IMDb user comments for
Hollow Man (2000) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 60:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

598 comments in total

---

36 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
Hollow plot and characters but visually fantastic, 14 November 2003
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Sebastian Caine and his team have worked tirelessly to develop a formula that can not only turn animals invisible but also bring them back to normal at will. With Governmental pressure on them to show results, Sebastian decides he will be the first human to try the formula. He becomes invisible for a short time, however efforts to bring him back fail and he finds himself stuck. As work continues on the formula, the others in the lab begin to notice him becoming increasingly unhinged.

From director Verhoven the norm is to expect great special effects and violence. He has also been known to integrate themes and good stories into these mainly effects driven films. On this occasion however he fails to really do that and is left with a fast paced and enjoyable film that makes up in effects what it lacks in substance. The plot is pretty basic and never goes deeper – Sebastian's descent into madness is not really a descent so much as a short trip that is not really built to so much as just delivered. In it's placed though, the effects are really impressive and make the film worth seeing simply because, not only are they great, but they are also used very well in the action rather than just being the film in themselves.

The cast is OK but don't really have much to work with in terms of material. Bacon is much more interesting when not on screen than when he is. His character is too thin and he fails to portray any sort of `descent' in his character's behaviour. Shue is pretty good and seems to enjoy running round with a flamethrower. The rest of the cast are OK but basically just act as fodder in the way that a normal slasher movie will have actors to be disposed of as the film rolls.

Overall I really enjoyed this film as it is a very expensive special effects movie which relies on spectacle to keep things moving. The effects are great and take the mind away from the lack of real substance and the action at the end is very enjoyable. A really good special effects movie as long as you don't expect anything more.

---

25 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
Goes from being a decent look at an interesting theme to a predictable B-grade slasher, 14 March 2004

Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark

This could, and should, have been an interesting look on the idea of invisibility. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, they ran out of ideas and decided to just kill everyone off and have it end in huge explosions, demonstrating a total lack of creativity. Too bad. It could have been great, were it not for the total lack of good acting, the one-dimensional characters, the corny lines and the general lack of anything worthwhile in the movie at all, other than good special effects. I feel bad for Paul Verhoeven; he used to make great movies; RoboCop, Basic Instinct & Starship Troopers were all way better than this mainstream garbage. The only good thing about this movie is the special effects, and, believe me, they are good. They are just not good enough to distract the viewer from all the negative points about the movie. It's really too bad that they couldn't make a better movie about invisibility; we've never had a truly good movie dealing with the rush of power it would be to be invisible. This movie tries, but it just falls short. All those great special effects, and no good movie to back them up. I'd only recommend this to special effect nerds, people who'll watch a movie regardless of quality just to see good special effects. I can't imagine anyone else actually enjoying this movie. I gave it a 6/10, but only because of the special effects.

---

22 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Hollow Man takes an abundance of fantastic special effects and narrative possibilities and reduces it all to an expensive but cheesy horror movie., 7 April 2002

Author: Michael DeZubiria (miked32@hotmail.com) from Luoyang, China

Ever since the original Halloween was released in 1978, there have been countless imitation films that desperately, although primarily unsuccessfully, attempt to feed off of the success of that film by copying its premise of a faceless and unstoppable killer. In the late 90s, there have been a resurgence of these films, such as the Scream movies, which started off good and then went sharply downhill with each additional sequel, Urban Legend, and I Know What You Did Last Summer (as well as, God willing, it's only sequel, I Still Know What You Did Two Summers Ago). Hollow Man is a film that takes a fantastic premise and reduces it to yet another of these cheap imitation slasher films.

Sure, the whole invisible man thing has been done before. Done to death, if you include literary examples. But let's face it, the possibility of human invisibility is one of the most fascinating premises that you can possibly tell a story about. The unfortunate thing about Hollow Man was that no one involved with the making of the movie seemed to realize that. What you have here is the development of an invisibility serum (as well as a reversing visibility serum) by a brilliant scientist, who successfully uses it on a gorilla in some of the best special effects scenes to date, and then uses it on himself. Well, of course he uses it on himself, what scientist could possibly resist? And why would any scientist WANT to resist? Well, the reason may be that, evidently, invisibility serum turns even the most intelligent scientists into raving madmen.

The absolutely infinite amount of possibilities for an invisible character are completely ignored here in favor of turning him into yet another bland faceless killer. This time, we may know who it is that's trying to kill people, but what we don't know is why he completely ignores the outside world. This is the greatest scientific discovery of mankind, and this bonehead decides to use it to become a peeping tom and to spy on his girlfriend. This vast and hugely unfortunate simplification of the potential for the story of an invisible man is both bitterly disappointing and more than a little insulting. As Roger Ebert mentions in his review of Hollow Man, it seems that director Paul Verhoeven, who directed such great films as RoboCop and Total Recall, seems to think that his audience is so intellectually dim that they prefer a mindless killer to the incredibly imaginative villain (or protagonist) that Dr. Sebastian Caine could have become.

Hollow Man is an absolutely fascinating display of brilliant special effects, which seem to map out internal anatomy just as good as any medical textbook, and is also a great deal of fun as the visible characters desperately try to make Dr. Caine visible again, but it is a dismal failure on the story level. The film starts out with a gigantic amount of intelligence, both that required for the development of an invisibility serum and that involved in the brilliant premise of the story, but winds up in the end as nothing more than yet another mindless thriller, completely lacking in thought and intrigue.

---

16 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Shallow Man, 13 January 2007

Author: mjw2305 from England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Hollow Man has the most basic of plots, a team of scientists are working on a formula to make living beings invisible, the leader of the team decide to try it out on himself, he goes mad and people die; it's as simple as that.

OK this movie is lacking in plot, but it still entertains with its action, suspense, thrills and superb special effects; not to mention that the cast are pretty good in their ultimately shallow roles.

For some easy on the eye and uncomplicated fun, Hollow man is not the worst choice you could make, it delivers most of what you need for an enjoyable action thriller, and the lack of depth doesn't take away from the fun all that much.

6/10

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Gruesome, Spine-Tingling, Invisible Man Gone Mad Flick, 12 June 2005

Author: ShootingShark from Dundee, Scotland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

A Pentagon science team seem to have perfected a serum which causes invisibility but when the lead boffin tries it out on himself he can't reverse the process. Frustrated and drunk with power, he turns psychotic in the classic H.G. Wells tradition.

This is a gleefully horrible Invisible Man story, delivered with relish by the ever-tasteful Verhoeven and Bacon as the genius-turned-loonytoon-maniac. As with much of Verhoeven's work it has a terrific unrestrained sense of Boy's-Own comic-book adventure (the secret underground lab where the scientists work is just wonderful) combined with the most horrific and depraved visuals (women in their underwear being groped and attacked by an invisible fiend, animals beaten to death, literally gallons of blood and wholesale slaughter in the last two reels). Whilst the story doesn't ring any new twists on an old idea, the CG special effects by Scott E. Anderson are eye-poppingly brilliant as we see veins and arteries, cardiovascular systems, muscles, tissue, bones and flesh all literally appear out of nowhere. In particular, a sequence where the team bring a gorilla back from the invisible state and the scene where Bacon drowns Devane in a swimming pool, are absolutely breathtaking in the detail and artistic invention of the effects. The film also has a great soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and classic horror-movie photography by Jost Vacano. The young cast are pretty much overshadowed by the movie's technical pedigree, but both Shue and Dickens are impressively out of their depth. This is a great fun nasty movie.

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Entertaining Verhoeven Film, 21 February 2004

Author: E. Catalan from Sweden

It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, "HOLLOW MAN" is a remake of sorts of "THE INVISIBLE MAN", but that's where the similarities end. "HOLLOW MAN" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but "HOLLOW MAN" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of "ALIEN" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some "body reconstitution" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on "FEAR DOT COM" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or "Sasquatsh", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is "hollow"! 8* out of 10*!

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
For fans of the sci fi and slasher genres, and fans of Kevin Bacon, 6 November 2005

Author: lemon_magic from Wavy Wheat, Nebraska

"Hollow Man" has enough strong performances, nice moments, and interesting plot turns to make for an mildly enjoyable film, as long as you don't think too hard about the plot. Visually, it is quite appealing and effective, and the soundtrack (especially the opening themes played over some effective and atmospheric opening credits) does a great job of adding some "oomph" to the action of screen. Keven Bacon is his usual on-screen self, and carries the film effectively, which is no small feat when consider that half the time he is either invisible or covered up in latex, which deprives him of most of an actor's most effective tools (his eyes and his mouth).In the scenes where he is covered in bandages, he has to get the character's emotions and presence out with body language and vocal cues, and even this is filtered through SFX. So I give him kudos for a professional, effective job in a difficult environment.

So why only a score of 5 out of 10? Having admitted that the film is enjoyable if you don't think too critically about it, I am now going to think critically about it for a minute.

Problem number one is Elizabeth Schue. Don't get me wrong, I think she is a very attractive woman, and she can hold her own as an actress in most movies. But she is horribly miscast here as a "top level research scientist" (just as she was in "The Saint"). She may come across as more than a typical "dumb blonde", but she's a clothes-horse, pure and simple, and I can't believe for a moment that she could get a PhD in the physical sciences. She's far more believable fending off Bacon's advances than she is playing "Pentagon Barbie". (The other two supporting actresses, who are by no means ugly or haggard, but still have considerably less "Vogue" cover potential, are quite believable in their roles).

Problem number two is a certain weakness in the script regarding how and why Bacon's character goes around the bend. The movie implies and foreshadows all kinds of reasons: Bacon is already a creep with a God-complex; the serum which turns him invisible is affecting his brain's neurochemistry; being invisible confers addictive power and opportunity he doesn't want to give up; invisibility creates an alienation and isolation from society...etc. But the script doesn't really drive any of these points home, and just flits from idea to idea without doing real justice to any of them. A line of dialog or two is meant to imply a whole series of attitudes and moral values changing, ("It's easier to sin when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror", etc.), and even a pro like Bacon can't manage it in the space he is given.

Problem number three is (are) the escalating misogyny and graphic completeness of the voyeurism, molestation, and finally rape scenes included in the movie to convince the viewer that the Hollow Man is becoming a human monster. The first two scenes were bad enough (especially the CGI of a sleeping woman's bare breast being fondled), but perhaps necessary, but the final full blown rape scene was way too mean and misogynistic for my sensibilities. That scene didn't need to be there, and its inclusion makes it hard for me to recommend it to my more conservative friends...they would be angry at me if they watched this on my say-so and came upon these scenes unprepared, and they wouldn't buy or rent this movie if they knew these scenes were in it.

Problem number four is that the movie producers overreached themselves a bit with the invisible SFX...some of the 'invisibility' effects, especially the transformation scenes, don't quite work. The figure stuggling on the table is very plastic and inorganic-looking and doesn't convince. (Ironically, the first transformation scene, with the gorilla, works much better, possibly because our human eyes aren't as familiar with the textures and shapes of the simian physique). And here in there, in other places, the articulation of the shoulders aren't quite right, or the swing of the hips. These deficiencies seem to be a common problem for 3D computer graphics of the human form, and they dog the animators here. Sometimes the animators get it, but sometimes they don't. I know it wasn't easy, but if they couldn't pull it off, they shouldn't have used it.

The last major problem was that the movie should have ended when Shue does her wonderful "base-stealing" slide into the elevator and hoses Bacon's character down with her home made flame thrower. That was a great moment, and should have been the climactic payoff for the film. Instead the movie staggered on for another 10-15 minutes in "Friday the 13th" territory with the Hollow Man popping back up from what should be mortal injuries again and again - who knew that naked invisible men could be so resilient?

So that's why only 5 out of 10. Too many problems and weakness to score this as a classic. But I do own this movie (bought it used) on VHS, and will buy it (used) on DVD if I find it cheap enough. Enjoy the eye candy and strong supporting performances and the many nice little touches here and there...if you are into that sort of thing.

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
"What bothers you most?" This movie..., 13 February 2005

Author: Ryan (rkuhn_psu@yahoo.com) from King of Prussia, PA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.

---

12 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Hollow flick, 16 September 2000

Author: Anders Åslund (anders.aslund@xpress.se) from Karlstad, Sweden

One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.

There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.

However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Special effects fill in the gaps in the first half, but they can't save the second half, 30 August 2000

Author: the narrator from Sydney, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Hollow Man has a great pemise, a great trailer, a good cast, and a good director. What can possibly go wrong? Well, a lot of things. Let me count the ways:

1. The question what would you do if you were invisible is brought up a lot in the film. The audience thinks steal banks, steal cars, wreak havoc on the town, pull down the presidents pants on national TV (Well, at least that's what I would do), but Paul Verhoeven only thinks spying on woman getting changed. This notion is recycled the whole duration of the film.

2. Paul Verhoeven has the chance to get creative with the plot. He does bring up some OK thoughts, like the way Sebastian can't close his eyelids, or the way the characters throw liquid on him to make him appear visible, but he barely ever ventures out of the lab, and it isn't as scary when the characters have heat-vision goggles to spot where he is.

3. The whole 'You stole my woman!' plot became really boring after a while. I mean, if you were invisible, you wouldn't spend your time grieving about some guy stealing your girlfriend! You'd be living it up!

4. That damned ending! That ending is the reason I am beginning to hate Hollywood. It was like a really bad slasher movie, but worse. Verhoeven seems to think that because Kevin Bacon looked cool invisible, he could make him superhuman. I would have liked it more if all the characters died, so no one in the world knew what happened to them, except for that Ed guy, so he could live to tell the story.

Well, those were the flaws of Hollow Man. Now to the good side. The special effects. If there is one criterion to see the movie it is the revolutionary special effects. The scene where the gorilla reappears was simply stunning. The special effects save the whole movie from earning a 2 at its best. 5.5/10.

---

---

Page 1 of 60:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history