Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-25 09:42:23

Surprisingly Good!!!

Now, I don't know about you but the first "Hollow Man" wasn't exactly my favorite film, in fact to be frank, that movie SUCKED!!! I was actually even a fan of the director, actors; & who doesn't like big budget invisible man movies? Anyway to say the least I was extremely skeptical watching this movie. Then I got one of the biggest shocks of my life, I actually really enjoyed this movie. The story goes like this: The Military have gotten ahold of the formula the scientists from the first were working on. They've made these invisible spy/assassin's, and one's on a rampage killing people. There's more to the story, but I won't give any more away and ruin it for you. Anyway, the special effects are great for a straight to video release, at least as good as the first movie(that's not saying much though, cause the first movies were totally cartoony, part 2's are better than average though for this kinda movie). The acting is pretty good too, Christian Slater actually is only in it for a couple scenes, otherwise he just provides the mainly grunts & couple sentencesthat come from the invisible guy. Honestly I think this woulda done pretty well theatrically(c'mon, Sony released a sequal to Basic Instinct in the theatre with pruney azzed old Sharon Stone, I can't imagine this would've done any worse, lay off the crack Sony). Anyway, this movie is pretty good, keep in mind that it is a straight to video release, & I think you'll really enjoy it.

antonionglw1069 2012-05-25 00:46:19

How's this compared to the fist one?

I was very disappointed at HM2. I saw this movie since I was impressedby the visual effects in HM1. I hope that the special effects will bebetter than the first one. However, after seeing this movie, I foundthat the quality of directing and visual effect look like a TV seriesthat was made 20 year ago!! I would give the 1st one 7 out of 10 marksbut only 3 to this one. What's yours?Hollow Man Storyline: 5 Directing: 7 Acting: 6 Visual Effect: 8.5 Overall : 7Hollow Man IIStoryline: 3 Directing: 3 Acting: 5 Visual Effect: 2 Overall : 3

Nick Damian 2012-05-15 18:40:22

It's a let down

6 years after the original came out, this appears.It misses the mark as a suspense, action, mystery, comedy.It's a let down...it doesn't suck to extremes, just bad enough to makeyou want to wish there was only the first made.Had this come out a year or so after the one with Kevin Bacon andElizabeth Shue, it may have had more impact and been more intense andexciting.The special effects were poor.The casting was ALL wrong.The story was also poor.The chase scenes were dull.Who would think that this 20 year old looking kid would be a DETECTIVE?Why were store security guards carrying guns? What power do they haveto use a gun? This movie was filmed in and around Vancouver...so itshould be called Vancouver - NOT Seattle...there were just too manygiveaways that it was NOT Seattle.There was little intensity and for the most part it was reallydragging.The dialog was very bad - especially near the end.The direction poor...it was a mess, that if it had been madeimmediately after the previous, would make much more sense and be muchmore interesting.This is television viewing...to be made for a Saturday night moviespecial..not for a feature.This just doesn't cut the line to be feature material.It had less of a budget, which meant casting unknowns, working withunknown director and using shots which would make this film seem poorlydone - which it was.A smaller budget meant cutting back the extras - which made theoriginal far superior...and who could replace Kevin Bacon? He plays abad guy great...If you're tired and drunk and this comes on television, it might be ofinterest, but it's mid-grade.Don't hope for great expectations.

victorbe77 2012-05-15 10:14:03

this movie is one of the worst i've ever seen

This movie is so bad it could be on Mystery Science Theater 3000! Infact i've seen better acting and plot in soap operas. I absolutely donot recommend this movie to anyone, unless your a drunk retard. Ibelieve a 5 year old child could come up with a better script than thismovie. I would say that it was a stupid 24 rip-off, but that would begiving it too much credit. The cast was worthless I could act betterdrunk, on acid and asleep. To sum it all up this movie is right upthere with the Ed Wood movie Plan 9 from Outer Space, but at least thatmovie was funny. This movie was irritating. I would give it a 0.1rating if that were possible. The direction was poorly done, castingwas terrible, Christian Slater was hardly in it. The special effectswere not bad, but that does not make up for everything else that waswrong with the movie. Even if this was a made for TV movie it wouldstill be one of the worst ever made. Whoever produced this movie has anIQ of about 45 and should never make another movie ever.

2012-05-15 02:21:08

Look, Christian Slater is invisible! Okay, you don't see him, but he is!

Not on par with Paul Verhoeven's first film, acting-wise andeffects-wise, but still decent and entertaining. Don't expect to seemuch of Christian Slater, 'cause he's invisible most of the time... andpretty nuts too.Hmm... don't have much else to say about this direct-to-DVD sequel.Well, for a direct-to-DVD-sequel it's not that bad, really. I've seenworse direct-to-DVD sequels. And I've also seen worse direct-to-DVDsequels of direct-to-DVD sequels (so by that I mean a "Part 3" or "Part4" or more of a film that was initially not released direct-to-DVD).So "Hollow Man 2" is okay. Did I mention this film was releaseddirect-to-DVD as a sequel?

Paul Andrews 2012-05-14 12:35:19

Average direct-to-DVD sequel nowhere near as good as the original.

Hollow Man II is set in Seattle where scientist Dr. Devin Villiers(John Shaw) is brutally killed at a society function, Seattledetectives Frank Turner (Peter Facineli) & his partner Lisa Martinez(Sarah Deakins) are put on the case but are soon taken off it againwhen the US military show an interest. Frank & Lisa are assigned toprotect fellow scientist Dr. Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan) who might bethe killers next target but the job was one big set-up designed to lurethe killer into the open by the military & Lisa is killed by aninvisible assassin named Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) who needs aserum developed by Dalton to stay alive & will do anything to get it.Frank saves Maggie & together they go on the run from the US military &Griffin the invisible assassin who could quite literally be anywhere...Directed by Claudio Faeh this was the straight-to-DVD sequel to PaulVerhoven's rather splendid horror thriller Hollow Man (2000) & I thinkit's fairly safe to say that Hollow Man II is nowhere near as good. Thescript by Joel Soisson has no real connection to the original apartfrom the fact it features invisible men & an invisibility serum, whilethe original was a tight tense thriller set in a hi-tech lab with asmall group of character's & features plenty of Verhoven's sex, gore,sadism & spectacular effect here in Hollow Man II the plot is reducedto nothing more than a strictly average at best cop thriller told fromthe point of view of a detective who sets out to be the hero & kill thebad guy & if that wasn't clichéd & predictable enough even his partneris killed so there's a little bit of revenge motivation in here aswell. Then there's the been done to death plot about the US militarytrying to create the 'ultimate weapon' through science & it all goingwrong & spiralling out of control as innocent people start turning updead & then they wanting to hush it all up as they try to rectify thesituation. The whole film feels by-the-numbers, lifeless & a bitforgettable although having said that at least it moves along at adecent pace & at under 90 minutes in length it doesn't outstay it'swelcome. The character's are fairly poor, the cop is standard thrillerclichés all the way, by the end the scientist has just becomes ascreaming female to be rescued type character & even the bad guy's aregiven little development with Griffin given no more motivation otherthan he is mad.So there's definitely a large drop in the quality of the story & that'snot the only aspect that suffers in comparison to the original HollowMan as the special effects are fairly forgettable & there isn't even aproper scene where someone goes invisible unlike the original wherethere's a highly detailed & impressive effect where Kevin Bacon becomesinvisible vein by vein & the two or three brief shots in Hollow Man IIwere actually taken from Hollow Man. The special effect are of thecheap variety, scenes of doors opening by themselves or merely thesound of someone walking or people having to 'fight' thin air. The onlyreal special effects scene is at the end when two invisible men fighteach other in the pouring rain & the rain drops hit them & reveal theiroutlines. There's a brief scene with some nudity & a nice openingmurder as someone has their throat slashed with very bloody results butapart from those two scenes this is all rather tame & doesn't containanywhere near the glorious excess gore & sex of the original. Not goodin my book & a definite strike against it.Probably made on a fraction of the originals budget Hollow Man II haspretty good production values although it's rather cold, dull &colourless to watch. Although set entirely in Seattle the film was shotentirely in Vancouver in Canada in order to keep that budget as smallas possible. The acting is alright but the two main leads lack anycharisma or personality, one time A-list Hollywood star ChristianSlater only has about five minutes of screen time since the rest of thefilm his character is invisible.Hollow Man II is an alright film if your looking for an average copthriller with a few Sc-Fi horror elements thrown in there to pass thetime but it's nowhere near as excessive or good as the original & youwill probably have completely forgotten about it by the time the endcredits stop rolling.

2012-05-13 07:52:55

The first movie sequel better than it's predecessor in my opinion.

Okay you have Hollow man which I thought was a screw up to begin with. First off Kevin Bacon is a good actor, but this movie was the worst career choice. I mean common, excessive special effects to the point of being unrealistic that if you nit pick the scenes there are so many flaws. Second, the movie contains rape and animal cruelty in the most perverse ways. Lastly, the movie was a waste. NOW, Hollow Man 2 was the best make up/replacement/Hollow Man sequel in the Hollow Man series. Christian Slater is a great actor and this was a great choice for him. He IS the best invisible man. His character name Michael Griffin is even based on the original Invisible Man character in the original novel. The special effects are great because of the realism and the minimal of CGI and the use of practical effects. There's a great supporting cast and the characters are great. The movie may be rated R for strong violence, language, and some sexuality/nudity, but it's more like the good classic 80's and 90's horror movie type. Hollow Man (Christian Slater) is a top military soldier and a skilled killer/fighter who wanted to go invisible, so he got his wish and became a serial killer on a mission. Slater is more of the Jason Voorhees type of serial killer. That's the only thing that makes him psycho. Also there's a good fight scene at the climax. Bottom line, I own it and like it A LOT. Great movie and recommend it.

2012-05-12 11:58:47

HOLLOW INDEED

Waiting six years to do a sequel to the more engrossing original, this followup doesn't really seem necessary. Confusing plot developments, standard effects and mediocre acting combine for a rather tedious thriller. Christian Slater is going to become the next Stephen Baldwin with his laconic, devil may care and lifeless acting. Peter Facinelli and Laura Regan try a little harder, but they're swamped in the script's ineptitude. Maybe it'll be nice to say we haven't seen Christian Slater for a while!

Nitin Mehra 2012-05-08 08:27:03

Another 12th grade chemistry experiment gone wrong!!

Well as the heading explains it, its another sci-fi horror-o-suspensemix-up. As if the first movie was not painful enough to watch, we haveanother one (yawn!). And yes, they don't get the chemo formula rightthis time either, and thats for the second time (Someone needs to takethese scientists out of the lab and fire them.. twice!). Another badblend of damsel in distress, ex special forces and a big bad corp outto get you, there you have a movie..... Its suffers from bad directionto bad acting and a worn down script. You can guess whats gonna happennext, so not much of a suspense either. In case your GF has dumped youand you having nothing better to do in life. Go ahead and watch thisone....Now I wished I could have disappeared after seeing such crap.NM.

stewiefan201 2012-05-07 20:33:46

Does the world really need these types of movies. 0 out of 4

Don't let Hollow Man 2 lure you in if you liked the first. This filmwas absolutely horrible with its one-dimensional characters, and alsoits boring storyline. What this film really needed was three things. Itneeded more gore because Hollow Man 2 was too watered down. It neededanother actor to play the villain because, let's face it, ChristianSlater is bad at acting. And also needed to at least try to make itselfbetter than the average horror sequel. I mean really, the first filmwas pretty good because it actually tried and succeeded in beingentertaining. Hollow Man 2 doesn't really try to entertain us, it'sjust another on of those Direct-to-Video-Cash-Ins that will try to makemoney off the original. So may I ask, "Has the world had enough ofthese re-hashed, stupidly stupefying horror sequels? Maybe so but guesswhat, Hollywood just keeps making them. When will they learn?" 0 out of4.

dechha1981 2012-05-05 03:38:59

Sucked

(Warning; Spoiler. skip to the last paragraph) this is just my opinion,but the first movie, up until Kraine (Bacon) changed the passwords onthe lab doors, the movie was all about what we'd do (or what we'dfantasize about doing, anyway) if we were invisible. After that point,however, the movie basically becomes a rip-off of Alien.In hollow Man II, they basically skipped all the Paul Verhoven stuffand went directly into the Alien rip-off. This makes about as muchsense as making a re-make of "the Wizard of Oz" and focusing on whatUncle Henry and Aunty Em are doing while Dorothy is asleep. there'sonly two scenes in which a female takes her clothes off, and thenChristian Slater doesn't even really do anything to them.In the first movie, Kevin Bacon is actually there all the time, and hebecomes "visible" in several ways; blood splatter, water, plugs onhead, infrared, manipulating objects (and body parts) etc. Even whenhe's wearing a latex mask you can clearly see both that he is there andthat he isn't. In hollow Man II, Christian Slater is often just avoice-over and the other actors are just miming. At one point,Christian Slater is wearing a ski mask with eye holes, and the femalescientist sprays him in the eyes with yellow spray paint (the SAMEspray paint she already used to see his vein) and yet, for some oddreason, the spray paint only made the mask yellow around the holes, itdidn't make his eyelids visible.You don't even see the actual anatomic transformation, You do see;Slater washing some blood of his face with tap water, two invisibleguys fighting in the rain, footsteps on grass and carpets, but nothingeven close to the sleeping redhead in the first movie. Most of the"Effects" in Hollow Man II are no more high tech and nowhere near asclever as the scene where Elizabeth Shue's coke kept disappearing.To summaries; if you liked hollow man for the same reason I did, don'twaste your time with this one.

LivingDog 2012-05-05 01:39:37

Very Good

While not the best movie ever made, I found the sequel to "Hollow Man"to be very entertaining. It kept my interest going except through onepart (a chase scene) which seemed too long to me. (This is based on theoriginal book "The Invisible Man" by H.G. Wells. You can read theentire book starting here: http://www.bartleby.com/1003/1.html .)Solid acting was the trait throughout the whole caste which helped tokeep the almost thin plot going and believable. Christian Slater asMichael Griffin, Peter Facinelli as Det. Frank Turner, and Laura Reganas Dr. Maggie Dalton all played their parts very well. 8/10Also some very clever ... things happened ... which gave the movie a"notch up." :)-LD_____________________________________________my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33

Claudio Carvalho 2012-05-04 01:03:01

Inferior to the Original, But Entertains

In Seattle, after the mysterious death of the scientist Dr. DevinVilliers (John Shaw), Detective Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) and hispartner Det. Lisa Martinez (Sarah Deakins) are assigned to protectDevin's colleague Dr. Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan). Lisa is killed whileprotecting Maggie, and Frank presses her to tell what is happening. Shediscloses that a veteran soldier called Michael Griffin (ChristianSlater) was submitted to an experiment with the objective to create theultimate national security weapon, an undetectable soldier. However,the experiment failed, with horrible side effects due to the damage tothe cells caused by the radiation. Michael is chasing Maggie to get thenecessary buffer to survive."Hollow Man 2" is inferior to the original, but entertains. Thepredictable and forgettable story has flaws and very few specialeffects, but it is not so bad as indicated in many reviews. My vote issix.Title (Brazil): "O Homem Sem Sombra 2" ("The Man Without Shadow 2")

DarkVulcan29 2012-05-03 15:19:24

Not bad, considering your usually straight to DVD release.

An alright sequel that really stands on its own. This sequel makeslittle a note to the first one, remember the one with Kevin Bacon. Butother then that this movie stands on its own. This movie begins with acrazed invisible man named Michael Griffin(Christian Slater), who is onthe war path to get an antidote for him. He will stop at nothing, andkill anyone that gets in his way. His trails lead up to Dr. MaggieDalton(Laura Reagen), she soon seeks protection with Detective FrankTurner(Peter Facinelli). But a certain government starts to hunt themboth, cause they want to cover up what has happened to Griffin.Christian Slater was awesome in his performance has the mad invisibleman. Peter Facinelli and Laura Reagen were also good. This movie had agreat storyline, and great effects, and not to mention great suspensealso.

Scarecrow-88 2012-05-02 03:21:02

Hollow Man 2

Michael Griffin(Christian Slater)wants a serum called "The Buffer"which counteracts the ill-effects of invisibility. The only one withreal knowledge on how to create this agent is Dr. Maggie Dalton(LauraRegan, the opening victim in "Dead Silence")whose being guarded bydetectives Frank Turner(Peter Facinelli)and Lisa Martinez(SarahDeakins)thanks to the division head of where the Invisibility projectcontinued, Dr. William Reisner(David McIlwraith). When Lisa is killedby the homicidal Griffin(who is trying to find out the formula of thebuffer agent or to kidnap Maggie), Frank wishes to know why his partnerdied. Reisner had used Maggie as a guinea pig to kill Michael but thisplan fails and the doctor wants to know why Michael's superior, ColonelGavin Bishop(William MacDonald)couldn't catch him when his men had theinvisible maniac within their grasp. On the lam, Frank will try to keepMaggie from harm as Reisner has his goons out searching for them whilethey also try to stay one step ahead of an invisible pursuer who hasthe upper hand.Okay direct-to-vid B-flick makes the mistake of casting Slater as thelead villain. Let's just be honest, it's not Slater's voice which makeshim likable but his overall performance. If you cast an actor for whomyou rarely see during a film's duration he needs to have a distinctivebelievable voice..Slater just doesn't cut the mustard. Facinelli ismoderately interesting as the hero but nothing special. Regan as thefemale being pursued by everyone is adequate if unimpressive. Thevisual effects are decent..one standout scene has two invisible menduking it out in the rain. Instantly forgettable flick which reallydoes nothing for Slater's sagging career. Definitely inferior to theoriginal, but that's normally the case with a much cheaper sequel thathits DVD shelves pretty quickly.

David Nusair 2012-05-01 15:05:10

...this is about as needless and pointless a sequel as they come.

deamond9 2012-04-26 17:14:17

not enough sex and violence

Question; who would be interested in seeing a movie called "Hollow ManII"? Answer; those who enjoyed Hollow Man I Question; Who is Hollow ManII aimed at? Answer; that's more of a mystery.I suppose someone who liked Hollow Man enough to watch a sequel, butwho hated the special effects, the sex, the violence, the science, theinteresting subplots like the relationship between Bacon and Shue, thecharacterization, and who just liked the bit at the end which wasbasically a chase sequence through a tunnel. They made the same mistakewith "Batman and robin", it just wasn't aimed at the same audience wholiked the first Batman movie. Paul Verhoven himself said, "If he is JUST invisible, okay, then forgetthe whole movie" If anyone at Sony is reading this I'll say itagain;"If he is JUST invisible, okay, then forget the whole movie"What he meant was that there's no point in just having Kevin Bacon be avoice over. He has to actually be visible somehow; plugs, water,blanket, plastic mask, blood splatter, smoke, etc. In Hollow Man II you see exactly why Paul Verhoven said that.

TheLittleSongbird 2012-04-26 04:32:00

A real let down compared to the entertaining original

I enjoyed the original Hollow Man for all its flaws, so I was expectingsomething along the same lines for this sequel. It is such a shamethough that Hollow Man 2 is such a mess. Not even Christian Slatercould save it, I like him and he seemed a good choice, but with thecharacters being as stock and as irritating as they were and the scriptbeing as thin and as cheesy as it was he can't do anything with therole. Visuals are a step-down, not cheap as such, but they aren'tamazing either. The music is not as atmospheric or as fitting, whilethe story is rushed and uninteresting with little suspense or thrillsto satisfy. Overall, a real let-down. 1/10 Bethany Cox

2012-04-19 23:28:19

a so-so sequel from a so-so prequel

have all the creativity already drained up? all the screenplay writers returned to their older waiting table jobs again? why this hollow man would need a second coming? this is a very mediocre and quite cliched movie, with lot of quite stupid and ridiculous scenes. all the performances were just b-levelled ordinary. the only winner might be just christian slater, since he only had to show up at the very beginning and then at the very end, so he could have finished his part earlier than any one else. he might have to do some voice over beforehand in the recording room to cover all the unseen 99% part, then he could have collected his easy money and gone somewhere else. this is a barely watchable and marginal interesting thriller, don't need your enthusiastic praise or long review too much.

Piotr Kuras 2012-04-19 03:03:53

Invisible men don't have to be blind

It is not true that invisible men have to blind. It it true that lightpasses through the retina of an invisible man, but in most "invisibleman" movies I've seen one way of locating an invisible man is usingnight-vision goggles witch show the sub-red part of electromagneticspectrum. This fact suggests that whatever turned him invisible, itrendered him hollow only to so called visible part of electromagneticspectrum with wavelenght between 380 and 780 nm. Shifting the range ofwavelenght sight to sub-red (780nm to 1mm) during the process of makinginvisible could produce a proper seeing (or even better) invisible man.And last but not least the invisibility in James Bond "Die Another Day"works only from a long distance and uniform background. Otherwisechanging the point of view will uncover hidden object.