User Score
4.7 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 41
  2. Negative: 18 out of 41

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. TimF.
    Jan 25, 2001
    0
    Hollow.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. MustaphaM.
    Mar 16, 2002
    0
    What a joke of a movie. It has a great premise with a lot of promise, but the writers threw it out in favor of a cheesy, predictable "horror" (not really) flick.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. JimmyH.
    Dec 6, 2003
    10
    Great action, too many talking scens! but in the end i love the movie! i especally like the guy who plays carter!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. JimmyH.
    Dec 6, 2003
    10
    Great action, too many talking scens! but in the end i love the movie! i especally like the guy who plays carter!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. AdamB.
    Oct 21, 2001
    9
    I thought this film was excelent.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. PatC.
    Jan 7, 2004
    1
    Yup, one of the sharpest minds on the planet uses the cutting edge of science to cop a feel. Works for me. So, why blow it by scaring people. I was going to give it a 2, but now all I'm left with is special effects I haven't seen since I tried coke in college.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. AlexG.
    Feb 2, 2004
    3
    Pretty poor movie, but with good special effects. I think Paul Verhoeven is a dirty old man with a sick mind who got a little too horny when making this movie. To "Jimmy H" who said, "Great action", (fair enough) and "too many talking scens", (I think he means 'scenes') what exactly do you mean by "too many talking scenes"? You see Jimbo actors talk in movies to show us charicterisation, to further the plot, and make us think etc, etc. Basically their are "too many 'intellectually challenged' people like yourself out there" for my liking. Oh and you should tone down your use of apostrophe's. Good man. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. DavidS.
    Jul 18, 2009
    2
    Only interesting if you are a student of Hollywood special effects. Otherwise it's quite boring and a little perverse in its themes and over-the-top gore.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. BlancoA.
    Jan 21, 2001
    3
    No character or story development. Not scary at all. Utterly predictable. No experimention.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. JamesH.s
    Mar 29, 2010
    7
    I am not quite sure why I liked this film so much and so few others did. I found it to be a very tense and exciting sci-fi thriller.It is wonderfully imaginative, has good performances, especially Kevin Bacon, one of his best roles. The special effects are excellent. The plot is a great one, I never lost interest. Great film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. JohnC-W
    Aug 4, 2002
    1
    You know, if I were to go invisible, I can think of a hundred things I would do before resorting to mental instability and crimes against women. Pure unimaginative drivel. Sad, because I think Bacon can act if he can ever pick a decent script.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. [Anonymous]
    Sep 16, 2002
    10
    A great movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. DudeMan
    Feb 20, 2003
    0
    1. Scientists under 30 leads a top secret project with a madman as leader. 2. They have no way to defend theirselves from the hollow man (except infrared), no alarm no way of contacting the outside (except a phone that can simply be cut off). 3. How many lives did a man have? 5? Strange, Hollow Man only died 4 times, shouldn't he be back from the dead??? No wait a minute, a man only has one life... (Hint = rising from death 4 times may seem a bit STUPID) Well, there's much more but I'll make it short: SUCKY, SUCKY! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. Dr.Steve
    Aug 3, 2003
    1
    This had some mildly entertaining moments, but mostly was just stupid. Kevin Bacon's character was about the most unreal portrayal of a scientist that I have ever seen (scientists are generally a pretty conservative lot, whose decisions are governed by logic).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. BigK.
    Dec 20, 2005
    4
    I've seen better and worse films with Mr Bacon. This film is simply another cliched foray into the sci/fi/horror type flick. Truly ordinary in the way it ends with the lacklustre defeat of the (by that stage) poorly computer generated Bacon. (in fact he looks like he might actually have been made out of bacon).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. UnbearableLightnessOfBeingGilbertMulroneycakes
    Nov 27, 2002
    2
    I concur with Ebert, I do. If only the Bacon had been given something better to do. As it is, he suddenly turns into a prevert and a rapist, just because he's now invisble. Not even as good as Memoirs Of An Invisible Man. 2 for the FX.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. raVen
    Nov 14, 2004
    1
    Most people seem to agree that this movie's most fatal flaw was its assumption about human nature - but I disagree. Actually, its most towering failure is that it sabotaged the one element that SHOULD have been its saving grace: science. Science was reponsible for the special effects, and for the story itself, really. The hang-up is that the movie makers didn't have to earn this idea - it was already out there, and so they apparently felt no need to think about it much. And so, once Kevin Bacon is made invisible, any sense of reality is abandoned. Enter: THE PLOT ELEMENT THAT DESTROYED THIS MOVIE.... Sunglasses. There is much made about the fact that Bacon's eyelids are invisible and thus transparent. The big black sunglasses are brought out to prevent our Kevin from being blinded. What??? Using this (invisible = transparent) formula, would he not be blinded anyway - his corneas, retinas, and such being similarly transparent? They couldn't function if light passes right through them. Period. Not to mention what might be happening to the rest of Bacon's bacon, internal organs exposed to light and whatever other rays that wish to pass through transparent human flesh. A better idea would have been to say that invisibility could be achieved through an ultra-chameleon-like biology, not through pane-of-glass transparency. Because in a funny way, Harry Potter's invisibility cape makes a lot more sense. Better Scifi flicks like Jurassic Park have succeeded as great cinema despite being MOSTLY fiction, because once they ask the big "what if," they leave it alone and don't screw it up with sunglasses. It's like showing the monster's zipper on purpose. Doy. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. JamesT.
    Dec 28, 2006
    2
    This movie has all the bad elements of a B rated horror flick. However it's not snakes on a plane bad, more like snakes in a pit of boringness. It doesn't even have the guilty sense of bad movie watching pleasure. Neophytes who like bad movies would really have to dig deep to enjoy this one.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. R.Lopez
    Mar 12, 2009
    7
    This movie got a seven from me for what is and what it means to me as a science geek. This is not a great movie, don't get me wrong; but is a exceptionally well executed one at that. Hollow man follows the story of Dr. Sebastian Cane, an egotistical and arrogant scientist working on a way to make living matter invisible. He has already succeeded on animal trials and is ready to go to the next step, human testing, Cane volunteers to be the first human subject. The experiment seems like a major success, until something goes terrible goes wrong. Now Sebastian is becoming increasingly paranoid and out of control, doomed to be without flesh for all his life. Now his team wants to shut the project down and bring in the government to catch Sebastian, But Sebastian traps them in the lab with him. With time running out can the team really out smart a maniac invisible man? Hollow man is not a great movie in the sense of what it is, it is a great achievement in visual effects and putting a whole new story to the invisible man tale. It also makes you wonder if that feeling you get when your alone is really just a feeling, or if it's just your imagination playing tricks on you. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. KP
    Aug 18, 2009
    7
    NO way does this movie deserve a sub 30's rating. Again NO way! I reserve a rating that low for things that are unwatchable. Not that this movie was all that great. It was mediocre pretty much all across the board, but done well enough. I'd normally give it a 5 out of 10, but the ratings are so skewed towards the low end, I bumped mine up in a small effort to balance things out. Definitely a watchable flick. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. DizzleFizzle
    Dec 11, 2007
    10
    The funniest comedy of the year, if not the decade. Everything including the story, acting, and sheer genius by the director just makes me want to pee my pants. Obviously this movie was not meant to be serious, and most of the critics did not realize this. There is no way that anyone could be stupid enough to make a movie like this and have it actually be a suspenseful thriller. That';s just crazy. Keep up the good work Paul Verhoeven, I look forward to other comedies coming out directed by you. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
Metascore

Generally unfavorable - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 35
  2. Negative: 23 out of 35
  1. 60
    The film becomes so much urgent nonsense, its killing spree neither cheaply thrilling nor even more cheaply cathartic. It's only gory.
  2. An eminently watchable B-movie nightmare.
  3. It is relatively suspenseless and often distastefully crude.