His films range from phenomenal, to so-so, to - more rarely - poor, but one can almost always trust Paul Verhoeven to do something interesting, even if it doesn't quite turn out. I've been slightly reluctant to watch 'Hollow man' ever since it was released just because the word of mouth of which I'd caught wind wasn't especially strong. Having more recently watched Universal's iconic 1933 adaptation of 'The invisible man,' and dearly loved it, did nothing to curry any additional favor for this 2000 title. It's been high time for me to watch it for myself, however, and here we are. Before even ten minutes have passed I find myself forming a divided opinion: on the one hand, reading about the hard work put into producing all the effects is decidedly encouraging, and shows that this wasn't just a proverbial "dog and pony show"; on the other hand, we're introduced to snappy songs on the soundtrack, extra "cool" and "slick" visuals and presentation, and marginally accelerated pacing that's more than a little overbearing. One can't help but worry from the outset that 'Hollow man' is going to be more style than substance. Ultimately I do like this, and think it's worthwhile, but I understand why it was met with mixed reception, and it's definitely less than perfect.
I don't know if it's specifically the collaboration with cinematographer Jost Vacano or some other facet, but it's noteworthy that this really does look like it's cut from the same cloth as the filmmaker's previous outing, 'Starship troopers.' It doesn't feel like it, though, in various ways, not least of all in that the latter was superficially plainspoken and over the top, but was saturated through and through with underhanded wit and nuance that was cloaked by the surface appearance. This title, on the other hand, doesn't particularly give us more than meets the eye. It is mostly a straightforward sci-fi thriller, with tinges of horror on the edges. There are crumbs of a psychological element to the proceedings, as there were in the 1933 picture and H. G. Wells' original novel, but they are emphatically less pronounced here - or in the very least, emphatically less successful. A major component of the narrative is supposedly the deterioration of the invisible subject's psyche, yet I feel like we don't really get that in this case; Sebastian is already written as such an egotistical, selfish, crude, and rather cruel person that there's no significant contrast, no significant progression. The tale could have been an exploration of the psychological effects of the experiment, and it does play with that notion to some extent, but not with what feels like nearly the full potential.
Hand in hand with how Sebastian is written, other ideas that this plays with are mostly accentuation, and amplification, of the awful behavior the protagonist already demonstrates. Thus, content warnings are necessary for animal cruelty, sexual assault, and - part and parcel as well with the more overcooked sensibilities of the early 2000s - rather gratuitous nudity. Speaking of overcooked, as the last act rolls around the writing becomes so forthright (in dialogue, characterizations, and scene writing alike) as to become a little tawdrily blunt; moreover, setting aside a handful of critical details or intermittent dashes of cleverness, the brunt of this genre flick is very familiar and nothing especially remarkable. All this is the bad news, making the picture less interesting, more difficult to engage with, less worth our engagement, and in some ways kind of tiresome.
On the other hand, in every other capacity it's safe to say 'Hollow man' is very well made. The cast give swell performances all around, maybe even a bit impressive since in some select instances they're not necessarily acting in earnest reaction to anything. Likewise, between Verhoeven's orchestration of shots and scenes and Vacano's photography, it's clear that great pains were taken to fashion the film around the conceit that an invisible character was present on the set, and toying with various props, instead of just relying on digital fabrication of effects out of thin air. The endeavor certainly paid off in that regard. To that point, congratulations are surely in order for the visual artists who operated behind the scenes here, because even at their most over the top (primarily transformation sequences, and the climax), every such contribution is superb. From more ordinary tidbits like blood, explosions, and wrecked set pieces, all the way through to depictions of unseen Sebastian and his ill doings, the teams that concocted the visual wonderland of this feature are undeniably the real stars. I may not agree with every single choice, but frankly, they knocked it out of the park.
Dabbling with what is broadly a straightforward thriller, Verhoeven's direction is sharp and careful, helping the climax to attain genuine thrillers that the movie may have lacked elsewhere. The sets are splendid, and in all other regards it's as solid as one would hope contemporary films to be. Truthfully, more so than not I think this Y2K production is fairly good, reasonably enjoyable, modestly worthwhile. Would that the screenplay did something more unique and actively absorbing than "genre thriller," but I suppose there's no rule that every picture has to be positively brimming with bedazzlement. My opinion wavered throughout, and at length I wonder if I'm not being too kind as it is, but I think what it comes down to is that so long as you're not looking for a revelation, this will suitably fit the bill for entertainment. It's not everything it could have been, and you don't need to go out of your way for it, but for something light (if violent) that you don't particularly need (or sometimes want) to engage with, this is decent for a lazy day. Kept aloft primarily by excellent effects work and a more exciting climax, 'Hollow man' would have benefited from a more compelling screenplay above all else, but there are definitely worse ways to spend your time.
I don't know if it's specifically the collaboration with cinematographer Jost Vacano or some other facet, but it's noteworthy that this really does look like it's cut from the same cloth as the filmmaker's previous outing, 'Starship troopers.' It doesn't feel like it, though, in various ways, not least of all in that the latter was superficially plainspoken and over the top, but was saturated through and through with underhanded wit and nuance that was cloaked by the surface appearance. This title, on the other hand, doesn't particularly give us more than meets the eye. It is mostly a straightforward sci-fi thriller, with tinges of horror on the edges. There are crumbs of a psychological element to the proceedings, as there were in the 1933 picture and H. G. Wells' original novel, but they are emphatically less pronounced here - or in the very least, emphatically less successful. A major component of the narrative is supposedly the deterioration of the invisible subject's psyche, yet I feel like we don't really get that in this case; Sebastian is already written as such an egotistical, selfish, crude, and rather cruel person that there's no significant contrast, no significant progression. The tale could have been an exploration of the psychological effects of the experiment, and it does play with that notion to some extent, but not with what feels like nearly the full potential.
Hand in hand with how Sebastian is written, other ideas that this plays with are mostly accentuation, and amplification, of the awful behavior the protagonist already demonstrates. Thus, content warnings are necessary for animal cruelty, sexual assault, and - part and parcel as well with the more overcooked sensibilities of the early 2000s - rather gratuitous nudity. Speaking of overcooked, as the last act rolls around the writing becomes so forthright (in dialogue, characterizations, and scene writing alike) as to become a little tawdrily blunt; moreover, setting aside a handful of critical details or intermittent dashes of cleverness, the brunt of this genre flick is very familiar and nothing especially remarkable. All this is the bad news, making the picture less interesting, more difficult to engage with, less worth our engagement, and in some ways kind of tiresome.
On the other hand, in every other capacity it's safe to say 'Hollow man' is very well made. The cast give swell performances all around, maybe even a bit impressive since in some select instances they're not necessarily acting in earnest reaction to anything. Likewise, between Verhoeven's orchestration of shots and scenes and Vacano's photography, it's clear that great pains were taken to fashion the film around the conceit that an invisible character was present on the set, and toying with various props, instead of just relying on digital fabrication of effects out of thin air. The endeavor certainly paid off in that regard. To that point, congratulations are surely in order for the visual artists who operated behind the scenes here, because even at their most over the top (primarily transformation sequences, and the climax), every such contribution is superb. From more ordinary tidbits like blood, explosions, and wrecked set pieces, all the way through to depictions of unseen Sebastian and his ill doings, the teams that concocted the visual wonderland of this feature are undeniably the real stars. I may not agree with every single choice, but frankly, they knocked it out of the park.
Dabbling with what is broadly a straightforward thriller, Verhoeven's direction is sharp and careful, helping the climax to attain genuine thrillers that the movie may have lacked elsewhere. The sets are splendid, and in all other regards it's as solid as one would hope contemporary films to be. Truthfully, more so than not I think this Y2K production is fairly good, reasonably enjoyable, modestly worthwhile. Would that the screenplay did something more unique and actively absorbing than "genre thriller," but I suppose there's no rule that every picture has to be positively brimming with bedazzlement. My opinion wavered throughout, and at length I wonder if I'm not being too kind as it is, but I think what it comes down to is that so long as you're not looking for a revelation, this will suitably fit the bill for entertainment. It's not everything it could have been, and you don't need to go out of your way for it, but for something light (if violent) that you don't particularly need (or sometimes want) to engage with, this is decent for a lazy day. Kept aloft primarily by excellent effects work and a more exciting climax, 'Hollow man' would have benefited from a more compelling screenplay above all else, but there are definitely worse ways to spend your time.