Movie News

Alexandra DuPont Reviews Hollow Man

Published at: Aug. 3, 2000, 2:15 a.m. CST by staff

El Cosmico here, with our pal Alexandra DuPont's take on Hollow Man. Enjoy!

ALEXANDRA DuPONT DRILLS INTO 'HOLLOW MAN'

Sexual violence! Puppy murder! Kevin Bacon in the altogether! Now THAT's entertainment!

*****

I recently caught a preview of Paul Verhoven's latest commercial feature, "Hollow Man." Now that I've finally finished wiping off the resulting moral stain with a moist towelette, I think I can write about the experience.

*****

I. THE UPSHOT

"Hollow Man" is quite well-produced (and all the more troubling for it, truth be told -- but I'll get to that in a minute). The Verhoven faithful -- i.e., you zealots who keep insisting that the Archie-Comics-by-way-of-the-Third-Reich "Starship Troopers" was a way-cool satire -- will be happy to read that the movie represents a return to form for the man who directed "RoboCop." "Hollow Man" is slick, succinct and nasty, with a knowing eye for suspense, solid action photography and violence that REALLY looks like it hurts. Effects-wise, it's the invisible-man movie the geeks have always wanted to see: Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon), our transparent fellow, interacts to thrilling effect with smoke, water, blood, steam fire -- pretty much every viscous substance but Jell-O pudding and quicksand -- and it all looks smashing.

That said, "Hollow Man" is also deeply dismaying in that it depicts the moral disintegration of Sebastian Caine with an eye for voyeurism and the bluntness of a sledgehammer -- hence the aforementioned moist towelette. Sensitive viewers need to be warned that there's a fairly stunning amount of violence against women in this movie, and it seemed to cause at least one young slip of a girl to flee the theater at my screening. I'm certainly no women's-studies major, nor do I purport to be a "PC thinker" or other form of moral amateur -- I'm just letting you know.

Putting it another way: I was occasionally creeped out and repulsed and mortified and just a tiny bit titillated all at once, which is of course EXACTLY what the Mad Dutchman set out to accomplish. Whether the methods he uses to achieve this unease come at a moral price is up to you.

*****

II. THE STORY

Cocksure scientist Sebastian Caine (K. Bacon, initially laying it on just a little thick) makes himself invisible. He gets very mean-spirited. His fellow scientists -- among them his ex-girlfriend (Elizabeth Shue, laying it on not nearly thick enough) -- try to stop him. Much bloody wrangling ensues. Structurally, we're presented with two films for the price of one:

(a) a sci-fi morality tale, followed by

(b) an "Aliens"-lite thrillah in which a smart, nearly indestructible monster is hunted by a barely-together band of bickering idiots who look for all the world like they're playing the world's most lethal game of Lazer Tag.

While the sci-fi morality tale is far more intriguing, the final act is still structurally more satisfying than "Starship Troopers."'

*****

III. A SAMPLING OF THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE FEATURED IN 'HOLLOW MAN' (with what I suppose are heavy "spoilers")

In my opinion, the below articles of mayhem are not presented in the service of social satire a la "A Clockwork Orange" (which I admire immensely). This is a pulp thriller, folks, and it features the following, and I think you should be told about it in advance, because it may make you reconsider taking a date. I should also note that I am not even remotely arguing for the censorship of these articles of mayhem like that www.capalert.com doofus. You're big enough to draw your own conclusions. Anyway:

(1) A woman is stalked, voyeuristically ogled and attacked in her bedroom. (This, BTW, is the same woman who was the victim of a long-rumored, graphic "invisible rape" scene in a script draft. Any actual rape, if it was in fact shot, has been cut from the film and will no doubt be a hotly debated DVD extra, if it in fact exists. As the scene stands, it's still plenty damned creepy. As I wrote earlier, Verhoven skillfully crafts his suspense in "Hollow Man" -- sort of like Hitchcock, only with boobie shots and Kevin Bacon's nekkid derierre.)

(2) Women are undressed and fondled against their wishes as they sleep. Twice.

(3) A woman is garroted and stuffed in a locker.

(4) A woman is tranquilized, murdered, and then fondled a second time. After she's dead.

(5) Oh, and a puppy is slammed into a wall, meeting a rather moist end in the process. (For some reason, I suspect people are going to get a lot more riled up about this than they will about the preceding four bits of nastiness. Hi.)

*****

IV. WHAT WORKS IN 'HOLLOW MAN'

(1) The invisibility F/X porn. Specularity be damned -- the effects in "Hollow Man" just look like they were painstaking as hell to design and produce, and everybody at the preview screening seemed to adore them. They actually rendered a rather rowdy audience dead-silent. I am also happy to write that effects serve story here, and not vice-versa. I was particularly fond of the moments in which Mssr. Bacon was PARTIALLY invisible, writhing and/or running around like a demented Hogarth anatomy sketch; through the sinew, you could still sort of tell it was Bacon, thanks (I think) to the impressive computer re-creation of his eyeballs.

(2) An extraordinarily tense bit in an elevator shaft. Watch for that shoulder check. OUCH! Few directors shoot their action sequences with the crystal clarity and surgical cruelty of Paul Verhoven, and it makes for a tense final reel.

(3) A rather bawdy joke Sebastian Caine tells about Superman and Wonder Woman.

(4) William Devane, making a lite, hammy meal (much as he did in "Payback") of his tiny role.

(5) The fact that "Hollow Man" gets its technical details out of the way as quickly as possible to focus on the moral disintegration of Bacon's character. The script tosses off the terms "serial-irradiated protein" and "phase-shifting out of quantum sync with the visible universe," then gets right to the characters, thank Heaven. And although I wrote earlier that Bacon lays it on a little thick, I should add that this is only true while he's visible: Later on, when he only has his growly voice to convey emotion, he's quite effective.

*****

V. WHAT DOESN'T WORK IN 'HOLLOW MAN'

(1) I hereby take this opportunity to resurrect my Computer Rendering Arena of Shame Hotsheet (C.R.A.S.H.) -- a listing of the worst depictions of computer usage in film. C.R.A.S.H. nomination No. 1: The supposed, slug-paced UNIX system the young girl is using to re-boot the system in "Jurassic Park." Nomination No. 2: Pretty much anything on a VDT screen in the "Mission: Impossible" movies. Nomination No. 3: The way keyboard typing in "Hollow Man" consistently produces mouse-driven results onscreen. It's a piddling, nit-picky thing, but still: Would Hollywood depict a driver shifting gears by turning the steering wheel?

(2) Elisabeth Shue. Pretty she is, fellows, but she keeps getting cast as a scientist (see: "The Saint"), and those square words just keep refusing to come out of that round little mouth. And when she gets tough and says, "We are gonna TAKE HIM DOWN," I just about projectile-tittered. And by the way: When in the name of Sweet Fancy Moses did these scientists find time to work out and buy fabulous boots? They're just TOO gorgeous!

(3) The aforementioned necrophilic-fondling incident. (It's what drove that young slip of a girl from the theater, BTW.) I personally found Verhoven's graphic presentation of sexual threats and puppy-smashing as pulp entertainment to be a bit much, and I don't think I'll be alone in that sentiment. The Talk Back is here for your comments and enjoyment.

*****

VI. RECOMMENDATION and SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

"Hollow Man" is a machine designed by Paul Verhoven to make the viewer uneasy, and despite the movie's flaws -- occasionally unexceptional characterization, frequently unexceptional dialogue -- Mr. V achieves his goal. I think there will be some debate about his methods.

Warmest,

Alexandra DuPont.
dupont@dvdjournal.com

P.S. On a semi-related note, may I take a moment to recommend David Foster Wallace's brilliant essay on "F/X Porn" and what it means for filmic storytelling? It's mean and funny and sums up James Cameron's oveure rather nicely. Here's the link:

http://www.smallbytes.net/~bobkat/waterstone.html

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 3, 2000, 2:16 a.m. CST

    This WILL kick ass!

    by GravyAkira

    I know it

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 3:17 a.m. CST

    Do you smell Bacon?

    by Krang

    Yes, I definetely smell a pork product of some kind.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 3:35 a.m. CST

    What in the name of all thing sacred?!?!?!

    by Psyclops

    Fondling corpses! Trashy dialogue! Bashing puppies into a wall! Toxic waste man melting away as Alex Murphey unloads his automatic pistol on the bad guys....oh, wait..wrong movie. Well, this is pure Verhoeven. I'm actually excited to see this thing. Feed the id, baby....open up and say AAAAGGGHHHHH!!!!

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 4:09 a.m. CST

    FX porn

    by crimsonrage

    The article on FX porn is really interesting and funny, but it has some problems. The most glaring one I have is that he keeps making the statement that the bigger budget a film has, the worse it will be, which is a idiotic standpoint, that assumes when people have money for a movie it will be bad no matter what. What about all the low-budget crap out there? And Hamiliton's character in the first "Terminator" was not the super-strong female role he made it out to be. Oh...and I'll probably see "Hollow Man".

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 4:43 a.m. CST

    An the mental Dutchman would say: "Thish film ish gonna pish a l

    by Marty McSuperfly

    With so many films pandering to the mass audience, it's refreshing that some mad European is continually making films that offend large portions of the population. Extreme violence goes past the point of being disturbing when it becomes SO extreme it becomes funny (albeit in a very dark way). Admit it, the idea of the Crazy As A Fox Dutchman doing a puppy death scene gives you a little wry grin. I know it did me.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 6:47 a.m. CST

    Whoa....

    by XTheCrovvX

    The mad dutchman strikes again! Well, i'll keep this short and sweet....while Verhoeven can kiss my ass in the drama department, in my eyes, his sci-fi record is pretty good with Robocop and Starship Troopers under his belt to make us forget Showgirls exists...("I have one rule...everyone fights...no one quits..dont do your job, and i'll shoot you..." DAMN i love that speech! )...so if he pulls this off, it'll be another notch on his belt, and proof he should stick to what he does best...if he fucks up, though, i'll be very disappointed....Revolution is my name...

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Mr. Paul Verhoeven is the BEST pervert!

    by candyman_boo

    Paul Verhoeven is the best filmaking pervert I have had the pleasure of knowing! Films like the "Robocop", "Total Recall", "Showgirls" (Hey, I liked the movie!) are meant to piss the socks off movie-goers. And I luv it! If wholesome family entertainment is the agrument then jack off! "The Hollow Man" is one pervert ride I'm dying to ride!

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 7:39 a.m. CST

    revisionist history

    by Smilin'Jack Ruby

    There was a bit more of the rape scene filmed, it was rather brutal, and it was shown to the first test audience a few months back. It so turned off the women in the audience that Sony cut it. The rape scene was hardly what legend has it now (a 5-minute non-stop rape that would ensure an NC-17 rating), but there was more shot that shows up in the movie.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 8:05 a.m. CST

    reminds me of the old camel story...

    by Mike the Bill

    you know, the one about stacking little pieces of straw on a camel's back. And eventually the camel's back breaks. So was it the last little piece of straw, or was it the stupid person that said "Heh, lets see what it takes to break a camel's back". This is obviously a case of a few more pieces of straw being thrown onto the pile. For years film makers have been stacking it up. So, who will be responsible when the camel's back breaks? I say that the very first person that threw on a stick of straw is just as responsible as the last. What? you say...yes...I did say the "R" word. Just because we have the ability to film a puppy being brutally killed doesn't mean we should. And yes, I agree that many will focus more on the puppy than on what is really wrong witht the movie. The real tragedy here is the violent sexual brutality of women. And you guys want to see this? You are looking forward to it? Lets get back to the camel...the next movie will have to push the envelope even farther for you to be interested. How many of you like Star Wars? Have you ever noticed that there are no sex scenes in it? Star Wars will live on for generation upon generation. Hollow Man will last only until the next graphic sexually violent piece of rotten flesh comes along. This is not Cinema...This is sick and wrong. Does it even bother you at all that the people in charge thought they could get away with a rape scene in the movie? Back to the camel again...In this case...what...or who...is the camel? And what will happen when it's back breaks? No return.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 8:35 a.m. CST

    Think I'll pass - sounds cool, but over the line

    by Jedi Jones

    I'm very disturbed by what I've read about this film, and as much as I'm intrigued by the special effects, I'll pass on this one. And yes, it's more for the puppy scene than the sexual violence against women stuff. Anti-women content is so common that I've learned to just screen it out a lot, but this puppy-bashing just sounds far too sick to me. People who would never risk attacking a person feel free to torture animals, and I hate to see something else encouraging such behavior. Plus, I prefer movies with moral undertones to challenge my thinking, not my ability to sleep without having bad dreams.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 8:37 a.m. CST

    FX-PORN - you don't know what you are talking about

    by andreasingo

    David Foster, do you think you are right about what you are saying about FX-PORN? Well, you ruined that when you stated that T2 belongs to that genre. T2's effects were appropriate, not overused. T2 was a improvement over The Terminator in many ways. Storytelling, acting and yes tecnically. Do not think you're opiniums are the truth, they are just that, your opinium. T2 was the best action movie of the ninties. I agree with you about Aliens though, best actionmovie ever IMHO. I tell you what the definition of FX-PORN is: The Phantom Menace.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:02 a.m. CST

    re:Mike the Bill

    by stuntmunky

    Right on! I'm not a moralist , but my girlfriend made me see how women are treated, in movies. It's sad. I mean, she agrees there're movies where rape scenes are necessary for the story, like BOY'S DON'T CRY. But sexual assaults against women in most movies are needlessly put there to establish the male actor as a girl savior, and to give a guilty hard-on to the mostly male audience. I'm thinking of another camel story right now, one where there's a camel and a mule both travelling the same desert path. The load the camel is carrying is big, but the mule's is five times bigger. So the camel turns to the mule and asks "Doesn't that load hurt your back?" And the mule says "What load?" As men, we've seen rape scenes so often we're used to them and some guys get hard over it. And these guys aren't necessarily sick. But the perps are all men, the victims all women. We can feel safe when watching that shit cuz it's not us. Rape causes internal tears and bleeding, along with infection-let alone the transmission of STD's. Does that get you hard? Try explaining to your daughter how a scene like that was necessary for the story- regardless of how old she is. What does that tell her about men, really?

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Too bad...the effects do look cool, but not worth it

    by SDG

    What a pleasant surprise to see that issues of the sort mentioned above can actually get discussed in TalkBack. That is, while I expected the "I LIKE peversion!" sort of reaction, the throughful social and moral criticism is a welcome thread. More, please.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Well, I'm impressed.

    by Sei Shonagon

    Cheers to Alexandra DuPont for an excellent review -- well-written and articulate, and very clear on exactly what's good and bad and creepy about this film. Can we get more of Alexandra's reviews? Please?

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Dear Whiners

    by Anton_Sirius

    Yes, heaven forbid a film show the VILLAIN committing acts of violence against women. Why, people might infer that only evil people commit those acts or something! Far better if nobody ever shows anything like that in the media. That way we can pretend it never happens. You folks picked the wrong animal for your analogies- you should have gone with the ostrich.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:43 a.m. CST

    A popular comedian once observed...

    by Torso Boy

    ...that there are two kinds of stupid people - those who are honestly stupid, and those who are stupid but believe themselves to be smart. By the time I arrived at the "ICQL" statement in the above FX/Porn article, it was obvious to which category David Foster Wallace belongs. Oh, and I agree with Sei Shonagon...more DuPont reviews, please!

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Hollywood....and morals?...say what?

    by Smugbug

    First off - Alexandra - great review. I really do't need to read or hear another review. And I agree with you on the whole moral wishy washy thing. Being repulsed and tittilated at the same time. Sometimes I wonder, "hmmm, I wonder what would happen if my boyfriend could turn invisible...." Anyways, my thoughts, though is this. Ya, you fan-boys can say how this movie will rock, no matter what. That it's still cool to be a invisible voyuer, whatever. Bottom line? Caine is a rapist. This movie is about a rapist. Which is sad. This character is suppose to be a genius and all he does when he's invisible is grope/rape women. On, how creative. Hey, I'm all into brainless entertainment when the mood strikes me - but if a movie wants to be a brain-dead entertainment vehicle - than be that from the get go. Thats why I LOVE Flash Gordon (1981). It was pure campy entertainment from the moment it began and it wore that banner happily through the movie. This movie seems it wants to be a intelligent thriller - but switches gear because it doesn't trust the content of its own plot. Which means? It was a story begat from the possibilities of FX and knew the audience would be there for that - the story was thrown in as an afterthought. Of course, sex sells - and this is a Verhoeven movie....Alien was a intelligent thriller - complete with intelligent characters. In Total Recall I actually liked Quaid. Even with that wierd Austrian accent. Oh, why couldn't they have made Hollow Man with good characters and women who are not there just to be groped. That would have been sexy, too.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 10 a.m. CST

    FX Porn

    by JerkWad Loser #5

    Well I read that so called "brilliant" essay on FX Porn and all I have to say is that dipshit who wrote it was barking up the wrong tree talking about T2. T2 was one of the few high-end FX films from the nineties that actually was NOT FX PORN. It had a very intriguing story, strong characters, and turned out great despite the stigma of the generalization that bigger budgets mean worse movies. That said, I have not been impressed with any Verhoeven movies in the past, which is mostly camp that come off looking like B quality fare with poor work done all around. Verhoeven's only tools are extreme violence and shock value, neither of which make a good movie. Hollow Man DOES sound like a piece of FX Porn, coupled with the trademark perverse Verhoeven qualities. Not good film-making. Sorry Paul, can't support this.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 10:19 a.m. CST

    YEAH BABY!!!!!!! DEAD PUPPIES!!!!!!!

    by FlamingBastard

    Goddamn! Rape, Corpse fondling, PUPPIES SPLATTERING ON THE WALL!!!! DAMN THIS FUCKING MOVIE MIGHT SUCK ASS!!!!!! BUT, I GUESS I COULD CHECK THAT OUT! Sounds like some primo ultra-violence and goddamn I'm painin' for some of that, don't get enough of that and I want to see it!!!!! I'm tired of renting gore-porn, I need some flashy shit! So I guess I'll be a checking it out, YEAH!!! DEAD PUPPIES!!!!! I fucking hate, hate, hate, hate puppies!!!! They shit everywhere and it stinks!!! But, hey! They were all accidents, no matter what my fucking mother said!!!!

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 10:19 a.m. CST

    YEAH BABY!!!!!!! DEAD PUPPIES!!!!!!!

    by FlamingBastard

    Goddamn! Rape, Corpse fondling, PUPPIES SPLATTERING ON THE WALL!!!! DAMN THIS FUCKING MOVIE MIGHT SUCK ASS!!!!!! BUT, I GUESS I COULD CHECK THAT OUT! Sounds like some primo ultra-violence and goddamn I'm painin' for some of that, don't get enough of that and I want to see it!!!!! I'm tired of renting gore-porn, I need some flashy shit! So I guess I'll be a checking it out, YEAH!!! DEAD PUPPIES!!!!! I fucking hate, hate, hate, hate puppies!!!! They shit everywhere and it stinks!!! But, hey! They were all accidents, no matter what my fucking mother said!!!!

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Dear fellow talkbackers:

    by gg

    Read stuntmunkys post. Without even knowing it, he describes the themes that this movie is about. Knowing Verhoeven(not personally, but his movies) I can say that

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 10:52 a.m. CST

    More on violence

    by All Thumbs

    Does anyone else get the feeling that we're going to hear references to "Hollow Man" in the next discussions on violence in entertainment and media during presidential campaignin? I already read one article recently where a politician basically stated that the entertainment industry should be liable in that someone should be able to sue, for example, movie studios for their portrayals of violence and its effects on our mental health just as people have sued the tobacco industry for cigarrettes. Yeah...that one doesn't make much sense to me, either, and I really, REALLY hope I misunderstood what the politician was saying. But all this talk about the entertainment industry by politicians leads me to think they will be showing clips of many of the Mad Dutchman's movies in the next couple months. Me? Sounds like the violence in this movie is of the disturbing kind. I'll wait to make my opinions on this movie, but in general, I find that unless violence as vicious as described is used to show the moral degredation of a character or is there to show the brutality of the violence (especially with something like rape), it's useless and brings what could be an otherwise cool movie down. There are exceptions to this rule and those usually involve satire and other forms of humour and the violence is presented differently and not as sickeningly brutal. Anyways, just prepare yourself for a tirade against movie violence, starring "Hollow Man". Coming to a political debate near you!

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 11:45 a.m. CST

    okay...one more time...

    by Smugbug

    this is a AICN first for me. Posting a second time? Does it make this movie SO much more controversial? ya, right... Okay. I've just read the F/X Porn - and people the dude isn't saying that the more money a movie costs to make, the more likelihood it's gonna suck. NOPE. READ IT. And I don't think he means "Porn" as in "Deep Throat" porn - but he's using it.."figuratively" (gosh, I hope thats a correct word here). As in the F/X is so costly and time consuming for studios, that "little things" like, story is thrown to the wayside to make way for mindblowing special eye candy. In other words, very boring movies that look really great. And I agree with him. As for the last post that said that alot of Hollow Man was carefully planned specifically for audience reaction - really? I somehow doubt that. Verhoeven lives in the 21st Century where women are going to making movie choices - and we're not all seeing "chick flicks". I dig action flicks as much as the next dude and not at all put off by excessive "skin". But, when you go the easy easy route of men who grope/rape women for character purposes. Well, you've failed.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Oh...the horror !

    by Syd Mead

    While I have my limits as to what kids under 18 can see on the screen..please don't encourage censorship in adult cinema with " I don't want to see puppy bashing." (but rapes OK? Ya right!) Reminds of when the Godfather movies had a big stink about a horses head under some guy's sheets but nobody had a problem with James Cain's character Sonny getting ripped to shit with machine gun fire. "I like treating people like animals and animals like people" is what your saying. Not that Verhoven has the artistic sense Kubrick has in his depiction of violence but I don't want my movies edited down to drivel. --Syd.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Now David Foster Wallace Is Stupid?!?!

    by mrbeaks

    You may not agree with Wallace on F/X porn (I know I don't w/r/t T2,) but the man is miles smarter than any of the jackasses posting here. Read INFINITE JEST, if you can, and learn the error of your judgmental ways.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 11:58 a.m. CST

    I don't know if one should draw any lines...

    by Absimiliard

    In reading a lot of the comments above, I couldn't help but feel a little bit defensive. Not that I have anything to do with any professional media, but the idea that some thoughts are too risque (or plain evil) to put in film or music seems wrong. In my opinion, any movie that makes you feel anything is worthwhile, whether that feeling be the warm fuzzy of films such as It's a Wonderful Life, a sense of dread such as the Alien series (the first two anyways), or the general ickiness this film seems to inspire. As far as the issue of rape in film or any violence against women goes. I wonder why so few people that mention these, admittedly horrid, acts don't get so bent out of shape each time someone dies on film (through any method). To me death is a far worse fate than an unwelcomed grope, or even rape. A lot of people (not all God bless them) don't even flinch when a room is mowed down my machinegun fire, but cry bloody murder when one woman is mistreated or an animal (small cute puppy in this case) is hurt. Please don't take this little blurb of mine to say that any violence against woman or animal is okay by me. The point I'm trying to make is that the film seems to be trying to say that it isn't (or at least to illustrate that our villain is villainous). And I do see that a shoot-em-up scene, as in the Matrix lobby, is much less personal than any one-on-one torture. I won't even go so far as to say that these movies don't have any effect on people's psyche. I guess my point is... If the movie bothers you, good. It restablishes the fact that there are things you don't and shouldn't like. If you can't stand to watch, then you can leave the theater. That's not meant to be a "if you don't like it f**k off" statement, but rather a reminder of everyone's right to remove themselves from anything that offends them. As far as saying any image or topic is bad, again I implore people not to judge. I realize people do seem to be pushing the envelope. I realize too the studios seem to think that this kind o violence will sell, which is rather a sad statement. But like I said any movie that makes you FEEL is a GOOD movie at least in that light. My only complaintis that there aren't more "It's a Wonderful Life"s and quite so many "Hollow Men".

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 12:15 p.m. CST

    T2, Wallace, etc.

    by Lazarus Long

    In regards to that Wallace article, I thought he was right on the money. While T2 appears to now be in the geek pantheon of cool films, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the first film has more merit. The bigger budget of the sequel allowed cameron to fund a "bigger vision", but what that would up being was crazy effects. Dare I say that the first film was more sci-fi than the second one? Running around modern-day L.A. with some little kid is what I think of when I think of T2. The first one had a gritty, post-modern feel that is much more appropriate than the glossy Hollywood follow up. The relationship between Reese and Sarah in the first film was way better written than that lame Arnold/Kid bonding in the second. Making Arnold the star of the film was a pretty lame way to go as well. I guess Arnold was so big by then, why bother having people root against him? We'll make him a good guy! You people think that's great moviemaking? Not only is Wallace right, but he's more perceptive than any of the fools on this website. Try reading his essay on the set of a David Lynch film (in the collection A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), or if your brain is advanced enough, his sprawling novel Infinite Jest, which is quite possibly one of the greatest works in literature. The guy doesn't just THINK he's smart. He's wise.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 12:33 p.m. CST

    A lengthy rant.

    by X-Mole

    I wonder when all the moralising types around here will join the rest of us in the grown-up world? Anyone else notice how their deeply contrived analogies sound like they're be read off the back of a religious and/or right-wing pamphlet word-for-word, without going via the brain first? "The camels back will break...". er, ok, what's the film-violence equivalent in your analogy for that happening? Some sort of social apocalypse? And "the first straw-putter is just as responsible as the last"? So therefore the first person to ever show anything even vaguely offensive (what, someone throwing a punch? a single swear word?) is just as guilty as a the (hypothetical) director of a film that shows mass rape, torture, corpse mutilation, etc etc? The logical conclusion is that you would rather no morally dubious actions of ANY KIND were depicted in film - and one might guess, any medium whatsoever. Are you aware that this is the outcome of your position? I don't know what would be scarier, if you were or were not. I recommend a trip to Belgium, the only country in the world not to enact any form of video censorship: i guess the equivalent of not only breaking the camel's back, but sodomising it with a dead racoon at the same time. You will find it a strangely well-adjusted unassuming little country. Never mind, perhaps they'll all burn in hell NEXT week, eh?

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Absimillard, right on!

    by Prankster

    The guy's absolutely right. Movies that repulse and sicken aren't the villain. It's movies that make you feel nothing whatsoever that are damaging (inasmuch as movies are damaging, but that's a whole other argument). I want to see this, and I'm not going to "get off" on the raping and the violence, or demand that the bar be raised for next time. Actually, very few things make me madder than seeing a man sexually assault a woman. But I highly doubt that even shockmeister Verhoeven wants us to cheer for Mr. Caine. That's the other factor, of course--none of us have seen the damn movie yet. Some people are actually saying this one is tame by Verhoeven's standards. This article started off on the wrong, pompous foot with Ms. DuPont, but as far as I'm concerned she lost all her credibility when she insisted that the people who view Starship Troopers as a satire are "zealots". No, we are just capable of figuring out what a filmmaker was trying to say, and not taking everything so damn literally. Watch Verhoeven's european films, it's obvious this guy is a talented and--dare I say it--sensitive filmmaker. But since he came to America he's been, yes, satirizing Hollywood by taking all their techniques to their extreme in terms of violence and sex. He's saying, this is what Hollywood movies would be like if they had guts; this is how depraved they would be. And Starhip Troopers is the pinnacle of that. You can debate the morality of that method if you wish, but you can't say it hasn't got people talking and forced us to contemplate movies--just look at this Talkback. And I don't see how getting people talking and thinking can be a bad thing. Oh yes, and that article on FX Porn is the biggest load of garbage I've read in a long while; the guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about. If anything, Terminator 1 is the brain dead, morally vapid, commercial flick with the 80s glaze on its eyes. There's plenty of FX setpieces, violence (much of it aimed at innocent bystanders), and sex (Sarah and Kyle's love affair amounts to running from things and then suddenly jumping into the sack). Terminator 2, however, has a freaking heart. It allows the characters to interrelate in complex ways beyond running and shooting, it shows much more than the usual child-in-jeopardy crap by establishing John as a budding leader, and it contains Arnold's best performance ever (not saying much, but still). This is all "sappy" and "commercial" to Mr. Foster, whereas a soulless action movie is apparently "brilliant". Other question marks: he says Cameron's artistic decline goes from "T2" to "The Abyss" even though Abyss came first, and he seems to be implying that whereas "Brazil" is artistic genius, "12 Monkeys" is commercialized crap (was there any CGI in "Monkeys" at all?) And of course, it contains the typical "special effects are inherently bad for the story" attitude which has been almost completely disproven in the last year or two with Titanic, The Matrix, Fight Club, Toy Story 2, etc. I'm sure back in 1935 there were critics complaining that sound had cheapened the movies.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 12:43 p.m. CST

    DuPont! re: "C.R.A.S.H." list

    by mwbrown

    I would have considered this a well written review, DuPont, until you started with your stupid list, dismissing the "supposed, slug-paced UNIX system the young girl is using to re-boot the system in "Jurassic Park" as an example of Hollywood's technical ignorance. This is a -REAL- application that was acctually pretty old by the time it showed up in that movie. It's called FSN (File System Navigator) and is still available for download off SGI's website. Admittedly, it really is slug-paced, but considering when it came out, (1990ish, or maybe earlier) it was still a pretty cool little app. See for yourself: http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d_navigator.html There is some info on how the app works there, too. While I agree that most movie representations of high tech computing are downright inane, some filmmakers acctually DO do their homework. Who's the ignorant one now?

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Right on, Prankster...

    by Torso Boy

    Had the guy titled his little treatise "Why I thought T1 was better" I probably would have come away with more respect for him, even if I disagreed with his opinions. Too much overgeneralization. Too much cynicism couched as objectivity. Too much reliance on his loquaciousness to carry the day rather than making relevant points. Ironic, in a way, considering the "theme" of the essay.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 2:11 p.m. CST

    HEY HARRY THATS HOW YOU WRITE A REVIEW!

    by dick dickman

    That I can honestly say was a pretty damn good review. I feel like I got some good insight, but not too much information. They talked about effects and direction and acting chops. Very nice. Take note Harry. Not alot of mention of where I sat, or I had the large tub of extra buttery popcorn, or my Dad sat next to me and said "balah balhalbalh" or I got there late cause my GEO Metro wasnt running properly, or I talked to PAul V. for a half hour and he had a peice of beef jerky...yak yak. Good MOVIE review. I guess thats why you dont do it anymore.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 2:41 p.m. CST

    If that joke about Superman is what I think it is....

    by mephisto666

    ..this does not bode well for the film. How old is that joke? Still, if anyone wants to know what I think it is.... POSSIBLE SPOILER!!! One day Superman is flying around feeling really horny. Then he sees Wonder Woman alone in her apartment; lying naked on her bed with her legs apart. Superman think's "Well, I'm faster than a speeding bullet, right? She won't even notice." So he flies through the window, gets his end away, then leaves. Wonder Woman rolls over and asks "How was it for you?" The Invisible Man replies "Great, but my arse hurts like hell!"

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Alexandra DuPont gives good review.

    by superninja

    Man, these are just the best reviews on this site, no doubt. People were saying that about her last item, but this review is very well crafted and thought out. Does anyone doubt that Verhooven has some "female" issues? In every one of his films he manages to humiliate some female character.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 9:27 p.m. CST

    INFINITE JEST

    by QUIXOTE

    "Possibly one of the greatest works in literature"? Are you out of your mind? It's a good book but more than a little self-indulgent. Let's have a little perpective here, people.

  • Aug. 3, 2000, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Horror in the 21st century

    by swavill

    While I find find animal cruelty and rape repugnant I think you are going to see more of these types of themes in the future. An entire generation cut their teeth on slasher flicks. Serial killers,monsters from outer space,twisted genetic mutations have all become common place. Our children watch them like cartoons. Its becoming harder and harder to actually scare a movie audience. In most cases directors settle for trying to startle them (if youve seen "What lies beneath" you'll know what i'm talking about).But actually sending chills down someones spine is becoming increasingly more difficult. Exploring the dark side of human nature in intensely graphic scenes seems to be in vogue now. Seeing otherwise normal people perform sadistic acts can be unnerving. Especially when it ellicits the "repulsed but somewhat tittilated" response that Alexandra DuPont describes above. Verhoeven is trying to tap into those hidden dark side feelings that we all have and it sounds as though he has succeeded in some measure here.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 12:51 a.m. CST

    The Puppy Thing

    by Znosaro

    Anybody see this movie called "The Boondock Saints?" It was a really cool movie about these two irish guys who... kill... a lot. And it ruled. Anyway, there is this scene where they just got back from killing peeps and they're chilling with an Italian guy... one of the tells a joke and the Italian guy slams his hand down on the table, setting of a gun. Blood platters EVERYWHERE and they all run and check themelves, to see who was hit. Finally, they realize none of them were, and they look over and see the remains of a completely blown up cat splattered on the wall. I laughed. A lot. I own a couple cats and never in a million years could I fathom hurting them or any other animal. But the scene was still hilarious. B/c I'm grown up enough to take it and not go on a cat-killing rampage. So, if this puppy thing is nearly as shocking/funny, I say bring it on.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 1:59 a.m. CST

    censorship

    by Mycroft IV

    Veerhoeven should be able to spew forth whatever putrescence his little heart and wallet desires. It is up to us to choose to see it or not. I love Robocop, T2, and Starship Troopers. These movies helped to define my childhood. I also saw Annie and Pippi Longstockings and they had a hand in it too. Ultimitely the decision to be a semi-law abiding, well adjusted human being was up to me. Without the darkness you wouldn't know the light. Movies that show you the devilish side of human nature show you what to guard against, they show you what the dirt is. They can try to glamourize it but if you are honest with yourself you cut through all of that hollywood bullshit and see the truth behind the art. Before you condemn another man's vision check your own.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Just saw HOLLOW MAN

    by Dlhstar

    I just have to say, this was the first film in quite a while that I sat all the way through without getting up. If I had to sum it up, it is basically a story of power corrupting and how easily power can be abused. First off, Caine is constantly reminding everyone HE is in charge, HE makes the rules. There is the Superman joke, joking how even the man of steel is not above abusing his powers. There is constant 'god' complexes... The early effects look a little crappy, but the (in)visible human scenes were amazing at times. BTW: The dead puppy scene and the rape scenes are not as severe as may believe before seeing the film. It'll be a little strange for people to criticize a film for what wasn't shown rather than for what was shown.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Disturbing review

    by stitch

    Check out the sick review of Hollow Man by a certain 'daBoss' at IMDB. This is the second time this review has been posted. It was yanked a few days ago after complaining about it but now it's back. Disturbing, to say the least. http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?164052

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 12:23 p.m. CST

    This Is Wrong

    by Jack D. Ripper

    Marty McSuperfly there is NOTHING funny about a puppy death scene. Abuse against animals is as bad as child abuse because neither children nor animals(especially puppies)can defend themselves. Youf fucking asshole, what is wrong with you? As for the rest of you who're calling Verhoven a brilliant satirist and saying that Starship Troopers was a metaphor and Showgirls was a tour de force I have some question:Does all this smart 'satire' and 'social commentary' make you happy? Do you really think this is funny? Don't you think that more could be done with an invisible man movie than just he goes crazy and kills and rapes? Movies are too important an art form for DUMB-ASS Paul V to be making his statments. He is NOT brilliant, he's just a dumb FUCK who exploits sex and violence and makes really big budget, slick B-MOVIES! Does all of this 'satire' make up for unsympathetic characters and poor storylines? Jesus Christ! Why do we need a movie that has a man fondling corpses and murdering puppies?! It's fucking idiot wannabe-intellectuals like you that keep this sick fuck in business. Why even BOTHER making him invisible if it's just a mediocore thriller? AND DON'T TELL ME THAT THIS IS JUST A POPCORN MOVIE! I DON'T CARE IF THIS IS JUST A POPCORN MOVIE! Film is the most important art form EVER and we're throwing it away with shitty 'stories'-I'm sorry 'satires' about invisible rapist murderers?! GODAMMIT I AM PISSED! And what exactly is the 'message' of this film? Being invisible turns you into a murderer and a rapist and a crazy shithead?!? WE DON'T NEED VERHOVEN AND WE DON'T NEED 'HOLLOW MAN'! This is just soulless, cruel, well-marketed, morally reprehensible garbage! THIS IS WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! DON'T ANY OF YOU SEE THAT?! FUCKING SOCIAL COMMENTARY WILL NEVER MAKE UP FOR WELL-DEVELOPED CHARACTERS AND A GOOD STORY! I HATE HATE HATE HATE VERHOVEN AND I HATE ALL YOU SYCOPHANTS WHO HAIL HIM AS A GENIUS AND TALK ABOUT HOW HE 'HOLDS A MIRROR UP TO SOCIETY' AND ALL THAT! EXTREME VIOLENCE NEVER BECOMES FUNNY! GODAMMIT GODDAMMIT! FUCKHEADS, ALL OF YA, YA GODAMMED VERHOVEN LOVERS! FUCK HIM AND FUCK YOU! HE IS NOT A GENIUS AND YOU ARE NOT 'SMART' FOR 'UNDERSTANDING HIS SUBTEXT' WHILE THE REST OF US 'PROLES' STRUGGLE WITH THE 'SATIRE' OF HIS PICTURES! FUCK YOU AND GO TO HELL!

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Verhoeven

    by JerkWad Loser #5

    There is room enough in the movie industry for mindless crap AND really good movies. We don't have to support whatever we don't like, but we have no right to say that they can't make a movie just because we don't like it. So chill out Jack D. Ripper (isn't your screen-name a contradiction to your rant??). That said, I think social statements in movies can be good and fitting. Unfortunately Verhoeven attempts to put social commentary and extreme violence in his movies to make up for bad stories and terrible film-making. The man has no idea what real social commentary is, or how to convey it. That's just sad.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 3:31 p.m. CST

    HOLLOW MAN doesn't go quite far enough

    by Bellamy

    I have seen a preview of Hollow Man, and have had time to discuss it with friends. While the following does not really contain any "spoilers", you might want to wait to read it until after you see it yourself. First off -- the effects are truly cool. At one point, I almost burst into applause (as we did when the Millennium Falcon first made the jump into hyperspace, remember?) And, the effects are integral to the plot for a change. There is already much discussion regarding the violence in the film, especially directed against women. (The violence against a dog, incidentally, is viewed "indirectly" and serves as a graphic illustration of Caine's decay. In the context of the film, it "made sense", showing his building rage and loss of control.) But the problem is that Verhoeven really drops the ball here. He vicariously leads us through Caine's growing sense of power -- we know we shouldn't be titillated, but we are. We know we shouldn't think about taking advantage, but we all recognize deep down inside us the same little boy who fantasized about being invisible in the girl's shower room. When we feel aroused, but ashamed, he's got us pegged. But what should and could have been a memorable commentary on power, and the new technology which lends it, devolves into a monster movie. Verhoeven would have us think that the power granted Caine by invisibility drives him mad and ultimately destroys him. Wrong! Caine was already a manipulative, dominating weasel who couldn't stand not to have his own way. We're supposed to be surprised that such a man will abuse any power given to him? How much better it would have been to show a more balanced man corrupted -- now *that* would have been a cogent commentary and warning on our technology getting ahead of us. The mere fact that so much discussion has been generated proves that this film touches a nerve. (The "peeping Tom" nature of the film, and the fact that key points of the action revolve around video monitoring, also is a comment on the lack of privacy we feel now that midget wireless digital cameras are easily available -- I'm surprised Verhoeven didn't include an "up-the-skirt-cam" shot!) He makes you feel uneasy, not just because of the images, but because you suspect you yourself could also fall prey to temptation. But what could have been an instant classic degenerates into a "help-we're-being-noisily-chased-by-an-indestructible-monster" flick. Verhoeven gets in your face and under your skin, but doesn't know what to do once he gets there.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Ever see Ed Begley Jr. as the "Invisible" Man in "Amazon Women O

    by Regis Travolta

    The great joke was that he thought he was invisible but he was really just running around naked! Into an exact replica of the Olde English Pub we saw in 1933 "Invisible Man" where Begley was filmed with such fantastic humor and precision that you never saw his naughty bits, i.e. they were always just barely camouflaged by a pitcher of beer or a chair etc. This was by far the funniest spoof-scene in a very funny and underrated comedy. Go to your local video store and rent Amazon Women On The Moon you'll be glad you did! It's a riot.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Why didn't he buttfuck a guy too?

    by korakos

    I think the movie would be much more intersteing and show lots of depravity if we had a naked guy rape scene. I'd REALLY like to see a naked, invisible guy rape scene from behind. Anybody with me on this one?

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 4:19 p.m. CST

    "...there is NOTHING funny about a puppy death scene."

    by Anton_Sirius

    Mr. Jack D. Ripper (hang on, that should be a military rank, right? Shoot, was he a Col or a Gen? I've forgotten), I'd like you to meet a little film called A Fish Called Wanda- that is, if you can take your head out of your ass long enough for the introduction. (Sorry folks, but if someone is going to put that much effort into trolling, I feel honor-bound to respond.)

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Mike the Bill is CORRECT! It is IRRESPONSIBLE to depict the SMAS

    by Bari Umenema

    THEREFORE I URGE ALL OF YOU TO BUY A TICKET AT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MULTIPLEX TO 'SPACE COWBOYS' THEN JUST WALK IN TO THE THEATER SHOWING 'HOLLOW MAN' AFTERWARDS!! YOU GET TO SEE THE MOVIE AND VERHOEVEN AND COLUMBIA PICTURES ARE PUNISHED AT THE BOX OFFICE WHERE THEY DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED. (BETTER YET AFTER SPACE COWBOYS GO BUY A SODA AND POPCORN SO THEATER MAKES ITS PROFIT MARGIN THEN JUST MOSEY ON IN TO SEE HOLLOW MAN AND ANY USHERS ON DUTY IN THE DAYTIME WILL JUST ASSUME YOU WERE ALREADY IN AND SEATED. AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET YOUR MONEY'S WORTH AT THE MOVIES WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE FILMS. TOUCHE BOYS TOUCHE!!!)

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 9:11 p.m. CST

    My Hollow Man review, a.k.a. "If you dont own a DVD player when

    by XTheCrovvX

    Well, here goes...there's lots i wanna say about this film, but i'll put my major gripe like this...imagine, you got the newest CD by your favorite artist/band, doesnt matter who...and you've got it, it's got kickass artwork, the lyrics are pretty good, then you slip in the disk....and as you listen to it, you keep noticing, just about a minute and 30 seconds before the end of the song, the track skips to the next song....sure, the album rocks, but you know the extra minute thirty would've made it feel...better...complete...and pure genius...thats how i walked out of Hollow Man feeling...pure example here....ok, there's a scene, after Kevin Bacons "night out on the town", where the perverted scientist dude is with him in the room, and he asks if he took advantage of his being invisibe while he was out...Kevin said yeah, with one girl, and the other guy said "so how was it"...and Kevin gives this huge "cat-that-swallowed-the-canary" smirk, and says "I liked it..." in this wicked voice....now, the audience i saw this with chuckled a little, some guy in the back whispered "slick bastard"...but, i didnt...why? because all i could think about is how FUCKING EVIL that line would've been had the "invisible rape" scene been included....so, when i saw that scene, i just went "holy shit...Kevin's cheese done slid off his cracker this time..."...but god, what i would've given to have seen this movie in its full form...i mean, there's plenty to love here....i had this Jack Torrance-y vibe from kevin Bacon the entire movie...and he played it to the bone...and in one scene literally...the F/X rock...point blank, and period...i mean, anyone who can look me dead in the eye and say that the effect where Kevin steps out of the pool didnt just rule the world just plain scares me...because there's nothing that can impress that person...next, i like the way Verhoeven uses the environment...the main cool things being the elevator scene, the blood, and the infrared sequences....theres more goodies in there, but i said MINOR spoilers..not major....my gripes...well, like i said...it is essential to my continued survival as a movie buff that i purchase a DVD player before this movie is released...i want...no...NEED...no...LUST to see the missing footage...to make tis film complete...i mean, the rape scene, while some think it would've been too violent, and over the top(and maybe they're right), quite frankly, when i look at it, it would've served to make Kevin Bacon's psycho character even MORE psycho in my eyes...im also told of additional footage to the "oh my god...elizabeth shue's screwing HIM?!" scene, after she hangs up the phone...rumor's going round that Kevin bacon's character(btw, excuse me for not remembering these people's characters' names...either the names weren't all that memorable, or my ginko biloba is starting to wear off...) kinda "joins in on the fun" to be subtle...that would've been a freaky scene to keep in...plus, im still wondering where the hell that shot in the trailer's from, where somebody attempts to throw a sheet over Kevin, only to have his back away just in the nick of time...like a ghost...that would've rocked...like i said...YOU NEED A DVD PLAYER...PRONTO....next gripe...not the storyline, or the movie itself...dialogue...especially in the final few scenes in the lab...did anyone else feel like slapping elizabeth shue into oblivion with the way she said that "We're gonna take him DOWN!" line?! same with the bitch slap scene between elizabeth shue, and "that other girl who looks like Tricia Jones from Mallrats", where she says "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!" i dunno, i guess getting her boobies groped earlier ruined her acting abilities later in the film.....anything else? well...my minor, stupid horror movie predictability/stupidity point meter...it went up when they're searching for Kevin in the hallways, and one of em just HAD to yell "Sebastian! where are you?!" STUPID!! HE'S TRYING TO KILL YOU, MORON!! ugh...i hate that...hey! i remembered the guy's name!!..ah, fuck...just when im at the end of my review, too...oh well...if anybody choose to contest or agree with what i said, i'll remember to put his name in there...Revolution is my name...now excuse me...i must put ice on my ass before superman comes back (hehehehe....)

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Uh, I was about to say I didn't like this all that much...

    by Veidt

    But after scrolling though this TB and seeing that demented screed by Jack T. Ripper, I have to say it kind of put me back in this movie's corner. Hell, it WAS terrific for the first hour or more and really only fell to pieces in the last twenty minutes or so. Bacon gives a top notch performance here - even when not seen, his vocal delivery is dead-on. Some will gripe about how quickly he seems to become a menace but right from the get-go, it's implied (through the gorilla's hostile behavior) that invisibility has a possible side effect of violence. And it's also established that Caine is exactly the kind of power-mad egocentric control freak that would be the first to seize on the dark possibilities of his new condition regardless. As for why we don't see Caine out in public more - I don't think that was essential to the film at all. What would we see - Caine hanging around ladies locker rooms, sneaking into movies without paying, giving out phantom wedgies? Not exactly cinematic gold. I think keeping the film largely compressed to the claustrophobic environment of the lab was the right way to go. I even wouldn't have minded the third act stalking of the science team had it at least delivered more of a final pay-off. The last five minutes of any film can either save it or sink it. Here, it just turns the whole movie flat. As for the violence on tap here, you'd have to have led a pretty sheltered life to get too rattled. Even the puppy bashing was relatively easy to take (as far as puppy-bashings go) as it was all shown on infra-red. Doesn't make it right, of course - but invisible men will get out of control at times. I really wanted to dig this movie as much as Robocop and Starship Troopers but this just didn't kick my ass the way I was hoping. I never thought there'd ever be a summer so pathetic where the only great movie was about clay chickens but here you have it.

  • Aug. 4, 2000, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Not ROBOCOP or STARSHIP TROOPERS but...

    by Moviemate

    Hollowman was an ok movie if you go into the theatre not expecting too much...my favourite moment was when our invisible villain rubbed something hard and unseen against his ex girlfriends lips (liz shue) and not just because it was quite an erotic moment but because it showed how the film could have been so much better by just giving us enough to fire our imaginations instead of throwing so many (though excellent) special effects our way that we forget to like the characters (ie Phantom menace).

  • Aug. 5, 2000, 12:40 a.m. CST

    Dear Anton and Jerkwad Loser # 5

    by Jack D. Ripper

    I was really on a tangent this morning when I wrote that, but I just got really pissed about such a big budget being give to something that seemed so empty. Sorry for the long rant. I'm not saying that stuff like this shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that we shouldn't do this just because we can. The puppy murder and rape and all that offend me, but I should just calm down, because, because it's only a movie and it doesn't matter in the long run. I mean, Hollow Man isn't going to cause all sorts of rapes and animal abuse incidents, is it? Of course not. And yeah, Jerkwad, commercial crap and art CAN coexist peacefully, and it's not like I haven't seen any crass consumer crap. Fuck. I just got carried away. This stuff doesn't really matter. So please accept my apology for going off on a big moralizing rant. It wasn't my place. Jesus, Jeeezuss. I just get tired sometimes of people defending this kind of stuff as satire. But I shouldn't push my personal beliefs on you guys. I got really carried away and I'm sorry for screaming and ranting. I think that Jack D. Ripper was a general. And Anton, now that I've pulled my head out of my ass(and pretty well I think)I must ask you, why mention A Fish Called Wanda(Haven't seen it)?

  • Aug. 5, 2000, 1:54 a.m. CST

    This movie blowed hardcore *SPOILERS*

    by JakeyG

    This may be, perhaps, the worst movie I have seen this year. The amount of things wrong with it far surpasses the amount of information currently connected to the international network. I have 2 really big problems with it: 1) People who are caught on fire for more than 20 sec will have worse than 3rd degree burns and won't be around to survive a blow to the head, electricution, and the final elevator scene. I'm sorry, but even though he was invisible, that doesn't make him invincible. 2) A CENTROFUGE IS NOT A WORLD CLASS SUPER DUPER WORK-A-ROUND THE ELECTRICUTION EXPLOSIVE DEVICE!!! The fact that Kevin Bacon destroyed the keyboard in a room full of computers doesn't help at all. Did anyone in post-production or even in the filming realize that a centrofuge can stop counting down if it IS UNPLUGGED! It's as simple as that! When Shue and dude run by it and dont unplug it, they just show exactly how bad this movie really was. Good titty flick, but not worth the 8 bucks. You're on the net, get titties for free.

  • Aug. 5, 2000, 2:09 a.m. CST

    missing scene

    by kingTJ

    What happened to the scene where a girl slowly brings down a sheet over bacon's head? It's in the previews but not in the movie

  • Aug. 5, 2000, 2:16 a.m. CST

    Hollow Editing

    by swavill

    I can't get over the feeling that somewhere on a cutting room floor is the heart and soul of this film. The visible invisible special effects using water, smoke,steam,blood and even a fire extinguisher were excellent. The gradual fade to invisibility looked like something you'd see on a discovery channel special (cool but not spectacular). From the reviews i've read I expected this to be a little more disturbing then it actually was. The scene with the dog was CGI seen as infrared video and what Bacon threw against the wall could have been a wet towel for all I could tell. The fondling of a corpse turned out to be more a case of him wiping the blood off of his hands on the girls chest after he killed her. Since they supposedly cut the invisible rape scene why did they bother with his visit to the girls apartment it left a big gaping hole in the movie.If they were going to cut it they should have cut it all. I could understand them cutting this part if it were an original concept that they thought might be too disturbing for audiences,but it's been done before. Years ago in a film called "The Entity" and very grafically I might add. The end of the movie also bothered me. I could understand him going back to the lab and trying to kill everyone if he were really piised off at all of them. Or if he got his kicks by killing people. But doing it under the pretense of covering his tracks was kind of stupid. He's invisible for christ's sake all he has to do is pick a direction and leave. How the hell would they ever find him? The movie's major problem was editing it has spots in it where I half expected to see a big pair of scissors cutting across the screen. Overall the movie was entertaining. The FX make it worth seeing,but its a one timer. I would be interested in seeing a directors cut though.