The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

To me this is one of the best films in The Invisible Man series. This 5th film is more in the vein or spirit of the first two films: Invisible Man (1933) and The Invisible Man Returns (1940). This 5th film "Revenge" has a feeling of being the Invisible Man again. The Invisible Woman (1940) was a cute comedy while Invisible Agent (1942) focus was on war.Like the first two films, The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) is a sci-fi horror peppered with comedy. I highly enjoyed this particular installment of the "family" of Invisible films.The Invisible Bird and Dog in home of Doctor Peter Drury are fun. The Invisible Man himself, Robert Griffin, is quite mad and twisted as Dr. Jack Griffin and Geoffrey Radcliffe."Revenge" is worth watching - and, to me, an underrated film in the series.9/10

The original "IM" was directed by James Whalen. This fourth movie in the series was directed by Ford Beebee. That should tell you everything you need to know. But I'll expand on it anyway to meet the minimum word length requirements. The movie is crisply shot and photographed, has a few nice visual setups and reveals here and there, and features a good-looking-in- an-Errol-Flynn-way protagonist, so it has that going for it. But the plot takes forever to get going and isn't any good once it does. Hall has a certain screen presence, and his character actually has some sympathy coming, but there's nothing interesting about his so-called "madness", and things just poke along in scene after scene until you're tired of the whole thing and just want it over with. John Carradine gives his usual dependable performance, but he can't carry the film. Proof, if any were needed, that Universal could make mediocre films with the rest of the studios in the horror business, especially in the later years when their creative forces were wearing thin.

The Invisible Man's Revenge is rather Horror Lite from Universal pictures, 1944. As horrors go, there are a lot better but certainly a whole lot worse. This picture has the advantage of not taking itself too seriously. While I wouldn't call it a comedy the presence of comic actor Leon Errol (who's excellent, btw), nudges it in that direction, at least some of the time.The movie starts out quite well, and early on takes on some of the trappings of a Sherlock Holmes picture due to some familiar sets and supporting player. It's established early on as a revenge story, with American Jon Hall (cast as a Brit, unless I missed something) returning to England for his share of a fortune in diamonds he was cheated our of by his former friends and business associates.Enter John Carradine--on a dark and stormy night, no less--and the invisibility aspects of the story begin to take shape. Carradine is quite good as a mad doctor who had learned to make thing invisible, which comes in handy for Jon Hall. What ensues is a fairly by the number horror cum crime picture, well acted by all. That the film is handsome to look at helps enormously.This movie is not a direct sequel to any of the early Invisible Man pictures that preceded it. Universal never seemed to know quite man to do with the invisibility business established in the 1933 The Invisible Man; and they played fast and loose with it, on and off, for nearly another twenty years till the inevitable meeting with Abbott and Costello. The Invisible Man's Revenge is a lot better than that, and just as good as the first sequel in the series.

"The Invisible Man's Revenge" isn't that bad of an entry in the series.**SPOILERS**Returning to London, Robert Griffin, (Jon Hall) meets up with old friend Jasper Herrick, (Lester Matthews) and wife Irene, (Gale Sondergaard) and, after having too much to drink, finds himself thrown out of the house. Wondering in the wilderness, he happens upon the house of eccentric Dr. Peter Drury, (John Carradine) a scientist working on the possibilities of invisibility. Agreeing to become a test subject, he is injected with the formula and becomes invisible. Using the opportunity to seek revenge on the Griffin's for betraying him earlier, he carries it out and manages to fully avenge it. Still not satisfied, he takes to the streets of London with his friend Herbert Higgins, (Leon Errol) to make full advantage of his condition before he is found out.The Good News: This here wasn't that bad. The invisible man's hijinks in the film aren't that bad. After becoming invisible, the first thing to do is to see an old friend, who now invisible, spends the whole affair doing certain activities that indicate he's still there. From twirling a knife in the air to waving papers around and other such tricks as pulling chairs and denting seat cushions, this is one of the creepiest scenes in the film, due to the amount of antics on display that come across beautifully. There are some good invisibility effects in here that still look great now, with the Invisible Man splashing water and flour on his face at various points, leaving only the touched parts to become ghostly visible. A later effect where they are undergoing the transformation and a ghostly outline running in front of a window is executed flawlessly. As with the first one, a little humor is injected into the film. The drunkard who becomes the Invisible Man's visible assistant is responsible for some really funny moments, the best of which is the invisibly-assisted darts game in the pub, which is a comedic gem. From the different positions to the fact that the darts are clearly not being thrown on their own trajectory to hit the targets, this is hugely funny and gets the film's best laughs. Also quite hilarious is the frequent attempts to keep a barking guard dog from getting at it's intended target to the dismay of those who own the dog. It's finale is quite action-packed, filled with several great scenes packed inside a tiny space and featuring a couple of pretty nifty ideas as well, and is the clear highlight as the best part of the film. It's a decent enough entry in the series.The Bad News: There wasn't a lot wrong, but there was a few problems in it. One of the main problems is the really off pacing in the film. It attempts to recapture that combination of comedy and horrific suspense that was the earmark of the first movie in the series, but whereas that movie balanced the elements in such a way that they played off of and enhanced each other, here we just have suspense scenes giving way to comic scenes giving way to suspense scenes without really building to an organic whole. This makes it seem like it was really two different movies put together and thrown into the mix, with an effort made to link them together. The switch in tones is quite apparent, though, where in one scene the invisible man helps an old friend win a dart-throwing game, then a few minutes later threatening to kill someone. That illustrates the problem quite readily. Also quite off is the long amount of time until the invisible man appears on-screen. It takes a good twenty-to-thirty minutes before it transpires, and that leaves the first half to consist of some really slow scenes as the race to the switch happens. Unlike the others, which had the antics transpire on-screen fairly rapidly in the pace, this one's wait is a curious inclusion. It's not a noticeable distraction, but it is one nonetheless. Otherwise, this is a really OK entry in the series.The Final Verdict: While not all that much of a classic, it has enough moments of fun to be more than the total wasted entry many had claimed of it. It's good enough to warrant a rental first, as it's not near the classic original, but if judged on it's own, it's not that bad at all.Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence