WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS
Amusingly, the blurb on the back of this film's recent UK video release promises that the direction guarantees "the suspension of belief." Errrr... shouldn't that be disbelief? Actually, on second thoughts, maybe they're right.
In seriousness, the direction isn't so bad; it's more the starch acting (by Gale Sondergaard in particular) that has a slight distancing effect. The relentless procession of self-conscious Cockney stereotypes is also wearying, though this isn't so bad a film. Obviously not a patch on the very fine original, this fourth sequel nevertheless scores by having an actual story. The legal wrangling between Griffin and a couple who cheated him may not be the most exciting of events (What next Frankenstein Meets The Tax Rebate Form?) but it's leagues ahead of one-idea movies like The Wolf Man.
Griffin (Jon Hall) sports one of those Clark Gable/Errol Flynn tashe numbers, and is perhaps too dashing and too bland to be the villainous lead. Much better is John Carradine as Doctor Drury, a camp old buffer who offers "put out your hand, feel it" and even seems to ad-lib a few lines to his "invisible dog". His mild sense of fun perks up the fairly flat screenplay, though you do wonder why he gets so excited over creating an invisible man. After all, his claims of a science breakthrough are pretty much contradicted by the first four films or doesn't he go to the cinema? As a change from the usual "misuse of science" fable, Griffin is actually mad to start with, the invisibility merely a means to an end. As a result, it's not the power that destroys him, but rather a rabid dog. This could be seen as something of a come-down, but Revenge always feels like it has a little bit of care in its work.
Special effects are still pretty good today, and more ambitious than before, with extensive "headless" shots throughout. There are also shots where Griffin's face gets covered in water and flour. It's not exactly Hollow Man, but coming fifty years before the age of CGI it's extremely impressive.
Yet because you never really care about any of the characters, it does start to drag around the middle. Not only that, but in many important respects the plot would have reached a natural end around the middle, meaning it's extended past its natural lifespan. The pretty shoddy ending is also not only abrupt but mixes about a hundred metaphors in a "moral of the story" for the hard of thinking. However, many of the artificially added elements the darts game notwithstanding are quite imaginative, particularly the invisible man using blood transfusions to make himself visible again.
Yes, The Invisible Man's Revenge is not brilliant, but it has a level of invention and originality uncommon to sequels.
Amusingly, the blurb on the back of this film's recent UK video release promises that the direction guarantees "the suspension of belief." Errrr... shouldn't that be disbelief? Actually, on second thoughts, maybe they're right.
In seriousness, the direction isn't so bad; it's more the starch acting (by Gale Sondergaard in particular) that has a slight distancing effect. The relentless procession of self-conscious Cockney stereotypes is also wearying, though this isn't so bad a film. Obviously not a patch on the very fine original, this fourth sequel nevertheless scores by having an actual story. The legal wrangling between Griffin and a couple who cheated him may not be the most exciting of events (What next Frankenstein Meets The Tax Rebate Form?) but it's leagues ahead of one-idea movies like The Wolf Man.
Griffin (Jon Hall) sports one of those Clark Gable/Errol Flynn tashe numbers, and is perhaps too dashing and too bland to be the villainous lead. Much better is John Carradine as Doctor Drury, a camp old buffer who offers "put out your hand, feel it" and even seems to ad-lib a few lines to his "invisible dog". His mild sense of fun perks up the fairly flat screenplay, though you do wonder why he gets so excited over creating an invisible man. After all, his claims of a science breakthrough are pretty much contradicted by the first four films or doesn't he go to the cinema? As a change from the usual "misuse of science" fable, Griffin is actually mad to start with, the invisibility merely a means to an end. As a result, it's not the power that destroys him, but rather a rabid dog. This could be seen as something of a come-down, but Revenge always feels like it has a little bit of care in its work.
Special effects are still pretty good today, and more ambitious than before, with extensive "headless" shots throughout. There are also shots where Griffin's face gets covered in water and flour. It's not exactly Hollow Man, but coming fifty years before the age of CGI it's extremely impressive.
Yet because you never really care about any of the characters, it does start to drag around the middle. Not only that, but in many important respects the plot would have reached a natural end around the middle, meaning it's extended past its natural lifespan. The pretty shoddy ending is also not only abrupt but mixes about a hundred metaphors in a "moral of the story" for the hard of thinking. However, many of the artificially added elements the darts game notwithstanding are quite imaginative, particularly the invisible man using blood transfusions to make himself visible again.
Yes, The Invisible Man's Revenge is not brilliant, but it has a level of invention and originality uncommon to sequels.