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?
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?