Splinter (I) (2006) User Reviews (11)

Splinter hit and miss

[tomasdiaz · 6/10 · 9 August 2008]

Splinter tells the story of Paradise Gardens and Greenville rival gangs in the setting of a rough part of Los Angeles. A cheating girlfriend ignites violence between the two gangs. There was a heavy emphasis on the cheating girlfriend. One could easily expect to see passion burn up the screen. Instead the sexy love scenes in this film could be described as an after school special romance. It did not fit with the overall gangster style that is down and dirty.

Veteran actor Tom Sizemore as corrupt Detective Cunningham lit up every scene he was in. Great to see the man back in films instead of the now canceled reality TV show "Shooting Sizemore". He gave a strong performance in this one. The kind of shady Detective that is more gangster than cop. Another stand out performance was Enrique Almeida who played Dreamer. Keep an eye out for this actor.

The main reason I did not give this one a higher score was because the worst lines I've experienced in a film happened. The corrupt cop played by Tom Sizemore forces the viewer to listen to a long and painfully bad speech about how gang war is like Chinese food take out. Using Orange Chicken, Beef Broccoli, and rice to make his point. It was awful. The rest of the writing in the film was good and then this scene happens. I was watching the film with a group of friends and it was agreed that might have been one of the worst scenes we've ever watched. Splinter it a hit and miss. It has an interesting plot that might keep most viewers tuned in.

Not enough Tom

[frog663 · 4/10 · 9 September 2008]

I give this one four stars, solely because of Tom Sizemore who, for me, was the only interesting thing in this whole film. Though getting top billing, he isn't in this one nearly enough to rate it any higher. Why he wasn't given more screen time is beyond me. In fact, Resmine Atis seems to get as much, or more, screen time and, in my opinion, is as wooden an actress as I have seen on film. I kept waiting for some kind of real emotion to come out of her character, but it just wasn't to be.

I guess, perhaps, I am the wrong demographic for this kind of film, as I found the story and most of it's characters extremely dull and unimaginative. I found myself counting how many times they called each other "dog" just to keep myself amused. And, no, I can't give you the actual final count...you'll have to watch and count for yourselves....

Decent movie, bad casting...

[griesimatthew · 4/10 · 10 October 2007]

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.

Get the DVD for the Tom Sizemore interview! (Possible Spoilers)

[Flowbeer · 3/10 · 23 February 2014]

This movie wasn't very good. I think the director is the son of Edward James Olmos and that he helped his son out by playing a cameo in the beginning, maybe helping him get the job or with financing. Someone else commented how "wooden" the female Detective's acting was and I have to agree. Maybe the director was dating her and let her have the part, because she certainly had no ability, showed no emotion, zero projection, no command as a cop, etc. Just stiff, sullen, quiet, low-energy 'acting'.

And then I see Tom Sizemore and he's slamming shots of tequila and acting out of control, which I like to see. But in general, it was a pretty weak performance, even by his standards. Here's a guy who has acted with the likes of Robert Deniro, Val Kilmer, Tom Hanks, etc. and was so down on his luck that he took this role as an out-of-control suicidal alcoholic cop, for probably pennies. I have always liked his work, but not so much in this one. Truly, he was the only reason I bought the DVD (he was on the cover), otherwise I never would have bought it.

(Possible Spoiler)

I like gritty L.A. gang/cop thrillers, but this one was far-fetched and hard to follow. The flashbacks that try to explain what happen to the victims, show the female detective, as if she was the one killing people? Then you're never really sure. About the only interesting part that held my attention was in the special features, where they interview Tom Sizemore about his career and what happened to it. He said he was doing great, had a $5 million home, and then some woman said that he hit her and then it all went away; he spent all his money defending himself in court, trying to avoid a prison sentence, and then was kind of 'blacklisted' by other actors & directors who didn't want to work with him. It's really quite a shame to see how easily people can be destroyed by allegations.

Years back, I used to get Tom Sizemore and Michael Madsen mixed up. They have both worked in gritty film roles and have larger-than-life personalities and played bad guys very well. It seems that both of these great actors have hit hard times and I hope they both get their chance for a comeback. No one deserves to be broke & homeless, not even movie stars.

Is there no cure for nepotism?

[fedor8 · 24 November 2007]

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?

Yikes! Good intentions, crummy execution.

[innocuous · 3/10 · 17 November 2007]

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.

Remarkably Good

[Bob_the_Hobo · 7/10 · 9 February 2011]

I expected a bait-and-switch with Tom Sizemore and Edward James Olmos and got it. For those of you watching the film solely for their performances, don't. They aren't in the film long enough to judge their characters. However I'm somewhat glad I ended up watching this.

The main character is Dreamer (played by Enrique Almeida), who we find at the beginning of the film being questioned to a murder. We soon find out that a friend of Dreamer's was the victim, Dreamer was there, and that he can't remember a thing due to sustaining a head injury during the murder. The ramifications of Dreamer's memory loss manifest themselves in Detective Gramm, a newbie to the force who is being harassed by Sizemore's character. Eventually Gramm and Sizemore have to investigate a slew of murders, with Dreamer being their missing link.

I could have done a lot worse. Noel Gugliemi (Noel G.), who here plays Dusty, is always great to watch, I remember his performance in "Wrong Turn At Tahoe" particularly. Honestly I watched it for him as much as Sizemore and Olmos, and saw more of the first. The story is layered and interesting and I remained interested for the duration.

The acting is mediocre by our star, yet he is still better than half the actual stars of the bait-and-switch genre. Like I said, Olmos has a cameo role. Tom Sizemore is great in what screen-time he actually has. He plays a great scumbag. Diamond Dallas Page plays another sleazy detective in a pretty sweet role. Noel G. and several others play some memorable supporting roles. The actress who plays Gramm, the newbie, is bearable.

The cinematography is really, really well done. The scenes of Los Angeles are beautifully captured, as well as the gang-life that "Splinter" tries to portray in it's depictions of LA violence. The dialogue starts off awful but manages to get a bit better as the film goes along.

Ultimately, you could do a heck of a lot worse, though I wouldn't put it at the top of your queue.

noteworthy in an otherwise burned out genre

[overherebuddy · 8/10 · 20 April 2007]

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.

Didn;t think much of it, till I watched it all.

[v70e · 9/10 · 16 September 2007]

I rarely comment on here about films I have seen, although I do tend to give them a vote.

This one made me make a comment, its an unusual film, I won't go into specifics, but when you watch it you will see what I mean. Its not the usual Hollywood blockbuster, and that's what makes it great.

Watch it and it will no doubt make you question a few things in your own life. Any film that makes you do that, is certain to be a great film.

Its a great shame I didn't watch this earlier!

Just watch it.....

A cool trip through the ghetto. Leave your spinal taps at home.

[MistaFreeze · 9/10 · 22 November 2006]

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!...