The Invisible Man's Revenge

Generally speaking, the horror films from the "New Universal" period (1937-1946) aren't as good as the ones from the era when Carl Laemmle, Sr. and Jr., were still in control of the studio (though "Son of Dracula," a moody masterpiece, is not only the best in Universal's vampire cycle but the finest vampire film ever made in the U.S.). "The Invisible Man's Revenge" isn't the equal of the peerless 1933 Laemmle-era original, but it's certainly better than the previous run of "New Universal" Invisible Man movies. Jon Hall, relatively dull as the hero in "Invisible Agent," proves surprisingly effective as a full-throated villain (in this version he's a psychotic madman BEFORE becoming invisible); Leon Errol's dry wit is several cuts above the usual un-funny "comic relief" in these films; Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard make a nice guilt-ridden couple for the Invisible Man to have his titular revenge on; Alan Curtis and Evelyn Ankers are certainly more than competent as the romantic leads; John Carradine is in good form as the rather dotty scientist with the invisibility formula; and the direction by Ford Beebe, usually a name associated with Universal serials, is convincingly Gothic and well-paced. Universal was on the downgrade as a horror studio by then (and their only further foray into invisible man-dom would be an Abbott and Costello vehicle in 1953) and some of the effects work is sloppy, but on the whole this film is convincing and vividly atmospheric. Incidentally, in "The Face of Marble" from Monogram two years later (another underrated film with a fine sense of atmosphere even though its plot doesn't make a lick of sense even by the meager standards of horror fantasies!), John Carradine also played a mad scientist who had a dog named Brutus.

This movie has the problem of having little or no sympathetic characters. Except for the villagers and the constables, everyone seems crooked in their own way. This leaves you not caring at all about who is the victim or the victimizer. So you are left with a movie that is just fun to watch to see how it was all done. When I get to where I am paying more attention to the technical aspects of a movie instead of enjoying the story, it really did not engage me. As far as special effects go, it was okay, I suppose by 1944 standards. A little lazy in many places though. Matte silhouettes are frequently seen and wires are clear in the scene where a man is supposedly lifted by the invisible man. I say it is lazy because, judging from the earlier invisible man movies, better effects were definately available, they just seem glossed over here. The "money shot" of the movie appears to be a scene where the invisible man plunges his hand into a fish tank and then splashes water on his face to become visible. That's it basically, the scene appears pretty early on and there will be no scene comparable to it, so the movie plays it's hand too early. That scene in the very last sequence would have left the audience with something to talk about as they left. It's not the best Invisible Man movie, not the absolute worst, worth watching if only for people who must see all of a series.

This Invisible Man film is easily the least significant of the four made. It tells of a gruff left-for-dead man coming back named Bob Griffin, having absolutely nothing to do with anyone in any of the other Invisible Man films, dealing with a couple that may or may not have left him in Africa. The couple's complicity in the crime is never stated one way or the other, and we as viewers are left with an overacting Jon Hall barking out orders to everyone he meets. Hall's character is so odious that we feel nothing for him at all except a desire to see him die. I will not spoil that bit of plot for you, but I will say that the ending is one of the few highlights of this film. Because the script takes no ground morally, I was in a lurch as to whom I should be concerned for. Were Jasper and his wife responsible for Griffin being left-for-dead? Did they purposely swindle him? Even when they do something to him, one is never really sure of their intent. The other actors are typical for a Universal film and give adequate performances. The sole bright light for me was John Carradine as a scientist with invisible animals that discovers he can make a man invisible too. Carradine seems to have a lot of fun with his role as he is garbed in white lab coat and pince-nez. The plot never really thickens and any real meat to the film is indeed invisible. Save for Carradine and some spectacular special effects of the day, one can see why this was the end of one of Universal's monsters.

Directed and produced by Ford Beebe, this invisible man installment is quite interesting. Robert Griffin(Jon Hall) returns from the "left for dead" only to find out his business partners have cheated him out of a fortune. Griffin practically stumbles into the helping hands of Dr. Drury(John Carradine), who experiments with a new formula that makes animals invisible. Griffin feels if he himself was invisible he could better seek his revenge on his double crossers. After becoming invisible, the weird doctor is in no hurry to return Griffin to normal.

I have always liked Hall even though he is not an overly exciting actor. Along with Carradine there is a very able supporting cast that includes: Lester Matthews, Leyland Hodgson, Evelyn Ankers and Leon Errol. Very creative for a small budget film. Well worth watching.

Robert Griffin (no relation to Jack) was apparently duped and left for dead in Africa several years ago by his partners who went on to discover a diamond mine. Not only did Griffin lose out on his fortune but he lost his mind too. Eventually, Griffin escapes from a mental institution and returns to England. By chance (or the stroke of the writer's pen) Griffin encounters Dr. Drury, a screwball scientist in search of a weirdo to test out his new invisibility formula. Griffin sees invisibility as a chance to get the vengeance he craves. So the demented doctor gives him the obligatory injection.

This is a long way from the quality of the original 1933 film, with Claude Rains. There are a few familiar special effects but Leon Errol's attempts to provide comic relief meet with mixed results. It soon becomes apparent that the film has nothing going for it other than invisibility as a gimmick. The plot is wafer thin and poorly written. There is little action to speak of just a lot of standing around and talking or sitting around and talking. Clearly, this was an exercise to squeeze a few more dollars out of an aging franchise. On the bright side, there are some decent invisibility effects, like when the invisible man dunks his hand into a fish tank or covers his face in flour. That's not enough to recommend this film however.