress Hill, you'll want to bring the homies Dusty, Trigger, and Happy along for the "trip." You betta axe somebody!...

I liked this movie considering it was about gangs. Usually I cannot stand these types of movies however I found this tolerable. What I could not stand is the main female actress. She was supposed to be a hard a** personality but would break down crying over things that seemed to be not so important. The movie did not develop her character too well and yet a lot hinged on her.

The male characters were good, but not great. It was typical of the gang movie style. I am not sure why this movie caught my attention though, usually I would loose interest fast and stop watching.

There is something i liked and respected in this movie. I am not sure what is was but I will say this is a movie I probably would not watch a second time.