(Spoiler Alert) I had always regarded Paul Veerhoven as the Alfred Hitchcok of action/thriller movies. Veerhoven, as did Hitch, has both the ability to create well-crafted, fun-to-watch movies and a flagrant disregard for women. Hitchcock took great pleasure in demeaning (or at least terrorizing) women in films like "The Birds" and "Frenzy". Veerhoven's most succesful American films, "Robocop", "Starship Troopers", and "Total Recall" all feature gleeful, cartoon-like violence. I have no problem with that, and hey - someone's gotta be good at that sort of thing, right?
Then we come to "Showgirls". "Showgirls" was one of those films so bad that it was good. Indeed, I saw the film in a Burbank theater with an entire audience that was giving it the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment. It made what was otherwise an utterly terrible film quite enjoyable. Sure, the movie was exploitive of women, but with a title like "Showgirls" you kind of expect that. However, even as I watched the glittery showgirls up on screen mixing it up to the audience's agressive cat-growling and hissing, I got the uneasy feeling that I was getting a glimpse into the darker recesses of a director's mind...recesses perhaps best left unexplored. That uneasy feeling was violently confirmed watching "Hollow Man".
"Hollow Man" has a very promising premise: A brilliant young scientist discovers a means of making people invisible, but the process also makes them go a little crazy, too. Sort of like "The Invisible Man" crossed with "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde". Of course, the brilliant young scientist (played by Kevin Bacon who is rapidly taking over Christopher Walken's place on the "Top Ten Creepy Actors" list) decides to be the first human invisibility subject. The only problem is, he's a fairly unstable sociopath even without the mental side-effects of the invisibility treatment....not to mention the clandestine possibilities of invisibility itself.
What happens throughout the rest of the movie is very disturbing in that someone would even think of these things, let alone commit them to film. The invisible scientist starts fondling a sleeping female associate within only hours of recovering from the invisibility process. He also makes several unwelcomed advances on other female colleagues (lifting skirts, following them into the restroom, etc..) that finally culminates with the assault and presumed rape of a total stranger. It's the stuff of prepubescent male imagination...at least up until the rape/assault. It rockets past tawdry right to the upper reaches of sick.
Sadly, some of the best special effects to come along in a long time are wasted on this degenerate film. The invisibility is believeable and well-integrated into the film to the point that you forget that you are watching effects and just accept that one of the principal actors is invisible. The transformation sequences are well-executed and fascinating to watch.
"Hollow Man" left me very cold. Yes, these thoughts might occur to someone who had become invisible, and there are certainly people in the world evil and/or sick enough to do the things Bacon's character does in the movie. But none of it really advances the plot or are necessary to the development of the character. We know what a twisted, sick (expletive deleted) the character is: we don't need it spelled out. It's offensive and detracts from what could've otherwise been an interesting film. I have no problem with violent or "dirty" movies, but "Hollow Man" is a dirty movie pretending to be science fiction, almost as of the filmmakers were ashamed of what they had done.
Maybe they should be.
Then we come to "Showgirls". "Showgirls" was one of those films so bad that it was good. Indeed, I saw the film in a Burbank theater with an entire audience that was giving it the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment. It made what was otherwise an utterly terrible film quite enjoyable. Sure, the movie was exploitive of women, but with a title like "Showgirls" you kind of expect that. However, even as I watched the glittery showgirls up on screen mixing it up to the audience's agressive cat-growling and hissing, I got the uneasy feeling that I was getting a glimpse into the darker recesses of a director's mind...recesses perhaps best left unexplored. That uneasy feeling was violently confirmed watching "Hollow Man".
"Hollow Man" has a very promising premise: A brilliant young scientist discovers a means of making people invisible, but the process also makes them go a little crazy, too. Sort of like "The Invisible Man" crossed with "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde". Of course, the brilliant young scientist (played by Kevin Bacon who is rapidly taking over Christopher Walken's place on the "Top Ten Creepy Actors" list) decides to be the first human invisibility subject. The only problem is, he's a fairly unstable sociopath even without the mental side-effects of the invisibility treatment....not to mention the clandestine possibilities of invisibility itself.
What happens throughout the rest of the movie is very disturbing in that someone would even think of these things, let alone commit them to film. The invisible scientist starts fondling a sleeping female associate within only hours of recovering from the invisibility process. He also makes several unwelcomed advances on other female colleagues (lifting skirts, following them into the restroom, etc..) that finally culminates with the assault and presumed rape of a total stranger. It's the stuff of prepubescent male imagination...at least up until the rape/assault. It rockets past tawdry right to the upper reaches of sick.
Sadly, some of the best special effects to come along in a long time are wasted on this degenerate film. The invisibility is believeable and well-integrated into the film to the point that you forget that you are watching effects and just accept that one of the principal actors is invisible. The transformation sequences are well-executed and fascinating to watch.
"Hollow Man" left me very cold. Yes, these thoughts might occur to someone who had become invisible, and there are certainly people in the world evil and/or sick enough to do the things Bacon's character does in the movie. But none of it really advances the plot or are necessary to the development of the character. We know what a twisted, sick (expletive deleted) the character is: we don't need it spelled out. It's offensive and detracts from what could've otherwise been an interesting film. I have no problem with violent or "dirty" movies, but "Hollow Man" is a dirty movie pretending to be science fiction, almost as of the filmmakers were ashamed of what they had done.
Maybe they should be.