Steinesongo
Too many fans seem to be blown away
Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Numerootno
A story that's too fascinating to pass by...
Wizard-8
I know that Paul Verhoeven was unsatisfied by the results of the original "Hollow Man" movie (which he directed), so I am kind of mystified by why he would participate in not just a sequel, but a fairly low budget direct to DVD sequel. (Though he just acted as a producer and didn't direct this time around.) Anyway, I thought that this sequel did improve on the original movie in one aspect - it doesn't have the sour and nasty feel that happened the first time around. And while this movie had a much lower budget than the original, the special effects are often quite good for a straight to DVD movie. However, the script clearly needed some more work before shooting began. There are some dull stretches, but a more pressing problem is that there are some murky plot details that are clearly lacking proper explanation. In the end, the movie is so-so, and is only recommended for fairly undemanding viewers who can see it for free or little cost.
lemon_magic
Looking back, I see that my rank for the original "Hollow Man" was something like a strong "5" (it suffered from a tacked on "second" ending that made it 10 minutes too long, some gratuitous misogyny and some bad casting choices, also it dragged in spots). This movie isn't as good (or as slick), but I feel it had some points of interest and did a few things well (different things than the first movie), and somehow that adds up to a "5" as well.Well, a foolish consistency and all that. "HM" I was a "strong 5", this one barely makes "5", but I am feeling generous.BTW, Christian Slater is "in this", but 90% of the time he's a disembodied voice and pretty much phones his part in anyway, so don't let his name in the credits pull you in. The annoying bits first: the biggest problem with HM2 is its "hero", Fascinelli. I have nothing against the guy - he's good looking and he can act - but he's all wrong for the part, and looking at that smooth pretty boy face, there's no way you believe for a moment in the beginning of the movie that he could be a top homicide detective in a big city police department.(To his credit, and maybe the director's, he seems to "harden" and settle in after the point in the movie when his partner dies;at that point, the actor may have had more to work with. For all I know, this may have been deliberate, and if so, good for him.)2nd problem is the other lead, the female research scientist, who gives such a subdued performance for most of the film that I kept wishing that Elizabeth Shue would show up and hijack the role or something. Again, part of the problem is that she just doesn't have anything interesting to do for the first 30-40 minutes or so, and after that it's all "Oh my" and "goodness me" stuff for the character. 3rd problem is that the screenwriter wants and needs the audience to forget how physics (and everyday human interaction) works. An invisible assassin works best when no one knows he's coming in the first place. But if you know he's coming...infrared and night vision, tear gas,ether, lasers, nets, sonar, bags of flour, trip wires dead falls and man traps could all be set up. I'm not an especially devious guy, but I came up with 5 ways to trap and hurt a barefoot, naked man in an enclosed space in the first 30 seconds, not to mention that if he grabbed me, I'd start breaking the fingers of the hand he grabbed me with...and he is supposedly being trailed by an elite team of scientists and SWAT members? Who try to nail him with automatic weapon fire? What about a "dogpile" of bodies in an enclosed space? Still, I could tell the director and screenwriters were trying hard to make something that was different from the original and were trying to inject some quality here and there, at least as much as the budget allowed. The "invisibility" effects were at least as good (to my eyes)as the original - or at least the director and SFX guys knew what they could pull off and knew how to use it. Some of the locations worked well, and there were a couple of plot twists and setups that were well done. The element of political corruption (originally the invisible assassin was being used to bump off enemies of the current bureaucracy instead of for national security)at least lends a bit of verisimilitude to the plot. I got HM2 as part of a 4 pack for $5, and it wasn't a bad way to kill a couple of hours late on a weeknight when cable didn't have anything I liked, and I had a nice glass or two of shiraz to keep things mellow. If your expectations aren't any higher that that...you probably won't be too disappointed.
breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com
It's one thing to make a sequel with different characters but it's another thing to make a sequel with a plot that is so contradictory to its predecessor that it almost seems pointless to even watch. I was not the biggest fan of the first Hollow Man (2000) mostly because of its story. The same goes for this film, however, there a couple elements that still leave this sequel watchable.Hollow Man 2 continues the story of the first film by involving its characters with an almost identical plot. After the failure of Sebastian Caine as a test subject to test the power of invisibility, the government decided to try out this experiment again. The difference is that they tested it on a well-trained soldier. And guess what; nothings changed! The test subject was Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) and now he's become uncontrollable for anyone to handle.Someone tell me why making a new invisible villain was such important thing to do? If the test didn't work the first time, what made them think performing the test on another unstable subject was a good idea? This is just another problem child.To try and contain him, the government sends out task forces to try and capture Griffin but like we all know, predictable as ever, they won't. Along side this, Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) is sent to protect the doctor, Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan) who performed the experiment on Griffin because now Griffin is after her. As the plot continues, Turner and Dalton will develop a relationship, which will allow them to be closer to each other than they thought they ever would be. But this kind of subplot is minimally explored due to its slimmed running time.The things that still held up during this add-on were the carnage and visual effects. It's no Paul Verhoeven film, but it still has some strong scenes of violence. And for a Direct-to-Video sequel, the visual effects are top notch looking. I'm surprised the crew could still do that with such a smaller budget. I was definitely impressed with that. And to not give the ending away, I'm curious to if there is hope for an invisible person, because maybe not all of them are unstable. Could this lead to a Hollow Man 3? Probably not, but it would be interesting if it goes that route.For a Direct-to-Video sequel, the visuals are good and so is the violence but it doesn't add anything knew to the story. If anything, it ignores the first film almost entirely.
ctomvelu-1
HOLLOWMAN 2, an STV, continues the story of a secret government experiment to create an invisible man who then might be used as a weapon of war. Or for peeping at naked women. Or something. Everyone seems to have forgotten about a little issue of insanity that goes along with being invisible. I guess no one reads H.G. Wells anymore. This time around, the invisible fellow is played by Christian Slater, but he is seen so little I figure they could have hired anyone to play the role. On the other hand, he is the only name actor connected to this slightly wobbly sequel. But Kevin Bacon he is not. Bacon kept the original HOLLOW MAN from sinking without a trace. Interestingly enough, this sequel adheres pretty closely to H.G. Wells' story, 'The Invisible Man," which is a plus. It also is fast-paced, violent and occasionally suspenseful, another plus. The FX are kept to a minimum, which is probably for the best -- at one point, there is a fight in the rain between two invisible men that is likely to get the viewer chuckling, if the viewer has imbibed enough beer beforehand. The cast is mostly young and inexperienced but eager to please, obviously to draw the under-30 audience. The bad guys, including a senator and Army colonel, are older. No surprise there. Peter Facinelli, a dead ringer for David Arquette but easily 10 years his junior, is the hero, a cop caught up in the search for the missing invisible guy. The film is one long chase, which wears a little thin after an hour. Fortunately, HOLLOW MAN 2 is barely 90 minutes long and is over almost before it has begun -- that is, assuming the viewer has gotten into the swing of things. It also has one of the best and touching endings I have seen in a horror pic in years. Just beware the likelihood of an endless string of STV sequels.
