"Where Movie Critics Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine!"
|
|
Should "Hollow Man" disappear?
by Herb Kane (Critic Doctor)
August 20th, 2000
out
of 4 stars (R)
CRITIC DOCTOR EXAMINES: Steve Rhodes (internetreviews.com), Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Ron Wells (filmthreat.com), John Murray (mervius.com), Michael Atkinson (mrshowbiz.com), Andy Jones & Chris Gore ("The New Movie Show with Chris Gore) Richard Roeper ("Roger Ebert & The Movies"), Steve Rosen (denverpost.com) and Tom Keogh (film.com).
Many sci-fi films, especially those involving time travel and
invisibility, fascinate me. So it was only natural for me to be
excited about "Hollow Man," a movie about an invisible
man. The movie critics were equally excited about the premise
of the film, but did they like it?
"Hollow Man" is about Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon),
an arrogant scientist who heads a team of researchers who discover
the secret of invisibility by injecting animals with a secret
formula. Caine becomes the first human to take the injection,
but the other the scientists are unable to bring Sebastian's visibility
back. He becomes deranged and seeks revenge.
In the movie Caine poses this question: "What would you do
if you knew you couldn't be seen?" Steve Rhodes (internetreviews.com)
responds: "An intriguing question which 'Hollow Man' explores
in some obvious but thought-provoking ways."
You mean "Hollow Man" actually "explored"
what it is like to be invisible? Hardly. This is what makes "Hollow
Man" a huge disappointment. Oh, there were brief moments
like when he scared the little kids in car, but the rest involved
deranged scenes involving sexuality and murder. Caine simply "explores"
what it is like to be an invisible madman.
Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) said, "Does Paul Verhoeven,
who directed 'Hollow Man,' have such a low opinion of his audience
that he thinks all we want is to see (or not see) the invisible
man go berserk?" I'll respond to that question. Regardless
of what Verhoeven was thinking, that's essentially all we got
- a berserk jerk whom we cannot see. It's unfortunate, indeed.
Ron Wells (filmthreat.com) said, "The ending, unfortunately,
gets a little over the top. For a while before that, though, this
movie can definitely not be mistaken for 'Shallow Man.'"
This movie did start out powerful. The initial scenes build on
your curiosity to watch Caine turn invisible. The special effects
were literally amazing, watching the way the human body transforms
into nothingness. It was the best I've seen. But unfortunately,
"Hollow Man" goes from smart sci-fi film to stupid slasher
flick.
John Murray (mervius.com) said in his review, "Even
though the movie makes such a turn, it's hard to be too angry,
since ultimately the movie never did let us think that it was
too much more than a summer popcorn movie." What kind of
excuse is this? Yeah, the trailer did allude to the "Hollow
Man" becoming a killer, but it didn't reveal this would be
the dominant part of the story.
Michael Atkinson (mrshowbiz.com) said, "Verhoeven
an screenwriter Andrew W. Marlowe have taken the tired old chestnut
of invisible-man movies and done something hilarious, even insightful
with it." Sorry, Michael. "Voyeurism and sexual aggression"
didn't save this film. It wasn't fun enough nor was it even erotic.
Andy Jones (E! Online) said on "The New Movie Show
with Chris Gore," "I don't understand that if why you
are invisible, you have to kill people. I mean, you're invisible
- what's the point?"
Excellent point! Why couldn't this film have focused on a positive
character using his invisibility for the good (with some playful
in-betweens)? Something like a high-tech James Bond could have
set up a possible franchise.
Jones continues, "But the real problem is that it
becomes this monster movie where all these people are trapped
in a contained space and you don't see the invisible man interact
with the outside world."
Chris Gore (the shows host) fires back - "What's wrong
with a good monster movie?"
I'll answer! First of all, Chris, this is NOT a good monster
movie. Sebastian was already a monster before he became invisible.
Second, this story takes place below the earth in a lab for most
of the film. The story idea was great, but the actual story sucked!
Richard Roeper ("Roger Ebert & The Movie")
got it right: "They had a very good premise here, but it
was 'predictable and disappointing.'"
Steve Rosen (denverpost.com) summed the movie up best:
"'Hollow Man' is a blunt, bloody horror movie - a 'B' movie
- with Grade-A special effects and a Grade-Z story."
If you still feel hollow inside and want to still see a decent
invisible man story - tune into "The Invisible Man,"
a weekly show on the Sci-Fi channel. The special effects are cool
and more importantly this invisible man interacts among the public
- above earth.
I agree with Tom Keogh (film.com) who said, "The real
invisible man here is Verhoeven, whose talent can barely be seen
in 'Hollow Man.'"
--CRITIC DOCTOR
© Copyright 2000 by Herb Kane
All rights reserved.
www.criticdoctor.com
|
|
CAST: Elizabeth Shue (Linda McKay), Kevin Bacon (Sebastian
Caine), Josh Brolin (Matthew), Kim Dickens (Sarah Kennedy), Greg
Grunberg (Carter Abbey) and William Devane (Dr. Krame).
DIRECTOR: Paul Verhoeven
PRODUCERS: Douglas Wick and Alan Marshall
SCREENPLAY: Andrew W. Marlowe
U.S. DISTRIBUTOR: Columbia Pictures
RELEASE DATE: 08.04.2000
RUNNING TIME: 114 minutes
MPAA Rating: R (strong violence, language and sexuality/nudity)
|
|