User Reviews

This movie was nothing like what I expected. I thought this was a sci-fi movie, but I ain't mad.

There was so much going on, so much to digest.

The main character, Danny (Michael O'Keefe), is a talented gymnast going to Dayton college. He's so talented that the Olympics is even mentioned regarding him. One day he locks eyes with a girl in a café. It was a weird exchange because she was staring at him so ardently but it was a look more of intrigue than desire. He, of course, interpreted the look and the subsequent advance as an invitation. It was an invitation alright... an invitation to a commune in some remote area.

If this was another movie this could've easily had been a scary movie. The commune definitely had a strange vibe, but that's all it was. There were no human sacrifices, no conjuring evil spirits, or even holding people hostage. With a little bit of truth and a lot of hugs they win people over and Danny was no exception.

Danny was in but his parents were not and they wanted him back. In steps Charles Pratt (James Woods), he is the Kool-Aid camp kidnapper. You lose 'em and he brings 'em back. His character is so mercurial you love him and loathe him at the same time. His tactics seem unorthodox and at times you question his tactics as well as his motives. Then he'll say or do something to totally redeem himself. I thought his character and his performance was the best of the movie.

I think the strength of the movie was in the firm yet subtle nature of the commune. The commune wasn't overtly bad at any point. Without a doubt the commune was a break from social norms. Yes, it was clear that something was amiss but were they ever in danger? Were they ever really misled? You can say yes, they were being misled, but to what degree? Was the cult leader, Kirklander (Peter Fonda), saying anything so outlandish?

Personally, I think he was a kook as well as his followers. Personally, my reaction as a parent would've been the same as Danny's parents: kidnap him and have him deprogrammed. The parent dynamic was very good. They were torn. They wanted him back, they wanted him broken of the cult confusion, but they couldn't bear to see him hurt in the process.

I think the mother had the best line of the movie. It was the point when she was trying to find out the true reason why her son even visited that wacky place and he said there was someone there that he cared about. When she realized it was a girl he was chasing she had to clear the air when she said,

"I've sacrificed most of my life on that holy altar that they call motherhood. Right? Always putting you first. Your needs. Your life..."

It was a powerful moment for me as a parent. Here it is this lost, confused, and now insolent boy she raised that's so bold as to tell her to shut up because she mentioned this nameless girl with disdain. I totally understood her anger and outrage. She, as well as his father, raised him giving him love, support, and all the best they could afford (which was a lot) and in a single three-day weekend all of their sacrifices for him were rendered meaningless. The entire situation-- the young man, the girl, the cult, the parents, and even the "reclaimer" Charles-- was so profound and layered.

If there was anything I didn't like about the movie it would be the ending. I knew that there was a risk of regression as Charles had stated (just like Charles stated that they needed to give their son more to live for). I thought the options were A.) fully reuniting with his parents or B.) slipping back to the commune. I never saw option C which was running off with his sweetheart Rebecca/Amy (Karen Allen). That part of the story was too fairytale--you know, the whole riding off into the sunset.

That action wasn't a full break from the movie because it was the act of two confused souls still. If there was any mystery with the commune it was not going to be anything like the unknown from them running off together. They were probably the least qualified people to do anything on their own. Without a doubt, Rebecca was still under the influence of the cult and Danny, fresh from deprogramming and having no financial means, was extremely vulnerable.

But I guess that was the point of the ending. Maybe the fairytale ending would've been him reuniting with his parents. Instead we got the more realistic ending: the two running away from everyone probably not knowing who to trust and who to believe. OK... maybe I do like the ending.

In a nut shell, 'Split Image' from 1982 provides a look at being brought into a fanatical cult and becoming programmed by a master manipulator. That being said, the film addresses our vulnerability and questions our sense of purpose.

Our protagonist Danny, played by Michael O' Keefe, is at an impressionable age where his hormones are raging and he's trying to grab the reins of life. All the while, he's a part of an upper middle class family that comfortably lives up to their tier on the social ladder. After he's lured into the cult by Nancy Allen's character, "Rebecca," he begins to submit himself to the verbal persuasions of the cult's leader, Neil, played by the late Peter Fonda.

James Woods' character, Charles, is somewhat of a professional deprogrammer of people who have become brainwashed by the cult. Woods is very entertaining in the role, but his character's demeanor is so unrealistically sensational that he's a borderline caricature of a "spell breaker."

During the "breaking" process, where Charles is trying to bring Danny back to his senses, he tells the parents that he'll need to find a purpose in life after it's all over. It's at that time that Charles asks Danny's little brother about what he'd like out of life. The boy's response is essentially wrapped in the same affliction as his older brother; he's been proverbially brainwashed by his parents and their view of class and middle class life, and says that he'd like to live in clean air and in a high rise away from everyone, after which he gets up and runs out of the room. That moment essentially sums up one of the main themes of the film: conditioning takes away choice.

Ultimately, both Danny and "Rebecca" manage to see through Neil's manipulation and defy the odds of conversion. The romantic notion lies in the message that love conquers all, and no opposing views, money or religion can get in the way of that. This, however, leaves us with a bit of a cliche which was not foreign for films of the time. Regardless, worth taking a look.

It's definitely worth viewing, but does it deserve a second watch. Considering this film is part of the cult genre, it has a straightforward plot. Similar stories typically have a heavy amount of mystery and often spiral into horror by the end. Split Image.......not so much.

The first three acts do a fine job of establishing the theme. The simplistic journey we are taken on is not too dissimilar to what we've seen before in these types of plots. I think this honest approach to cultic mind control is very intriguing as it gives the viewer a more accurate glimpse into communal living that is a reality. It was especially familiar to viewers in the early 1980s, after a decade of cults being in the headlines.

The reason that the film falls short for me is basically the same reason that it may excel for other viewers. Where others like the toned down evil rhetoric so that we get a more realistic view of nonfictional cult behavior, I sort of feel that the lack of a legitimate threat disconnects me from the conclusion. There's always a possibility for harm to befall the protagonists, but it isn't looming......it isn't creepy......it's not life-threatening. James Woods is the creepiest character in the film(as usual)! Again, this may be the brilliance of the film for many.

The film being a study of "control", it's important that the last act leaves no question in the mind of the viewers as who is the final victor. The battleground is the mind and independence of Danny(& Amy). He must defeat any desire to be Joshua, but must also find the "Real" Danny.

I think if the last act(last 20 minutes) would have been slightly different, this film could've jumped 2-3 points for me. It could do this without betraying its narrative. As Danny begins to settle back into his former reality, he is surprised to learn that Charles(J. Woods) is trying to convince his parents (E. Ashley & B. Dennehy) to release his story to the public. A family argument ensues after Kevin(Dennehy) asks Charles to leave. Danny's mother is coming down heavy on him. Danny grabs his mother and Dad threatens Danny. There is a heavy atmosphere of hopelessness that begins to change the viewers opinion of the parents......."Maybe Danny would be better off with the cult." I like this scene because it displays that the parents desire to control Danny and it calls into question if they really care about him as much as they think they do. The last scene of the parents are the two of them staring out at the pool mumbling some jibberish......I don't like that. They should have been on site when Danny stood up to Neil(P. Fonda). In fact, Charles(Woods) should have been present as well. This climax would have of improved the film. When Neil slaps Danny it is out of his frustration to control him(Neil basically gave into his carnal image and sinned.) Danny is the victor! He controls himself. He and Amy run away together. It would have been so much better if Danny's parents were left behind also as the two go running and laughing to freedom from those that want to control them.

The icing on the cake would be Charles(Woods) and Neil(Fonda) having words that gave us some insight of why Charles hated him so much. Maybe a glimpse into a backstory. Even have a few of the cult followers not reentering the van after witnessing Neil's outburst, Danny's concerned parents, Charles's personal testimony of why Neil is dangerous and the scene of Danny and Amy running happily away. That would have stuck, and could have been so climatic that I might would watch the film a second time.

Michael O'Keefe ("Caddyshack") plays Danny Stetson, a college student / champion gymnast, and a nice guy from a good family. He falls for new acquaintance Rebecca (Karen Allen, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), and follows her into Homeland, a religious cult led by the charismatic Neil Kirklander (Peter Fonda, "Race with the Devil"). There he is soon brainwashed into abandoning his former life. His distraught father Kevin (Brian Dennehy, "First Blood") hires a sleazy deprogrammer, Charles Pratt (James Woods, "Videodrome"), and his "operatives" to kidnap Danny and try to make him see the light again.

While producer-director Ted Kotcheffs' other 1982 film, the aforementioned "First Blood", is still very well remembered 42 years later, this one has kind of fallen through the cracks. Not that it deserved this fate, as it's pretty good and interesting. Following on the heels of a 1981 Canadian film titled "Ticket to Heaven", it tells a good story that is given some potency by its excellent cast. O'Keefe does an effective job in the lead, Allen is adorable as always, Fonda is amusing and subtly sinister, Dennehy & Elizabeth Ashley ("Happiness") aces as the parents. Woods, in his inimitable style, very much steals the film as Pratt, and his "deprogramming" scenes with O'Keefe have a memorably surreal quality to them, as Pratt works to "break" the impressionable youth.

While I myself wasn't terribly convinced by Danny's transformation at the camp, and felt that the "upbeat" finale was too rushed and unsatisfying, overall I quite enjoyed it. Not that it offered any real surprises, nor was the direction ever really inspired, but it hit its buttons pretty well. One asset was the affecting music score by Bill Conti.

Familiar faces among the supporting cast include Ronnie Scribner ('Salem's Lot'), Pamela Ludwig ("Over the Edge"), John Dukakis ("Jaws 2"), Lee Montgomery ("Burnt Offerings"), Michael Sacks ("Slaughterhouse-Five"), Deborah Rush ("In & Out"), Peter Horton ("Children of the Corn"), Irma P. Hall ("Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"), and comedian Bill Engvall ("Delta Farce").

If you like discovering movies that have been forgotten over time, then give this one a try. If nothing else, you can't say that it isn't well-acted.

Eight out of 10.