Hollow Man II (2006 Video) User Reviews

It entertains, but it's missable

[mjw2305 · 5/10 · 13 January 2007]

Christian Slater takes the lead in this follow up to Hollow Man, this time the invisible man is a rogue soldier in the hunt for a serum, to prevent him from dying a slow and painful death.

For a low budget movie that went straight to DVD it's actually pretty entertaining, the effects are used sparingly to keep the cost down, but they are effective enough when required. The cast is reasonable and there is enough action to make it enjoyable, even it is inferior to the original in every way.

If you liked the original, then this shouldn't disappoint you too much, but part of me does still think - What was the point?

5/10

It's a let down

[vampyrecowboy · 5/10 · 19 October 2006]

6 years after the original came out, this appears.

It misses the mark as a suspense, action, mystery, comedy.

It's a let down...it doesn't suck to extremes, just bad enough to make you want to wish there was only the first made.

Had this come out a year or so after the one with Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Shue, it may have had more impact and been more intense and exciting.

The special effects were poor.

The casting was ALL wrong.

The story was also poor.

The chase scenes were dull.

Who would think that this 20 year old looking kid would be a DETECTIVE? Why were store security guards carrying guns? What power do they have to use a gun? This movie was filmed in and around Vancouver...so it should be called Vancouver - NOT Seattle...there were just too many giveaways that it was NOT Seattle.

There was little intensity and for the most part it was really dragging.

The dialog was very bad - especially near the end.

The direction poor...it was a mess, that if it had been made immediately after the previous, would make much more sense and be much more interesting.

This is television viewing...to be made for a Saturday night movie special..not for a feature.

This just doesn't cut the line to be feature material.

It had less of a budget, which meant casting unknowns, working with unknown director and using shots which would make this film seem poorly done - which it was.

A smaller budget meant cutting back the extras - which made the original far superior...and who could replace Kevin Bacon? He plays a bad guy great...

If you're tired and drunk and this comes on television, it might be of interest, but it's mid-grade.

Don't hope for great expectations.

Unworthy sequel

[zep42 · 3/10 · 23 September 2006]

Hollow Man was a very interesting movie, and well shot. The story and plot of this sequel is so bad that it shouldn't have been made. I like Christian Slater, but I don't like this waste-of-time-movie. The story is so banal and the plot is so thin, that it seems like an insult. I can't get it through my brain why they would make this movie, without a good plot?! It must have cost millions of dollars, because it's well shot, and there's nice acting, but the end result is so lame. Shame on you producers, you could have made a great sequel! My message to the audience is: watch it if you like, no harm there, but don't expect the same experience as in Hollow Man 1

Slater's best performance to date?

[roald-1 · 2/10 · 19 June 2006]

This heading was a joke. Slater is invisible in most of the film, and I doubt it is he who performs the invisible stunts where people are ridiculously thrown about and killed all through the movie. It is a shame that sequels only follow up the horror and the violence, the first movie was quite interesting at least during the first half, with impressive special effects on Kevin Bacon and the gorilla. The same fate befell "Final Destination" where the first movie raised lot of interesting philosophical questions, and the sequels were crap.

The best indicator for this film is the small number of people who have bothered to watch it and/or give their vote. Always a pleasure to watch Facinelly, though, although he could choose better films to participate in.

Sucked

[dechha1981 · 1/10 · 11 October 2006]

(Warning; Spoiler. skip to the last paragraph) this is just my opinion, but the first movie, up until Kraine (Bacon) changed the passwords on the lab doors, the movie was all about what we'd do (or what we'd fantasize about doing, anyway) if we were invisible. After that point, however, the movie basically becomes a rip-off of Alien.

In hollow Man II, they basically skipped all the Paul Verhoven stuff and went directly into the Alien rip-off. This makes about as much sense as making a re-make of "the Wizard of Oz" and focusing on what Uncle Henry and Aunty Em are doing while Dorothy is asleep. there's only two scenes in which a female takes her clothes off, and then Christian Slater doesn't even really do anything to them.

In the first movie, Kevin Bacon is actually there all the time, and he becomes "visible" in several ways; blood splatter, water, plugs on head, infrared, manipulating objects (and body parts) etc. Even when he's wearing a latex mask you can clearly see both that he is there and that he isn't. In hollow Man II, Christian Slater is often just a voice-over and the other actors are just miming. At one point, Christian Slater is wearing a ski mask with eye holes, and the female scientist sprays him in the eyes with yellow spray paint (the SAME spray paint she already used to see his vein) and yet, for some odd reason, the spray paint only made the mask yellow around the holes, it didn't make his eyelids visible.

You don't even see the actual anatomic transformation, You do see; Slater washing some blood of his face with tap water, two invisible guys fighting in the rain, footsteps on grass and carpets, but nothing even close to the sleeping redhead in the first movie. Most of the "Effects" in Hollow Man II are no more high tech and nowhere near as clever as the scene where Elizabeth Shue's coke kept disappearing.

To summaries; if you liked hollow man for the same reason I did, don't waste your time with this one.

Bad movie.

[grifo-2 · 4/10 · 11 September 2006]

My advice is..Don't spend your time and money on this movie if you have any another way to do this. First part was good and i enjoyed it. It was typical "better than average" Hollywood movie for me, someway interesting and entertaining . Unfortunately can't say this for the second one. Boring and unconvincing acting,"Made in toilet" storyline.. and so on. It looks like the only mission of this film is a "continuation of financially successful idea". Well as I said don't try this at home until you have one of those "nothing to do" evenings or you are hungry for any hollowman-based action...and sorry for my English if it too bad :)

A real let down compared to the entertaining original

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 21 August 2011]

I enjoyed the original Hollow Man for all its flaws, so I was expecting something along the same lines for this sequel. It is such a shame though that Hollow Man 2 is such a mess. Not even Christian Slater could save it, I like him and he seemed a good choice, but with the characters being as stock and as irritating as they were and the script being as thin and as cheesy as it was he can't do anything with the role. Visuals are a step-down, not cheap as such, but they aren't amazing either. The music is not as atmospheric or as fitting, while the story is rushed and uninteresting with little suspense or thrills to satisfy. Overall, a real let-down. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Unnecessary Sequel that disappoints.

[med_1978 · 4/10 · 29 December 2008]

Just watched this film last night, a waste of time really. The film was highly predictable, not too much action in the middle and poorly acted and directed. It felt like a rushed cash in on the original, yet came out six years later ! Peter Facinelli is not a movie star and should remain on TV, none of the other actors made an impression either and Christian Slater was there just for the paycheck.

It had some reasonable moments but they were few and far between. I would have thought they would have put more effort into coming up with a better script and cast. Unless you are a really die hard fan of the original and feel it is your duty to sit though this, then I recommend you choose something else to watch as this will be a waste of your time.

Surprisingly Effective.....

[Greg1138 · 7/10 · 5 October 2006]

I thought I would give this a go, after spotting an advert for it in a well-known UK film magazine. I knew Hollow Man 2 was in production, and as a fan of the first movie I was a little non-plussed to find the sequel getting a Direct-to-DVD release.

So I wasn't really expecting much...

I was pleasantly surprised therefore to find an engaging little movie - very much in the spirit of the first (no brain, no logic, full speed ahead with cardboard characters and a plot straight from the back of a 40-year-old comic). It has many faults - Christian Slater just ain't up to the job any more (but seems to be enjoying himself), a long and overly-talky middle act, some extremely ropey visual effects (though it has to be said that there are many good ones despite the obviously low budget), a blatant re-use of a scene from the original Hollow Man not-very-well-disguised, and a conclusion that felt very rushed - dare I suggest the budget ran out?

On the plus side however the 2-dimensional characters are engaging, there are one or two great jump-out-of-seat moments, tips of the hat to not only the original movie but also HG Wells' novel "The Invisible Man", effective use of music (which is all new - not a rehash of Goldsmiths original) and an overall sense of fun (That's Executive Producer Paul Verhoeven shining through, I think) - despite the nasty moments!

To the people that are slating this saying "It's not as good as the first, really disappointed" etc etc, I simply have to wonder exactly what they were expecting! Shakespeare this ain't...

But to the people who are open-minded enough to give this an honest go, you will get out exactly what you put into it. It's not Shakespeare, but it certainly is Hollow Man.

If this is the future for the Hollow Man franchise (there is the obligatory - but well executed - set-up for a Hollow Man 3), it could be an awful, awful lot worse.

Bring 'em on!!

Does the world really need these types of movies. 0 out of 4

[stewiefan201 · 1/10 · 26 May 2006]

Don't let Hollow Man 2 lure you in if you liked the first. This film was absolutely horrible with its one-dimensional characters, and also its boring storyline. What this film really needed was three things. It needed more gore because Hollow Man 2 was too watered down. It needed another actor to play the villain because, let's face it, Christian Slater is bad at acting. And also needed to at least try to make itself better than the average horror sequel. I mean really, the first film was pretty good because it actually tried and succeeded in being entertaining. Hollow Man 2 doesn't really try to entertain us, it's just another on of those Direct-to-Video-Cash-Ins that will try to make money off the original. So may I ask, "Has the world had enough of these re-hashed, stupidly stupefying horror sequels? Maybe so but guess what, Hollywood just keeps making them. When will they learn?" 0 out of 4.

sleepy Hollow

[vandino1 · 31 May 2006]

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?

Not bad, considering your usually straight to DVD release.

[DarkVulcan29 · 9/10 · 29 June 2006]

An alright sequel that really stands on its own. This sequel makes little a note to the first one, remember the one with Kevin Bacon. But other then that this movie stands on its own. This movie begins with a crazed invisible man named Michael Griffin(Christian Slater), who is on the war path to get an antidote for him. He will stop at nothing, and kill anyone that gets in his way. His trails lead up to Dr. Maggie Dalton(Laura Reagen), she soon seeks protection with Detective Frank Turner(Peter Facinelli). But a certain government starts to hunt them both, cause they want to cover up what has happened to Griffin. Christian Slater was awesome in his performance has the mad invisible man. Peter Facinelli and Laura Reagen were also good. This movie had a great storyline, and great effects, and not to mention great suspense also.

Inferior to the Original, But Entertains

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 23 December 2006]

In Seattle, after the mysterious death of the scientist Dr. Devin Villiers (John Shaw), Detective Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) and his partner Det. Lisa Martinez (Sarah Deakins) are assigned to protect Devin's colleague Dr. Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan). Lisa is killed while protecting Maggie, and Frank presses her to tell what is happening. She discloses that a veteran soldier called Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) was submitted to an experiment with the objective to create the ultimate national security weapon, an undetectable soldier. However, the experiment failed, with horrible side effects due to the damage to the cells caused by the radiation. Michael is chasing Maggie to get the necessary buffer to survive.

"Hollow Man 2" is inferior to the original, but entertains. The predictable and forgettable story has flaws and very few special effects, but it is not so bad as indicated in many reviews. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem Sem Sombra 2" ("The Man Without Shadow 2")

Note: On 27 November 2020, i saw this film again.

Intriguing sequel with action,thriller ,suspense and low budget

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 26 March 2007]

This is a horror feast and killing based on H G Wells' novella and the previous film.It concerns about a biologist(Laura Regan)using the same invisibility formula in a military experiment over a soldier(Christian Slater).A detective(Peter Facinelli) is assigned to protect her from invisible man whose invisibility formula drives him insane and the killing,but his mind definitely nut and he plans to use his power to vengeance.The investigator also inoculate himself the powerful potion to battle the mad soldier become in a murdering megalomaniac.But the process is irreversible degenerating into body-count. This invisible man cannot be compared to Kevin Bacon in the first one.We discover who he is and we find out that he was sent out to kill political enemies of the establishment.Slater to get the opportunity of following in Bacon footsteps.The picture follows a lot of rules with being invisible,for instance he can't have any clothes on if you're invisible,when he materialize it can be a little embarrassing like an invisible striker,gets chilly out there running around without clothes.The producers thought in Christian Slater originally for this role because he has such a distinctive voice and while he doesn't appear as much ,because,of course,he's the invisible man he has that voice which is just so recognisable.So much film is done electronically ,the actors are used to working with blank spaces in front of them,nowadays actors in situation having to work with nobody.Paul Verhooven's Hollow man I visual effects were trying what were,at the time,very groundbreaking effects and they were very expensive,in this sequel look better than the original but they're doing it for one-hundredth of the visual effects that they had in the first movie.So the visual detail is excellent ,in spite of the low budget though it can't hide screenplay's lack of imagination.Setting standards and stunning effects specials are copied from previous film because they are difficult to surpass.So,they strap the actors into harnesses,they yank them around on wires,they shove them around with poles and I think it's helpful for the actors to kind of react to a bunch of stunt people, a bunch of wires,it creates a more honest emotion and reaction.The director Claudio Faeh is really interested in making this one a lot creeper than the first one.Darkest in tone and more suspenseful ,it's all about not showing everything we know, a kind of withholding information,withholding bits and pieces.Claudio's vision for the film is to do a modern film noir,but he's still trying to keep it very natural and realistic,keeping it very mood but not too theatrical.

Incredibly poor sequel

[ctomvelu1 · 2/10 · 1 August 2009]

Kevin Bacon and Christian Slater worked their way up in the Hollywood ranks at roughly the same time. Sort of like Jeff Daniels and Bill Pullman. Or Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. But there's no excuse for having Slater stand in for Bacon in this dull sequel to HOLLOW MAN. A government killer is on the loose, and he's invisible. A detective and a scientist are trying to deal with the situation, but end up on the run from the mad killer. That's about all she wrote. This is a Canadian-lensed quickie, and unlike the original, the "invisible man" scenes are laughable instead of scary. Slater has appeared in some real dogs in his career, but this one takes top prize. It's actually a waste to have a guy like Slater, who can act when he wants to, attached to this in-name-only sequel, but Hollywood was thinking name value. If you can't get Bacon back, why not use Slater? Dumb logic. The dialog is atrocious, too. Skip it. I hate to think of how many millions of dollars were thrown away on this puppy.

Much lower value compared to the 1st Hollow Man. Recommended only for one time to watch.

[Mivas_Greece · 5/10 · 1 December 2020]

Science fiction / action / crime movie. It is the continuation of the reference film Hollow Man (2000) on invisibility. It has different protagonists, different plot and is more reminiscent of an action / crime movie than a thriller like the first one. Unfortunately, it has less action, and even less suspense, while the actors are not convincing at all. As a whole, unfortunately much lower than the first and recommended only once.

A simple B-movie sequel

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 1 August 2016]

HOLLOW MAN wasn't one of Paul Verhoeven's best movies, so when I saw that this sequel had no returning cast or crew from the original, I thought it could work both ways. On one hand, a totally fresh start might have meant a breathe of originality for this film; on the other, this could have been a cheap and trashy rip-off that just goes to prove the 'law of diminishing returns'. Sadly, HOLLOW MAN II is for the most part the latter film, a boring B-movie with only a few individual scenes and moments to recommend it.

This time around, Christian Slater stars as the invisible man, and it's a rather odd choice, I have to say. Slater's better known for comedic or psychotically funny turns and he just doesn't cut it as a homicidal maniac, seeming too cute and cuddly for the role. He still stands head and shoulders against the rest of the cast, who are universally diabolical (Facinelli looks like a student rather than a detective, and don't get me started on the awfully wooden Laura Regan, who previously appeared in MY LITTLE EYE). Things do begin well here, with a stand-out murder scene in which a scientist is beaten and killed by Slater, jumping straight into the story. The blood sprays all over in this graphically nasty moment and it reminded me of how GHOST SHIP started with a similarly great opening before going downhill.

After that, there's a long and needlessly protracted set-piece in which Slater attacks a house and a SWAT team, which really tries the patience. The tacked-in scene in which he goes after a young, horny couple is only included to show the obligatory breasts, and I had to laugh at the ridiculousness of it (why does he keep running back and forth in front of the camera like that?). From here on in, there's a scene in a hospital that recalls TERMINATOR 2, a scene in an abandoned warehouse, and then the final scene in which two invisible men duke it out in the rain. Yeah, that last bit was quite fun in a cheesy way, although I'm so tired of these unstoppable killers who get up after falling from a first-floor window onto concrete and who shrug off a blow to the temple with a fire extinguisher as if it were a mere gnat bite. The special effects are adequate for this production, apart from the absolutely awful effects in the scene in which Regan is carried through a shopping mall, having conveniently stripped to her underwear beforehand (not something I wanted to see, I have to say). Let's just hope they don't bother with a HOLLOW MAN III...

I can't see why they bothered.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 1 December 2009]

Det. Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) and his partner Lisa Martinez (Sarah Deakins) are sent to protect pretty scientist Dr. Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan), who holds the formula for 'The Buffer', the top secret serum psychopathic special-forces assassin Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) needs to stay alive. The only problem: Griffin is invisible!

The makers of Hollow Man 2 clearly didn't have the budget of the original: bad guy Griffin (Christian Slater) is invisible from the outset, saving a bundle on 'gradually disappearing human' CGI effects. But despite being strapped for cash, there really is no excuse for such a lame sequel, which suffers from a lacklustre plot, dull performances, and most surprisingly, a lack of trashiness. If only director Claudio Fäh had taken a leaf or two out of executive producer Paul Verhoeven's book and ladled on the excess, HM2 would have been a hell of a lot more entertaining (blood, guts and boobies don't cost the earth, but are guaranteed crowd pleasers).

As it stands, HM2 is predictable straight to DVD junk that offers very little to fans of the first film: what effects there are have a distinctly cheap look; Slater phones in the majority of his performance (he only actually appears in a brief flashback); the script and direction are bland; and the film ends rather abruptly with the highly trained Griffin being defeated all too easily by Turner.

Worse still, the only scene that showed any potential for genuine sleaze—a pair of randy teenagers making a home made porn video discover that Griffin is in their room—is suddenly dropped without any kind of resolution. Did Griffin kill the kids? Did he join in for a kinky invisible man threesome? Who knows? One thing is for sure: Verhoeven wouldn't have let the opportunity to show us what happened slip through his fingers so readily.

Another 12th grade chemistry experiment gone wrong!!

[nitinmehra20 · 2/10 · 21 May 2006]

Well as the heading explains it, its another sci-fi horror-o-suspense mix-up. As if the first movie was not painful enough to watch, we have another one (yawn!). And yes, they don't get the chemo formula right this time either, and thats for the second time (Someone needs to take these scientists out of the lab and fire them.. twice!). Another bad blend of damsel in distress, ex special forces and a big bad corp out to get you, there you have a movie..... Its suffers from bad direction to bad acting and a worn down script. You can guess whats gonna happen next, so not much of a suspense either. In case your GF has dumped you and you having nothing better to do in life. Go ahead and watch this one....

Now I wished I could have disappeared after seeing such crap.

NM.

Of Plots, Effects, and Actors

[triznuity · 6/10 · 11 October 2006]

Hollow Man II is certainly one of the better sci-fi movies that have been produced recently. The plot was adequately written and the actors played their parts quite well. There were some details that could have been elaborated on better, however--specifically regarding the other recipients of the serum. To have done so would have only enhanced the plot.

The special effects were great. They seemed realistic and were able to adequately display the perception of a truly invisible being; well done to the special effects crew.

Overall, I think avid movie watchers would enjoy this film, as the action flows nicely. Good job to the cast and crew.

Completely see-through

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 14 February 2010]

It's not as good as the first one(which wasn't quite a masterpiece, its third act was a step down), but you probably knew that already. Unfortunately, it simply isn't great by any standard. "Average" is the key-word here, with few exceptions. The effects aren't half bad, and the overall production is decent enough. There's at least a single reasonable detail in this, and there's arguably one decent action scene. It isn't entirely deprived of entertainment value. However, everything in this is one-dimensional. The plot that takes the next logical step from the original, the characters that range between bland to irritating or downright obnoxious, the whole shebang. There is little suspense or tension. It tries too hard at scaring us(and several of these are cheap jump-ones, the one that opens this being particularly stupid) and making us laugh, and it fails with every lame attempt at the latter. The script is clichéd. So many of the things done when invisible are just plain silly. The dialog varies between being nothing special and poor. Too many things don't make sense or hold up, even without thinking much about them. You have to wonder why they bothered, if this was all they could come up with. There is a bunch of moderate violence and disturbing content, relatively infrequent strong language, and equally gratuitous, a little nudity and sexuality in this(purely for the sake of eye-candy). I recommend this to those who just *gotta* have more Hollow Man horror, regardless of the quality. 5/10

Finally, a good invisible man movie!

[nyc2la2013 · 8/10 · 24 May 2006]

First I must say that I am a big Paul Verhoeven fan and when I heard that he was directing Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon (who I am also a big fan of) I was really excited. I do not need to remind people of how terrible Hollow Man turned out to be. But this direct-to-video sequel, Hollow Man II, directed by Claudio Faeh and executive produced by Verhoeven, is actually really good. So good in fact that I am looking forward to the third installment of the franchise. The special effects, production value, performances and storyline are just as good if not better than most high-budget theatrical studio films. Christian Slater makes a great bad guy but what I enjoyed most was Peter Facinelli as the hero. Who knew -- Peter is a great action hero. This is by far the best direct-to-video horror/thriller film that I have seen in a long time. It makes me think that maybe Paul Verhoeven should hang up his hat as a director and oversee the sequels to his better films, Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers. There is no argument that those franchises need as much help as they can get.

Not bad, but basic one dimensional plot and characters.

[siderite · 7/10 · 4 June 2006]

Keep in mind that it is the sequel to a movie just as "hollow". So it couldn't have been very good. The thing is that I like Christian Slater, I think he can be a damn good actor when motivated, so what happened to him? How can he play a character that is not on the screen? He appears in a flashback and once in the end. He used to play in good indie-like movies. It's a pity.

Anyway, the movie is as straight forward as it can get. Hollow man = bad; cop = good; gorgeous, rich and smart scientist = trophy. Now, of course the government is behind it.

As a parenthesis, it's the second US movie I'm seeing tonight and in which the idea of the government covertly doing bad things is tacitly accepted in both of them. I mean, OK, it is plausible that a great deal of power will corrupt a great deal, but to accept it as normal, let it slide? What do these people get in their water?

Well, in the end, can you guess what happens? It's not rocket science, you know. In conclusion it is a completely average recipe movie.

I would have loved an invisible man movie that takes into account not just the physics involved, but also character development, the possibility that the man is not bad and not good, just as normal people, true invisible fantasy scenes, I mean, naked women, violent acts, etc. After all, the original Invisible Man story was about power that corrupts, not a power struggle.

I deserved what I got...

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 2/10 · 12 September 2006]

STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

When a man is mysteriously murdered at a party, a couple of homicide detectives are assigned to investigate. When they go to interview a colleague of the deceased man, they come attack from a mysterious enemy and, when his partner is killed, the male detective is pulled into the mysterious world of invisibility experiments that the man's colleague was involved in and the dark motives behind the killing.

Honestly, what did I expect with a straight to video sequel to 2000's Hollow Man? After Alone in the Dark, Christian Slater (who is barely on screen for half an hour) has become a name to definitely avoid. His wooden performance, along with a boring and unengaging storyline and laughable special effects, make this one a none-stop boreathon, even at under an hour and a half. *

this movie is one of the worst i've ever seen

[victorbe77 · 1/10 · 25 July 2006]

This movie is so bad it could be on Mystery Science Theater 3000! In fact i've seen better acting and plot in soap operas. I absolutely do not recommend this movie to anyone, unless your a drunk retard. I believe a 5 year old child could come up with a better script than this movie. I would say that it was a stupid 24 rip-off, but that would be giving it too much credit. The cast was worthless I could act better drunk, on acid and asleep. To sum it all up this movie is right up there with the Ed Wood movie Plan 9 from Outer Space, but at least that movie was funny. This movie was irritating. I would give it a 0.1 rating if that were possible. The direction was poorly done, casting was terrible, Christian Slater was hardly in it. The special effects were not bad, but that does not make up for everything else that was wrong with the movie. Even if this was a made for TV movie it would still be one of the worst ever made. Whoever produced this movie has an IQ of about 45 and should never make another movie ever.