Despite the similar rating to INVISIBLE AGENT (1942) the film is not equal to its predecessor, in my opinion. In fact, I veered between *** and **1/2 for AGENT and between ** and **1/2 for this one: I opted for the midway rating because the former was undeniably silly despite its surface polish and the latter was somewhat unengaging but, at the same, solidly handled.
In fact, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE features a...ahem...revenge plot, settings and characters which would have been more suited to a Sherlock Holmes picture - which comes as no surprise at all since it was written by Bertram Millhauser, who scripted 5 of the 12 Holmes 'vehicles' made around the same time at Universal! Besides, Jon Hall is miscast as a villain (explained as such in the abrupt and none-too-convincing epilogue) - which the script names Griffin but then doesn't bother to make him a relation of the original Invisible Man(!), Leon Errol's comic relief is an acquired taste, and John Carradine here basically duplicates his role in RETURN OF THE APE MAN (1944)...although having his faithful (and invisible) dog as Hall's mortal enemy was a nice touch!
In fact, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE features a...ahem...revenge plot, settings and characters which would have been more suited to a Sherlock Holmes picture - which comes as no surprise at all since it was written by Bertram Millhauser, who scripted 5 of the 12 Holmes 'vehicles' made around the same time at Universal! Besides, Jon Hall is miscast as a villain (explained as such in the abrupt and none-too-convincing epilogue) - which the script names Griffin but then doesn't bother to make him a relation of the original Invisible Man(!), Leon Errol's comic relief is an acquired taste, and John Carradine here basically duplicates his role in RETURN OF THE APE MAN (1944)...although having his faithful (and invisible) dog as Hall's mortal enemy was a nice touch!