Watch it at Amazon
17 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Not as good Hollow Man I, 8 September 2006 Author: warmtrooper from Berkeley, CA
I liked the first, underrated Hollow-man with Kevin Bacon. It was about time that Hollywood redid the Invisible Man with all the special effects at its disposal, and that movie paid off in spades. However, this movie, although it offers a few thrills and chills, is a rather weak follow up to the original. Here, we have an assassin (Slater) who has turned insane killer, because the experiment to develop him into the "perfect weapon" for the military has gone wrong. It's basically a Frankenstein story. However, Slater is less monstrous than he is just an invisible badass, killing anyone who gets in his way of obtaining the injection of the "buffer". Understandably, he feels abandoned by the army, and therefore is raging against them--so he's not really an "insane murderer" as the DVD jacket says.Anyway, the movie is fairly entertaining and the special effects are nice (although the conversion from invisible to visible is done much better and fully-treated in HM I), but it stops suddenly, opening the way for Hollow Man III. Does everything have to be a franchise, folks?6 points.
15 out of 20 people found the following review useful: Unworthy sequel, 23 September 2006 Author: zep-11
Hollow Man was a very interesting movie, and well shot. The story and plot of this sequel is so bad that it shouldn't have been made. I like Christian Slater, but I don't like this waste-of-time-movie. The story is so banal and the plot is so thin, that it seems like an insult. I can't get it through my brain why they would make this movie, without a good plot?! It must have cost millions of dollars, because it's well shot, and there's nice acting, but the end result is so lame. Shame on you producers, you could have made a great sequel! My message to the audience is: watch it if you like, no harm there, but don't expect the same experience as in Hollow Man 1
12 out of 15 people found the following review useful: Surprisingly Effective....., 5 October 2006 Author: Greg1138 from Gloucester, England
I thought I would give this a go, after spotting an advert for it in a well-known UK film magazine. I knew Hollow Man 2 was in production, and as a fan of the first movie I was a little non-plussed to find the sequel getting a Direct-to-DVD release.So I wasn't really expecting much...I was pleasantly surprised therefore to find an engaging little movie - very much in the spirit of the first (no brain, no logic, full speed ahead with cardboard characters and a plot straight from the back of a 40-year-old comic). It has many faults - Christian Slater just ain't up to the job any more (but seems to be enjoying himself), a long and overly-talky middle act, some extremely ropey visual effects (though it has to be said that there are many good ones despite the obviously low budget), a blatant re-use of a scene from the original Hollow Man not-very-well-disguised, and a conclusion that felt very rushed - dare I suggest the budget ran out?On the plus side however the 2-dimensional characters are engaging, there are one or two great jump-out-of-seat moments, tips of the hat to not only the original movie but also HG Wells' novel "The Invisible Man", effective use of music (which is all new - not a rehash of Goldsmiths original) and an overall sense of fun (That's Executive Producer Paul Verhoeven shining through, I think) - despite the nasty moments!To the people that are slating this saying "It's not as good as the first, really disappointed" etc etc, I simply have to wonder exactly what they were expecting! Shakespeare this ain't...But to the people who are open-minded enough to give this an honest go, you will get out exactly what you put into it. It's not Shakespeare, but it certainly is Hollow Man.If this is the future for the Hollow Man franchise (there is the obligatory - but well executed - set-up for a Hollow Man 3), it could be an awful, awful lot worse.Bring 'em on!!
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful: It's a let down, 19 October 2006 Author: Nick Damian from Toronto, Ontario
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 make you want to wish there was only the first made.Had this come out a year or so after the one with Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Shue, it may have had more impact and been more intense and exciting.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 have to use a gun? This movie was filmed in and around Vancouver...so it should be called Vancouver - NOT Seattle...there were just too many giveaways that it was NOT Seattle.There was little intensity and for the most part it was really dragging.The dialog was very bad - especially near the end.The direction poor...it was a mess, that if it had been made immediately after the previous, would make much more sense and be much more interesting.This is television viewing...to be made for a Saturday night movie special..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 with unknown director and using shots which would make this film seem poorly done - which it was.A smaller budget meant cutting back the extras - which made the original far superior...and who could replace Kevin Bacon? He plays a bad guy great...If you're tired and drunk and this comes on television, it might be of interest, but it's mid-grade.Don't hope for great expectations.
11 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Bad movie., 11 September 2006 Author: Grigory Belov from Russian Federation
My advice is..Don't spend your time and money on this movie if you have any another way to do this. First part was good and i enjoyed it. It was typical "better than average" Hollywood movie for me, someway interesting and entertaining . Unfortunately can't say this for the second one. Boring and unconvincing acting,"Made in toilet" storyline.. and so on. It looks like the only mission of this film is a "continuation of financially successful idea". Well as I said don't try this at home until you have one of those "nothing to do" evenings or you are hungry for any hollowman-based action...and sorry for my English if it too bad :)
10 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Inferior to the Original, But Entertains, 23 December 2006 Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
In Seattle, after the mysterious death of the scientist Dr. Devin Villiers (John Shaw), Detective Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) and his partner Det. Lisa Martinez (Sarah Deakins) are assigned to protect Devin's colleague Dr. Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan). Lisa is killed while protecting Maggie, and Frank presses her to tell what is happening. She discloses that a veteran soldier called Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) was submitted to an experiment with the objective to create the ultimate national security weapon, an undetectable soldier. However, the experiment failed, with horrible side effects due to the damage to the cells caused by the radiation. Michael is chasing Maggie to get the necessary buffer to survive."Hollow Man 2" is inferior to the original, but entertains. The predictable and forgettable story has flaws and very few special effects, but it is not so bad as indicated in many reviews. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "O Homem Sem Sombra 2" ("The Man Without Shadow 2")
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: It entertains, but it's missable, 13 January 2007 Author: mjw2305 from England
Christian Slater takes the lead in this follow up to Hollow Man, this time the invisible man is a rogue soldier in the hunt for a serum, to prevent him from dying a slow and painful death.For a low budget movie that went straight to DVD it's actually pretty entertaining, the effects are used sparingly to keep the cost down, but they are effective enough when required. The cast is reasonable and there is enough action to make it enjoyable, even it is inferior to the original in every way.If you liked the original, then this shouldn't disappoint you too much, but part of me does still think - What was the point? 5/10
13 out of 23 people found the following review useful: Not bad, but basic one dimensional plot and characters., 4 June 2006 Author: siderite from Romania
Keep in mind that it is the sequel to a movie just as "hollow". So it couldn't have been very good. The thing is that I like Christian Slater, I think he can be a damn good actor when motivated, so what happened to him? How can he play a character that is not on the screen? He appears in a flashback and once in the end. He used to play in good indie-like movies. It's a pity.Anyway, the movie is as straight forward as it can get. Hollow man = bad; cop = good; gorgeous, rich and smart scientist = trophy. Now, of course the government is behind it.As a parenthesis, it's the second US movie I'm seeing tonight and in which the idea of the government covertly doing bad things is tacitly accepted in both of them. I mean, OK, it is plausible that a great deal of power will corrupt a great deal, but to accept it as normal, let it slide? What do these people get in their water?Well, in the end, can you guess what happens? It's not rocket science, you know. In conclusion it is a completely average recipe movie.I would have loved an invisible man movie that takes into account not just the physics involved, but also character development, the possibility that the man is not bad and not good, just as normal people, true invisible fantasy scenes, I mean, naked women, violent acts, etc. After all, the original Invisible Man story was about power that corrupts, not a power struggle.
9 out of 16 people found the following review useful: sleepy Hollow, 31 May 2006 Author: vandino1 from United States
Well, the first Hollow Man wasn't a gem so what would you expect with round 2? The key to an Invisible Man movie is savoring the delight that the invisible character has in his newfound circumstances (or the dismay at his predicament). It should always dwell on the What-if-you-were-invisible-what-would-you-do concept. Neither Hollow Man film does that. The first dwelled too much on the special effects capabilities of today's film-making, while the second assumes you know what effects can be done and tries to make us think that we're interested in a chase movie.This is definitely a direct-to-video enterprise, with a nothing cast and a strictly formula plot and direction. Laura Regan is likable as the scientist on-the-run, while her heroic protector is played by some non-entity named Peter Facinelli. He's supposedly a top detective but looks like a recently graduated high school student just dropping in from 21 Jump Street. And then there's Christian Slater as the Hollow Man. Talk about phoning-in your part, he's barely on screen for more than a few minutes. Apparently he was hired because of his distinctive voice. I may be off base, but has there been some personal crash n' burn with Slater's life that his career has fallen to this? As for the technical side, the film is competently handled with decent stunt and effects work considering the budget. And from a 'goof/blooper' side of things, when Slater crashes through a pane of glass and cuts himself up, why would his blood from the cuts be visible? Or is that acceptable from the Invisible Man Rulebook?
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Unnecessary Sequel that disappoints., 29 December 2008 Author: med_1978 from London. England
Just watched this film last night, a waste of time really. The film was highly predictable, not too much action in the middle and poorly acted and directed. It felt like a rushed cash in on the original, yet came out six years later ! Peter Facinelli is not a movie star and should remain on TV, none of the other actors made an impression either and Christian Slater was there just for the paycheck.It had some reasonable moments but they were few and far between. I would have thought they would have put more effort into coming up with a better script and cast. Unless you are a really die hard fan of the original and feel it is your duty to sit though this, then I recommend you choose something else to watch as this will be a waste of your time.
Add another review
