L'homme sans ombre 2

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

Hollow Man II is certainly one of the better sci-fi movies that have been produced recently. The plot was adequately written and the actors played their parts quite well. There were some details that could have been elaborated on better, however--specifically regarding the other recipients of the serum. To have done so would have only enhanced the plot.

The special effects were great. They seemed realistic and were able to adequately display the perception of a truly invisible being; well done to the special effects crew.

Overall, I think avid movie watchers would enjoy this film, as the action flows nicely. Good job to the cast and crew.

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.

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!!

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?