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.
44 Reviews
Leon Errol meets the Invisible Man
JohnHowardReid18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Here's Jon Hall, fresh from his triumphs as 1942's Invisible Agent, back in a rather odd addition to Universal's Invisible Man saga. At first it seems that Jon is the heroic victim of villainous schemers Matthews and Sondergaard (and certainly they seem a rather dubious pair). Halfway through the action, however, the screenplay has Jon change sides (or perhaps just reveal his real obnoxious character). The blackguards then become the victims, but only temporarily. At film's end, we are led to believe (by a chief constable who fails to mention them at all in his summing up) they have been whitewashed, presumably to set the heroine free to marry the movie's real hero, Alan Curtis (who makes a rather belated entrance when the movie is more than half over).
Adding to the story confusion is Leon Errol in a major comedy role as a Cockney spiv who befriends the Hall character, and does a fair number of mildly amusing turns, including a happy scene in which he attempts to blackmail the villain who persistently outwits him; and a long, almost completely irrelevant sequence in the local pub in which he challenges the local champion to a game of darts and then tries out various throwing combinations that will have special effects fans really cheering him on. Yet, for all that, Errol is sidelined in the all-action climax where he might have proved useful.
As for heroine, Evelyn Ankers, she may as well have stayed at home. If she has more than five or six lines of dialogue in the whole movie, I'd be surprised.
My guess is that the script was made up on the run. It certainly plays that way. Only John Carradine's scenes seem to have a formal scenario (necessary because of the special effects), enabling the actor to invest his role with dignity and even credibility. Mind you, Hall does play the heavy rather well, even if it does come as a bit of a shock.
By the humble standards of producer/director Ford "Bomba" Beebe, the movie comes over as a fairly creditable production, although lensed on a considerably lesser budget than Frank Lloyd's Invisible Agent.
Adding to the story confusion is Leon Errol in a major comedy role as a Cockney spiv who befriends the Hall character, and does a fair number of mildly amusing turns, including a happy scene in which he attempts to blackmail the villain who persistently outwits him; and a long, almost completely irrelevant sequence in the local pub in which he challenges the local champion to a game of darts and then tries out various throwing combinations that will have special effects fans really cheering him on. Yet, for all that, Errol is sidelined in the all-action climax where he might have proved useful.
As for heroine, Evelyn Ankers, she may as well have stayed at home. If she has more than five or six lines of dialogue in the whole movie, I'd be surprised.
My guess is that the script was made up on the run. It certainly plays that way. Only John Carradine's scenes seem to have a formal scenario (necessary because of the special effects), enabling the actor to invest his role with dignity and even credibility. Mind you, Hall does play the heavy rather well, even if it does come as a bit of a shock.
By the humble standards of producer/director Ford "Bomba" Beebe, the movie comes over as a fairly creditable production, although lensed on a considerably lesser budget than Frank Lloyd's Invisible Agent.
First seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1966
kevinolzak11 February 2014
1944's "The Invisible Man's Revenge" brought the infrequent Universal series to an end, apart from 1951's "Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man." It's appropriate that Jon Hall repeat the role again, after playing the heroic "Invisible Agent" in 1942; here, his Robert Griffin, no relation to prior Griffins, isn't so much a madman as a man who believes himself to have been wronged, and with Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard as the objects of scorn, you too may feel they were indeed guilty of the alleged crime (leaving him behind in the jungle to die after leading them to a fabulous diamond mine). The expected comedy relief is ably supplied by Leon Errol, whose dart game echoes the James Whale original, but goes on a tad too long. Lovely Evelyn Ankers is again wasted in a peripheral role, as she often was in Universal horrors, leaving the way open for the scene stealing John Carradine to command the screen, in only two scenes, as Dr. Peter Drury, the source of Griffin's invisibility, with transparent pets such as a parrot and a dog, whose later visibility will doom any future plans for our nonhero ("in this house, you've got to believe what you CAN'T see!"). Former adversaries in 1937's "The Hurricane," Jon Hall and John Carradine would once more oppose each other in 1957's "Hell Ship Mutiny." Director Ford Beebe ("Night Monster") was one of Universal's finest journeymen, again finding a slot for his father-in-law, Cyril Delevanti, selling Griffin some new clothes before nearly getting himself killed. Among the smaller parts are Doris Lloyd ("The Wolf Man"), Ian Wolfe ("The Raven"), Billy Bevan ("Dracula's Daughter"), and Skelton Knaggs ("House of Dracula"). All five entries, even 1940's "The Invisible Woman," appeared on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater.
Experiment in Terror
lugonian9 February 2008
THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE (Universal, 1944), a promising title, directed by Ford Beebe, suggested by "The Invisible Man" by H.G. Wells, returns Jon Hall, recently from THE INVISIBLE AGENT (1942), in another caper revolving around the no-sight and sound about a man out for avenge those who had done him wrong.
The story opens on the docks of London where Robert Griffin (Jon Hall) returns after five years of memory loss following a diamond field expedition in Africa. Moments later, a newspaper clipping reveals Griffin to be a homicidal maniac who had escaped from a Capetown Asylum. After acquiring new clothing and a shave, he locates Sir Jasper and Lady Irene Herrick (Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard), friends and former partners of the expedition who had left him for dead, to their luxurious mansion and founders of Herrick Mines Ltd., demanding the share of the fortune due him. While talking things over a few drinks, Griffin not only discovers their daughter, Julie (Evelyn Ankers), his former girlfriend, to be engaged to Mark Foster (Alan Curtis), a reporter for the Courier, but finds he's been drugged. Unable to function, Griffin is escorted out by their butler, Cleghorn (Halliwell Hobbes). Half crazed, Griffin is offered assistance by Herbert Higgins (Leon Errol), a drunkard. Afterwards, Griffin stumbles upon the home of Professor Drury (John Carradine), a scientist who has discovered the formula of invisibility. Witnessing his experiment where Drury's dog and other animals are heard but not seen, Griffin volunteers on becoming Drury's human subject. As an invisible man, Griffin gets his revenge, but in the process, does become what he is accused of being, a homicidal maniac.
With this being the third "invisible man" story of the 1940s, not counting the comedy outing of "The Invisible Woman" (1940) starring Virginia Bruce in the title role, this latest installment gives some indication that the writers were attempting an original concept to an already unoriginal scenario. With comedian Leon Errol assuming second billing, it's evident he's around for comedy relief. One scene finds him impressing his friends at the pub in a friendly game of darts by hitting a target every time, compliments of his invisible friend.
Evelyn Ankers, Universal's resident performer in the horror genre, who arrives 48 minutes into the story, is given little to do, compare to her secondary roles opposite Lon Chaney Jr. in "The Wolf Man" (1941); "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942) and "Son of Dracula" (1943), In fact, it's a wonder why Chaney never had the opportunity to assume the role as an invisible man, considering that he's played everything else in regards to Universal monsters. Gale Sondergaard and Lester Matthews do well as friendly thieves, while Leyland Hodgeson as Sir Frederick Travers, Doris Lloyd as Maud, and a dog named Grey Shadow lend some moral support.
An average production that contradicts its predecessors, the screenplay by Bertram Millhauser fails to mention Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) from THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933), to be the true inventor of the invisible formula, thus giving credit to another scientist, Drury. Secondly, Robert Griffin doesn't appear to be related to any of the previous Griffins from the earlier "Invisible Man" stories. His only connection is that he becomes invisible, and the use of the traditional bandages and sunglasses over his head to be seen by others. It would have been logical had Carradine's character been a distant relative to Jack Griffin carrying on his experiment, and using his formula on a human subject, played by Hall, assuming another surname besides Griffin. Had it not been for these inconsistencies, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE might have been hailed as a satisfactory entry. Overlooking that, it actually is. Jon Hall may not have the charisma of Rains nor the distinctive voice of Vincent Price, but he does have the distinction of being the only actor to twice play an invisible man on screen, aside the fact that he was playing two different characters bearing the name of Griffin.
Formerly available on video and currently on DVD as part of the "Invisble Man" collection, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE did have occasional revivals on cable television's Sci-Fi Channel (1990s) and American Movie Classics (2001). Not quite the closing chapter nor the finish of John Fulton's special effects department, Universal concluded this science fiction series with the comedy of ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951), which they most certainly did. (**1/2)
The story opens on the docks of London where Robert Griffin (Jon Hall) returns after five years of memory loss following a diamond field expedition in Africa. Moments later, a newspaper clipping reveals Griffin to be a homicidal maniac who had escaped from a Capetown Asylum. After acquiring new clothing and a shave, he locates Sir Jasper and Lady Irene Herrick (Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard), friends and former partners of the expedition who had left him for dead, to their luxurious mansion and founders of Herrick Mines Ltd., demanding the share of the fortune due him. While talking things over a few drinks, Griffin not only discovers their daughter, Julie (Evelyn Ankers), his former girlfriend, to be engaged to Mark Foster (Alan Curtis), a reporter for the Courier, but finds he's been drugged. Unable to function, Griffin is escorted out by their butler, Cleghorn (Halliwell Hobbes). Half crazed, Griffin is offered assistance by Herbert Higgins (Leon Errol), a drunkard. Afterwards, Griffin stumbles upon the home of Professor Drury (John Carradine), a scientist who has discovered the formula of invisibility. Witnessing his experiment where Drury's dog and other animals are heard but not seen, Griffin volunteers on becoming Drury's human subject. As an invisible man, Griffin gets his revenge, but in the process, does become what he is accused of being, a homicidal maniac.
With this being the third "invisible man" story of the 1940s, not counting the comedy outing of "The Invisible Woman" (1940) starring Virginia Bruce in the title role, this latest installment gives some indication that the writers were attempting an original concept to an already unoriginal scenario. With comedian Leon Errol assuming second billing, it's evident he's around for comedy relief. One scene finds him impressing his friends at the pub in a friendly game of darts by hitting a target every time, compliments of his invisible friend.
Evelyn Ankers, Universal's resident performer in the horror genre, who arrives 48 minutes into the story, is given little to do, compare to her secondary roles opposite Lon Chaney Jr. in "The Wolf Man" (1941); "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942) and "Son of Dracula" (1943), In fact, it's a wonder why Chaney never had the opportunity to assume the role as an invisible man, considering that he's played everything else in regards to Universal monsters. Gale Sondergaard and Lester Matthews do well as friendly thieves, while Leyland Hodgeson as Sir Frederick Travers, Doris Lloyd as Maud, and a dog named Grey Shadow lend some moral support.
An average production that contradicts its predecessors, the screenplay by Bertram Millhauser fails to mention Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) from THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933), to be the true inventor of the invisible formula, thus giving credit to another scientist, Drury. Secondly, Robert Griffin doesn't appear to be related to any of the previous Griffins from the earlier "Invisible Man" stories. His only connection is that he becomes invisible, and the use of the traditional bandages and sunglasses over his head to be seen by others. It would have been logical had Carradine's character been a distant relative to Jack Griffin carrying on his experiment, and using his formula on a human subject, played by Hall, assuming another surname besides Griffin. Had it not been for these inconsistencies, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE might have been hailed as a satisfactory entry. Overlooking that, it actually is. Jon Hall may not have the charisma of Rains nor the distinctive voice of Vincent Price, but he does have the distinction of being the only actor to twice play an invisible man on screen, aside the fact that he was playing two different characters bearing the name of Griffin.
Formerly available on video and currently on DVD as part of the "Invisble Man" collection, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE did have occasional revivals on cable television's Sci-Fi Channel (1990s) and American Movie Classics (2001). Not quite the closing chapter nor the finish of John Fulton's special effects department, Universal concluded this science fiction series with the comedy of ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951), which they most certainly did. (**1/2)
Hard to get into...
Schlockmeister9 April 2001
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.
Not the best but entertaining enough
utgard1425 February 2014
Robert Griffin (Jon Hall) escapes from an asylum and seeks out his old friends, Sir Jasper and Lady Irene (Lester Matthews, Gale Sondergaard). Griffin accuses the two of leaving him for dead in Africa years before and taking full claim for the diamond mine he had discovered, which subsequently made them rich. The two deny this and say they were told Griffin was dead by their guide. They offer to pay him half of what they have but Griffin, now quite insane, refuses and says he wants it all plus their daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers)! They throw Griffin out, which leads to him meeting up with a Cockney blackmailer (Leon Errol) and eventually a scientist (John Carradine), who enlists him to take part in the inevitable invisibility experiment. The experiment is successful and Griffin, now invisible, returns to get even with Jasper and Irene.
Despite being named Griffin, this Invisible Man shares no history with the previous ones. It's John Carradine's scientist who has created the invisibility formula here. Also, Griffin is nuts before the movie begins so the invisibility formula can't be blamed for that. To make matters slightly more confusing, Hall plays the lead here and he also played the lead (another Griffin) in Invisible Agent.
The cast helps overcome a messy script. Hall is quite convincing as the psycho Invisible Man. Carradine, as usual, is great as the scientist. Leon Errol seems to ruffle quite a few feathers among viewers, judging by reviews here. His character was pretty much unnecessary but he didn't bother me. Gale Sondergaard is always a treat to watch but she gets little to do and seems to disappear from the story altogether after a half-hour or so. Lester Matthews is fine as the weakling husband who may or may not have left Griffin for dead in Africa. Evelyn Ankers has a thankless part. Halliwell Hobbes is the butler, as he often was in these films.
Part of the problem with the story is that no one is that likable. The closest thing to a hero in the movie is Alan Curtis' reporter character and there's something about him that kind of bugged me. Another problem is the script feels uneven, especially in the early part. Reportedly the first draft of the script had Jasper and Irene as much more villainous characters and no doubt was cast on their attempt to kill Griffin, both in Africa as well as upon his showing up at their house in this film. That's not the case in the final version yet the pair still seems unsympathetic, so I wonder why they bothered changing it all, if they did? The special effects are OK, if a little sloppy in some scenes. I think some reviewers have overstated just how sloppy they were. It's not like you see wires in every scene or even most scenes. I think only eagle-eyed viewers will spot most of the flaws with the effects.
Overall, it's a good movie of its type. Not great, but watchable B-grade entertainment. It's got a solid cast with a strong performance from Jon Hall in the lead. Still, it's easy to see why Universal stopped the series after this one.
Despite being named Griffin, this Invisible Man shares no history with the previous ones. It's John Carradine's scientist who has created the invisibility formula here. Also, Griffin is nuts before the movie begins so the invisibility formula can't be blamed for that. To make matters slightly more confusing, Hall plays the lead here and he also played the lead (another Griffin) in Invisible Agent.
The cast helps overcome a messy script. Hall is quite convincing as the psycho Invisible Man. Carradine, as usual, is great as the scientist. Leon Errol seems to ruffle quite a few feathers among viewers, judging by reviews here. His character was pretty much unnecessary but he didn't bother me. Gale Sondergaard is always a treat to watch but she gets little to do and seems to disappear from the story altogether after a half-hour or so. Lester Matthews is fine as the weakling husband who may or may not have left Griffin for dead in Africa. Evelyn Ankers has a thankless part. Halliwell Hobbes is the butler, as he often was in these films.
Part of the problem with the story is that no one is that likable. The closest thing to a hero in the movie is Alan Curtis' reporter character and there's something about him that kind of bugged me. Another problem is the script feels uneven, especially in the early part. Reportedly the first draft of the script had Jasper and Irene as much more villainous characters and no doubt was cast on their attempt to kill Griffin, both in Africa as well as upon his showing up at their house in this film. That's not the case in the final version yet the pair still seems unsympathetic, so I wonder why they bothered changing it all, if they did? The special effects are OK, if a little sloppy in some scenes. I think some reviewers have overstated just how sloppy they were. It's not like you see wires in every scene or even most scenes. I think only eagle-eyed viewers will spot most of the flaws with the effects.
Overall, it's a good movie of its type. Not great, but watchable B-grade entertainment. It's got a solid cast with a strong performance from Jon Hall in the lead. Still, it's easy to see why Universal stopped the series after this one.
Don't intimidate a man you can not see.
michaelRokeefe8 September 2001
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.
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.
A huge improvement over the last Invisible Man film
planktonrules21 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I think it is possible that I liked this film even more than I would have because the night before I'd watched the previous installment in the Invisible Man franchise--THE INVISIBLE AGENT. THE INVISIBLE AGENT was such a remarkably bad film that by comparison, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE looks brilliant--even though I realize it's just a B-movie and not much more.
The film begins with a maniac escaping from a mental hospital. It seemed that he killed three men in the process and is not about to let himself be captured. While he's psychotic, he also seems reasonably rational at first. Because of this, he's not easy to spot. Plus, some of what he thinks and does makes sense. For example, he tracks down an old business partner to demand his rightful share of a fortune in diamonds. However, the partner blew much of the money due to bad investments and so the maniac demands EVERYTHING--including the partner's daughter! Well, the partner and his wife are naturally aghast and soon throw him out--that is, after they take the partnership paper away from the maniac.
Later, a nice but wacky scientist (Robert Carradine) finds the crazy guy and offers to let him be the first human to try out his invisibility formula. Little does Carradine know that this will unleash a madman's reign of terror. Oddly, this is a reversal of the plot of the original INVISIBLE MAN (1933), as it was the formula that made the man paranoid and murder-hungry.
While the special effects and story aren't nearly of the level of the original INVISIBLE MAN, it is very interesting and worth watching. I do agree with another reviewer who complained that it was hard to like anyone in the film. Making some of the characters a bit more sympathetic might have improved the film a bit. Still, a nice time-passer and a film light-years better than the previous invisible film.
The film begins with a maniac escaping from a mental hospital. It seemed that he killed three men in the process and is not about to let himself be captured. While he's psychotic, he also seems reasonably rational at first. Because of this, he's not easy to spot. Plus, some of what he thinks and does makes sense. For example, he tracks down an old business partner to demand his rightful share of a fortune in diamonds. However, the partner blew much of the money due to bad investments and so the maniac demands EVERYTHING--including the partner's daughter! Well, the partner and his wife are naturally aghast and soon throw him out--that is, after they take the partnership paper away from the maniac.
Later, a nice but wacky scientist (Robert Carradine) finds the crazy guy and offers to let him be the first human to try out his invisibility formula. Little does Carradine know that this will unleash a madman's reign of terror. Oddly, this is a reversal of the plot of the original INVISIBLE MAN (1933), as it was the formula that made the man paranoid and murder-hungry.
While the special effects and story aren't nearly of the level of the original INVISIBLE MAN, it is very interesting and worth watching. I do agree with another reviewer who complained that it was hard to like anyone in the film. Making some of the characters a bit more sympathetic might have improved the film a bit. Still, a nice time-passer and a film light-years better than the previous invisible film.
So Invisible You Can't Even See Him
bkoganbing15 January 2008
A rather weak and confusing script makes The Invisible Man's Revenge not nearly up to the standard set by the first Invisible Man film and the stylish performance of Claude Rains as the scientist who discovers the secret of invisibility and its trap.
Our invisible protagonist in this film is Jon Hall who has come over to Great Britain from South Africa in the belief that Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard cheated him out of his half share of a diamond mine. Let's say that their actions don't allay his suspicions and Hall gets quite the bum's rush out of their house.
Alone and paranoid Hall stumbles on scientist John Carradine who's been working on the matter of invisibility. He offers himself as a guinea pig to Carradine and of course Carradine sees Nobel Prize in his future.
Of course Hall has other plans to use the invisibility as a method of revenge. He also considers an alternative to killing and stealing from Matthews and Sondergaard. Hall gets one look at their lovely daughter, Evelyn Ankers, and decides it might be easier to marry the fortune. That is if he can get rid of her boyfriend Alan Curtis.
The motivations of these characters is quite confusing at times, you're not quite sure who to root for. Even in the end, someone had a marvelous idea for the Invisible Man to get his comeuppance involving man's best friend and blew it in the execution.
One very interesting performance in the film is Leon Errol, away from the comic parts he usually had. He's still got some funny moments, but he's also a blackmailing scoundrel as well.
The Invisible Man's Revenge is far from the best in the series. Even Abbott&Costello's film with them ranks better than this.
Our invisible protagonist in this film is Jon Hall who has come over to Great Britain from South Africa in the belief that Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard cheated him out of his half share of a diamond mine. Let's say that their actions don't allay his suspicions and Hall gets quite the bum's rush out of their house.
Alone and paranoid Hall stumbles on scientist John Carradine who's been working on the matter of invisibility. He offers himself as a guinea pig to Carradine and of course Carradine sees Nobel Prize in his future.
Of course Hall has other plans to use the invisibility as a method of revenge. He also considers an alternative to killing and stealing from Matthews and Sondergaard. Hall gets one look at their lovely daughter, Evelyn Ankers, and decides it might be easier to marry the fortune. That is if he can get rid of her boyfriend Alan Curtis.
The motivations of these characters is quite confusing at times, you're not quite sure who to root for. Even in the end, someone had a marvelous idea for the Invisible Man to get his comeuppance involving man's best friend and blew it in the execution.
One very interesting performance in the film is Leon Errol, away from the comic parts he usually had. He's still got some funny moments, but he's also a blackmailing scoundrel as well.
The Invisible Man's Revenge is far from the best in the series. Even Abbott&Costello's film with them ranks better than this.
Imagine that, a movie without a hero, unless you count Brutus the dog.
reptilicus1 July 2006
Ah, to be invisible. It is a fantasy that everyone has thought about from time to time. Never mind that if you really were invisible the liabilities would overwhelm the assets; for one thing you would be totally blind because light would pass right through your retinas without reflecting, so unless bumping into things is your idea of fun being invisible is no great shakes. Now most of the time I like invisible man movies but this time I am willing to make an exception.
Jon Hall took a break from costarring with Maria Montez to be in this thriller. Robert Griffin (Jon) and his pals discovered a diamond mine while they were in Africa. Said pals (Lester Mathews and Gale Sondergaard) double crossed Bob, knocked him over the head and left him for dead. Bob survived but lost his memory and ended up in a South African nuthouse. He escaped after killing 2 guards and stowed away on a ship that brought him back to England. Why did I tell you all this? Because all that took place before the movie even starts and we have to hear about it from various characters the the film progresses!
When Bob finally gets back to his not-so-great-friends Sir Jasper and Lady Irene he finds out that not only did they rob him they subsequently lost most of their fortune due to bad investments! Bob decides that no, that is not revenge enough, he wants whatever is left of the cash PLUS their daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers) as his bride whether she likes it or not! Run out of the mansion Bob gets lost in a storm and ends up at the house of Dr. Drury (John Carradine) whose neighbours think he is batty because he has perfected a way to make living things invisible.
Now here is the part of the movie you have been waiting for. Anxious to experiment on a human being, Drury injects his serum into Bob and, as Fate and the scriptwriter would have it, Bob goes "poof" and becomes invisible. With the help of a local character (former Vaudeville comic Leon Errol, doing a believable Cockney accent) Bob tries to scare Sir Jasper into signing away what is left of his fortune. Does it work? Does it ever? And what about Dr. Drury? How will he feel about letting an invisible maniac loose on the countryside?
This is one time we don't have to worry about the invisibility serum driving the man mad because Bob is bonkers to begin with. The floating effects are predictable but fun and half the fun is spotting the wires. The cast is very recognisable if you like spotting character actors. Lester Mathews had gone up against THE WEREWOLF OF London and costarred with Karloff and Lugosi in THE RAVEN (both 1935) and later ended up battling Fu Manchu on a weekly basis on the "Adventures of Fu Manchu" TV series. Gale Sondergaard is forever identified as "The Spider Woman" from SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SPIDER WOMAN and THE SPIDER WOMAN STRIKES BACK. Leon Errol costarred with fading starlet Lupe Velez in the Mexican Spitfire series and had his own series of 2 reel comedies. Watch also for Doris Lloyd (Mrs. Hudson in the Sherlock Holmes series), Ian Wolfe (too doggone many movies to list here), Billy Bevan (DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, etc.) and Skelton Knaggs (BEDLAM, ISLE OF THE DEAD, etc.). Brutus the dog who turns out to be the hero of the picture is played by animal actor Grey Shadow. John Carradine is a welcome addition but is not given enough to do. Wisely he does not play his character as a stereotype "mad" scientist. Director Ford Beebe had written and/or directed a lot of serials for Mascot and later for Republic. He also directed NIGHT MONSTER (1942) and even managed to impress Alfred Hitchcock by bringing in such an effective thriller in only 11 days.
INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE is far from the best of the series. You might want to check out INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS (1940) or even the 1933 original with Claude Rains for some real entertainment.
Jon Hall took a break from costarring with Maria Montez to be in this thriller. Robert Griffin (Jon) and his pals discovered a diamond mine while they were in Africa. Said pals (Lester Mathews and Gale Sondergaard) double crossed Bob, knocked him over the head and left him for dead. Bob survived but lost his memory and ended up in a South African nuthouse. He escaped after killing 2 guards and stowed away on a ship that brought him back to England. Why did I tell you all this? Because all that took place before the movie even starts and we have to hear about it from various characters the the film progresses!
When Bob finally gets back to his not-so-great-friends Sir Jasper and Lady Irene he finds out that not only did they rob him they subsequently lost most of their fortune due to bad investments! Bob decides that no, that is not revenge enough, he wants whatever is left of the cash PLUS their daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers) as his bride whether she likes it or not! Run out of the mansion Bob gets lost in a storm and ends up at the house of Dr. Drury (John Carradine) whose neighbours think he is batty because he has perfected a way to make living things invisible.
Now here is the part of the movie you have been waiting for. Anxious to experiment on a human being, Drury injects his serum into Bob and, as Fate and the scriptwriter would have it, Bob goes "poof" and becomes invisible. With the help of a local character (former Vaudeville comic Leon Errol, doing a believable Cockney accent) Bob tries to scare Sir Jasper into signing away what is left of his fortune. Does it work? Does it ever? And what about Dr. Drury? How will he feel about letting an invisible maniac loose on the countryside?
This is one time we don't have to worry about the invisibility serum driving the man mad because Bob is bonkers to begin with. The floating effects are predictable but fun and half the fun is spotting the wires. The cast is very recognisable if you like spotting character actors. Lester Mathews had gone up against THE WEREWOLF OF London and costarred with Karloff and Lugosi in THE RAVEN (both 1935) and later ended up battling Fu Manchu on a weekly basis on the "Adventures of Fu Manchu" TV series. Gale Sondergaard is forever identified as "The Spider Woman" from SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SPIDER WOMAN and THE SPIDER WOMAN STRIKES BACK. Leon Errol costarred with fading starlet Lupe Velez in the Mexican Spitfire series and had his own series of 2 reel comedies. Watch also for Doris Lloyd (Mrs. Hudson in the Sherlock Holmes series), Ian Wolfe (too doggone many movies to list here), Billy Bevan (DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, etc.) and Skelton Knaggs (BEDLAM, ISLE OF THE DEAD, etc.). Brutus the dog who turns out to be the hero of the picture is played by animal actor Grey Shadow. John Carradine is a welcome addition but is not given enough to do. Wisely he does not play his character as a stereotype "mad" scientist. Director Ford Beebe had written and/or directed a lot of serials for Mascot and later for Republic. He also directed NIGHT MONSTER (1942) and even managed to impress Alfred Hitchcock by bringing in such an effective thriller in only 11 days.
INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE is far from the best of the series. You might want to check out INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS (1940) or even the 1933 original with Claude Rains for some real entertainment.
Revenge on who? The audience?
Charly-2510 January 2004
From Claude Raines to Jon Hall? Egad! Evan Gale Sondergaard's delicious brand of luxurious menace can't save this turgid piece of tedium. Scream Evelyn, Scream. There's nothing else for you to do, and besides it might keep the audience awake. John Carradine and Gale Sondergaard were badly wasted in this yawner.
Not that bad at all
slayrrr66628 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"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
**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
Feels More Like a Stand Alone than Sequel. Works Better
Reviews_of_the_Dead19 January 2024
This is a movie that I originally sought out after college. I wasn't familiar with the Universal classic films so after watching them, I dove into the sequels. It had been years since I saw this. I figured I'd give it a rewatch as part of my Foray through the Fours. I'll be honest, I didn't remember much about this one coming back in.
Synopsis: an eccentric scientist helps a fugitive from the law become invisible, unwittingly giving him the power to exact revenge on his former friends.
We start this on the docks. We see a crate being taken from a ship. A knife cuts through the canvas and Robert Griffin (Jon Hall) appears. We see him go to a tailor to get new clothes and it is through this that we see he has a temper. He leaves his old clothes behind and in a pocket is a newspaper article saying that he escaped from a mental hospital. He also killed two people in the process.
It then shift to a family in a large estate. The father is Sir Jasper Herrick (Lester Matthews). His wife is Irene (Gale Sonderaard). Their daughter is Julie (Evelyn Ankers) and she is seeing a reporter, Mark Foster (Alan Curtis). They go off on a date as Robert arrives. He sees them leave. It is as they're going that he says the name of Julie. Something about his character is that he's having memory issues.
Robert knocks at the door and the butler, Cleghorn (Halliwell Hobbes), answers. He admits entry as well. The Herricks are shocked that he's there. They went on an expedition together to Africa. Robert was hit in the head and knocked out. He was left with another member of their group. This other person told the couple that Robert died. His being there shows he's very much alive. He also becomes a thorn in their side. He has a contract they made together about a diamond mine he found. They inform him that they did make money off that mine, but they lost it all in bad investments. This angers Robert and he demands half of their money, but they can't do that. Robert is given a drink and he can't handle it. He is escorted out of the house. They think he is psychopathic and that he isn't the same man they knew.
He then stumbles down to a river and falls in. On the bridge above him is Herbert Higgins (Leon Errol). This man is a drunkard. He helps him out of the river and takes him back to his house. They come up with a plan to try to blackmail the family. They hire Feeney (Ian Wolfe), who is a lawyer, to go with Herbert to get money out of them he feels they owe. This is broken up though when Sir Frederick Travers (Leyland Hodgson) arrives. He's the head of the local police. This is shut down and the two leave.
Robert is down on his luck, even more with the police running him out of town. That is when he arrives at the door of Dr. Peter Drury (John Carradine). He offers him a place to stay. He also wants him to help with an experiment. Dr. Drury has been able to turn a bird and a dog invisible. He wants to try this serum on Robert, who agrees. This gives him the leg up he needs to get what he wants out of the Herricks. It is when he needs to turn back that this becomes a problem.
That is where I'll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Where I want to start is that this is an interesting sequel. Unlike the original one, this man seems to be borderline insane to due to a head injury before he becomes invisible. This to me makes him more dangerous. It doesn't necessarily borrow as much from H. G. Wells' short story, aside from the name Griffin. I did like this different take and this feels more like a stand-alone film than a sequel.
Where I want to start then delving deeper with would be Robert and his dispute with the Herricks. Robert has a point. He found the diamond mine and was willing to share it with them. I don't know if they left him for dead on purpose, but they thought he died. Bad investments happen so that's a bummer that they wasted the money. They owe him, but I don't know if he is entitled to half of what they own. That becomes problematic due to the house being inherited so it was in their line prior to that expedition. Due to that head trauma, which does seem to make Robert more aggressive and I like that idea. Hall does a great job here as this villainous character.
I also like this sub-plot with Dr. Drury. It doesn't seem like he has any connection to any of the previous movies in this line. He is a doctor doing his experiments and wanting to make his name amongst the great scientific minds. He sees a desperate man with Robert, but underestimates what he'll do after becoming invisible. This is a bit different take on the mad scientist subgenre that we don't always see. I did appreciate that. I do like Carradine here as this doctor as well.
Now I do have an issue here. Our lead is our villain with Robert. Julie and Mark are supposed to be our heroes, but they fade into the background. Her parents assume more of the story. They just feel wasted and I know Mark fights Robert, but it is the dog that also does more when it comes to the resolution. I thought that was a misstep. I do like having our villain as the lead though.
I'll then finish acting. I've already said that Hall was good in his role as was Carradine. Sondergaard and Matthews were solid as well as the rich parents who started this mess. Ankers is usually a good actor, but her lack of screen time causes her to disappear. Curtis was fine as her boyfriend who steps in as a hero. I needed more there. I like Errol who brings levity. He also brings tension as he's bullied by Robert. I did like the cameo by Cyril Delevanti as Malty Bill who is the tailor in the beginning. The acting here is solid across the board.
All that is left then is filmmaking. I need to start with the effects. I love what they do with the invisible stuff. There is one point where thanks to high definition, I could see Hall's face when I shouldn't. What I love though is seeing through to the back of the bandages when he has the classic Invisible Man look. We also get flour or water to reveal his face. That was a good touch. We do things with an invisible bird and dog. I was a fan there. I'll also credit the cinematography. They don't do a lot with it, but I think framing worked well to hide different things. Other than that, the soundtrack fit what was needed. Being that Robert or the animals are invisible, the sound design helps where we think they're in one place and end up being in another. That's a good touch.
In conclusion, I thought this was a solid sequel. This one is more of a stand-alone movie from what I could tell so it doesn't violate continuity. I like that this uses a different take. Instead of having a main character who goes insane from the serum or the power of being invisible, we have someone with head trauma who has anger issues getting power that he shouldn't have. The mad doctor isn't necessarily a villain either. I thought the acting was good. It was only Ankers and Curtis who I thought needed a bit more to work. This is also well done with the effects leading the way. I'll also credit the framing and cinematography to help there as well. I'd recommend this though to fans of this era or out to see the Universal classic sequels. This is a fast watch that is solid.
My Rating: 7 out of 10.
Synopsis: an eccentric scientist helps a fugitive from the law become invisible, unwittingly giving him the power to exact revenge on his former friends.
We start this on the docks. We see a crate being taken from a ship. A knife cuts through the canvas and Robert Griffin (Jon Hall) appears. We see him go to a tailor to get new clothes and it is through this that we see he has a temper. He leaves his old clothes behind and in a pocket is a newspaper article saying that he escaped from a mental hospital. He also killed two people in the process.
It then shift to a family in a large estate. The father is Sir Jasper Herrick (Lester Matthews). His wife is Irene (Gale Sonderaard). Their daughter is Julie (Evelyn Ankers) and she is seeing a reporter, Mark Foster (Alan Curtis). They go off on a date as Robert arrives. He sees them leave. It is as they're going that he says the name of Julie. Something about his character is that he's having memory issues.
Robert knocks at the door and the butler, Cleghorn (Halliwell Hobbes), answers. He admits entry as well. The Herricks are shocked that he's there. They went on an expedition together to Africa. Robert was hit in the head and knocked out. He was left with another member of their group. This other person told the couple that Robert died. His being there shows he's very much alive. He also becomes a thorn in their side. He has a contract they made together about a diamond mine he found. They inform him that they did make money off that mine, but they lost it all in bad investments. This angers Robert and he demands half of their money, but they can't do that. Robert is given a drink and he can't handle it. He is escorted out of the house. They think he is psychopathic and that he isn't the same man they knew.
He then stumbles down to a river and falls in. On the bridge above him is Herbert Higgins (Leon Errol). This man is a drunkard. He helps him out of the river and takes him back to his house. They come up with a plan to try to blackmail the family. They hire Feeney (Ian Wolfe), who is a lawyer, to go with Herbert to get money out of them he feels they owe. This is broken up though when Sir Frederick Travers (Leyland Hodgson) arrives. He's the head of the local police. This is shut down and the two leave.
Robert is down on his luck, even more with the police running him out of town. That is when he arrives at the door of Dr. Peter Drury (John Carradine). He offers him a place to stay. He also wants him to help with an experiment. Dr. Drury has been able to turn a bird and a dog invisible. He wants to try this serum on Robert, who agrees. This gives him the leg up he needs to get what he wants out of the Herricks. It is when he needs to turn back that this becomes a problem.
That is where I'll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Where I want to start is that this is an interesting sequel. Unlike the original one, this man seems to be borderline insane to due to a head injury before he becomes invisible. This to me makes him more dangerous. It doesn't necessarily borrow as much from H. G. Wells' short story, aside from the name Griffin. I did like this different take and this feels more like a stand-alone film than a sequel.
Where I want to start then delving deeper with would be Robert and his dispute with the Herricks. Robert has a point. He found the diamond mine and was willing to share it with them. I don't know if they left him for dead on purpose, but they thought he died. Bad investments happen so that's a bummer that they wasted the money. They owe him, but I don't know if he is entitled to half of what they own. That becomes problematic due to the house being inherited so it was in their line prior to that expedition. Due to that head trauma, which does seem to make Robert more aggressive and I like that idea. Hall does a great job here as this villainous character.
I also like this sub-plot with Dr. Drury. It doesn't seem like he has any connection to any of the previous movies in this line. He is a doctor doing his experiments and wanting to make his name amongst the great scientific minds. He sees a desperate man with Robert, but underestimates what he'll do after becoming invisible. This is a bit different take on the mad scientist subgenre that we don't always see. I did appreciate that. I do like Carradine here as this doctor as well.
Now I do have an issue here. Our lead is our villain with Robert. Julie and Mark are supposed to be our heroes, but they fade into the background. Her parents assume more of the story. They just feel wasted and I know Mark fights Robert, but it is the dog that also does more when it comes to the resolution. I thought that was a misstep. I do like having our villain as the lead though.
I'll then finish acting. I've already said that Hall was good in his role as was Carradine. Sondergaard and Matthews were solid as well as the rich parents who started this mess. Ankers is usually a good actor, but her lack of screen time causes her to disappear. Curtis was fine as her boyfriend who steps in as a hero. I needed more there. I like Errol who brings levity. He also brings tension as he's bullied by Robert. I did like the cameo by Cyril Delevanti as Malty Bill who is the tailor in the beginning. The acting here is solid across the board.
All that is left then is filmmaking. I need to start with the effects. I love what they do with the invisible stuff. There is one point where thanks to high definition, I could see Hall's face when I shouldn't. What I love though is seeing through to the back of the bandages when he has the classic Invisible Man look. We also get flour or water to reveal his face. That was a good touch. We do things with an invisible bird and dog. I was a fan there. I'll also credit the cinematography. They don't do a lot with it, but I think framing worked well to hide different things. Other than that, the soundtrack fit what was needed. Being that Robert or the animals are invisible, the sound design helps where we think they're in one place and end up being in another. That's a good touch.
In conclusion, I thought this was a solid sequel. This one is more of a stand-alone movie from what I could tell so it doesn't violate continuity. I like that this uses a different take. Instead of having a main character who goes insane from the serum or the power of being invisible, we have someone with head trauma who has anger issues getting power that he shouldn't have. The mad doctor isn't necessarily a villain either. I thought the acting was good. It was only Ankers and Curtis who I thought needed a bit more to work. This is also well done with the effects leading the way. I'll also credit the framing and cinematography to help there as well. I'd recommend this though to fans of this era or out to see the Universal classic sequels. This is a fast watch that is solid.
My Rating: 7 out of 10.
This installment on the franchise shows there was almost nothing left
lemon_magic18 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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 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.
Least of the Series
BaronBl00d6 October 2002
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.
Okay, so the visual effects by John Fulton are a little bit on the shaky side.....
tarwaterthomas3 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
.....but other than that it's a decently mounted fourth sequel to THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933) that starred Claude Rains as Jack Griffin. Here, Jon Hall stars as Robert Griffin (no relation) who had been left for dead in the wilds of South Africa after having led British couple Jasper Herrick (Lester Matthews) and his better half Irene Herrick (Gale Sondergaard) to a fabulous diamond mine, only for those two to leave him for dead in the jungle. Griffin winds up in a mental institution in Cape Town, but he busts out of there and murders two orderlies along the way. Griffin manages to make his way to the United Kingdom and pays a visit to Sir Jasper and Lady Irene who are checking out journalist Mark Foster (Alan Curtis), boyfriend of their adorable daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers). After their confrontation, they drug Robert Griffin and has their butler throw his ass into a nearby river, only his life is saved by Cockney cobbler Herbert Higgins (Leon Errol). Griffin is rendered invisible by that lovable scientist Peter Drury (John Carradine) who has visions of Nobel Prizes dancing in his head. But he winds up dead at the hands of Robert Griffin. Thanks to a blood transfusion, Griffin loses his invisibility, and his life to Brutus the Wonder German Shepherd that once belonged to Dr. Drury. As this viewer mention at the beginning of the review, the visual effects were a little bit on the shaky side. And the thing was, they were supervised by John P. Fulton who had done a far better job on the INVISIBLE MAN films. My humble opinion is that somebody cut the budget way down on THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE, which might explain why Universal did not make any more of these invisibility flicks. They did make ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951). Jon Hall had also been in INVISIBLE AGENT (1942) as Frank Griffin Jr, the grandson of the original Invisible Man. He also starred opposite Maria Montez in ARABIAN NIGHTS (1942), ALI BABA AND THE FORTY THIEVES (1943), WHITE SAVAGE (1943), COBRA WOMAN (1944), GYPSY WILDCAT (1944), and SUDAN (1945). Jon Hall continued his acting career during the 1950s, making movies for super-cheap producer Sam Katzman, and was in the television series RAMAR OF THE JUNGLE (1952-1954). His last film credit was THE BEACH GIRLS AND THE MONSTER (1965), where he doubled as actor and director. Hall took his own life in 1979 after having been diagnosed with incurable bladder cancer. This was a pretty good film, it with a bigger budget it would have been way better. Jon Hall gave his role a pretty good shot. He made a great villain in this film. And there you have it.
"In this house you've got to believe what you can't see"
boscofl9 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
As the final serious entry in a popular Universal franchise, The Invisible Man's Revenge is a slick-looking endeavor that focuses more on the title character's actions than his transparent state. The story contains an intriguing premise that becomes mired in an episodic screenplay which meanders all over creation as it struggles to develop the title's intention. Furthermore it squanders three of its greatest genre assets - John Carradine, Gale Sondergaard, and Evelyn Ankers - while devoting an inordinate amount of footage to actors we don't care about. John P. Fulton is on hand once again to deliver some creative invisible man moments which sometimes are not carefully rendered. While the film has its good points it struggles to overcome its glaring drawbacks.
The film begins with Robert Griffin (John Hall) arriving on the London docks as a stowaway. After a change of wardrobe he heads to the estate of Sir Jasper and Lady Jane Herrick (Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard), two old friends with whom, over five years earlier, he conducted an African expedition to locate a diamond field. Turns out they discovered the gems but Griffin was injured and left behind in hostile territory; the Herricks claim they were told he died and thus departed without him. Griffin produces a contract which stipulates he is owed half of the fortune they discovered but now demands everything plus the hand of their daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers) in marriage. Having squandered this windfall and terrified by Griffin's erratic behavior the Herricks boot him out after Griffin suddenly succumbs to a glass of whiskey (possibly drugged by Jane). Fired by revenge Griffin rather improbably stumbles upon "old crank" Doctor Drury (John Carradine) who demonstrates his ability to render animals invisible. Naturally Griffin wants to take the next step and be the first human experiment . . .
As concocted by Bertram Millhauser the screenplay has no affiliation with other invisible man films besides assigning the name "Griffin" to the main character. The revenge premise is a good launch point for the plot and the narrative strives to be clever in the way it depicts the characters of Jasper and Jane. While Griffin is clearly established as a homicidal maniac from the opening frames there is some conjecture as to whether or not his beef with them is legitimate. Unfortunately the script does away with this ambiguity pretty quickly and anything the Herricks do to Griffin seems justified given how irrationally crazy he is. Meanwhile the plot rambles all over the place and instances of illogic, chance, and poor character decisions conspire to do the film in. For instance, Griffin carries a newspaper clipping from Capetown detailing his bloody escape from an insane asylum complete with a glamorous head shot of him; stupidly he leaves it in the pocket of his discarded clothes for someone to read. The way he literally stumbles onto the doorstep of the one man in the world who can render him invisible strains credulity as well. Narrative thrust really screeches to a halt with a painful pub scene wherein the invisible Griffin pilots darts supposedly thrown by his one "friend" Herbert Higgins (second billed Leon Errol) to win the grifter a few pounds. Millhauser injects an element of vampirism by having the invisible subject only able to return to his normal state by draining the blood of another person; the logistics of this are better off not pondered but add a macabre element to the proceedings. Unfortunately for horror fans John Hall spends most of the film in a visible state (most likely so female audience members could drool over his handsome features) that minimizes the more fantastic elements of the premise.
Director Ford Beebe provides a polished look to the movie and efficiently opens the tale with Griffin's arrival via a London-stamped cargo bale placed on the foggy dock. He establishes the character as unstable based on his behavior but goes the extra mile with the aforementioned newspaper clipping gag; informative for the audience but completely illogical within the story. The film then devolves into a very talky affair with minimal action and plenty of exposition before the invisibility shenanigans commence. As developed by John Fulton these effects are sometimes provocative but all too often sloppily rendered. There is a great moment where the invisible Griffin sticks his arm into a fish tank and splashes water on his face to deliver a startling visual. Rivaling that is the scene wherein Griffin, temporarily visible, begins to lose his corporeal state and turns albino before slowly fading away as he runs down a hallway. The film climaxes with a desperate fight in the Herrick wine cellar between Julie's fiancée Mark Foster (Alan Curtis) and an invisible Griffin that is both clever and well staged by Beebe.
John Hall is given a broad canvas to work with as Robert Griffin and is the only actor in the Universal series to enact an Invisible Man in two films (albeit as two completely different characters). Hall doesn't play for tragedy or sympathy in the role and goes for straight lunacy; unlike previous incarnations where the formula to render one invisible also comes with progressive insanity Griffin is clearly nuts from the start. The character had all kinds of possibilities and a more subtle, sympathetic approach would have elevated the film tremendously but Millhauser's script isn't interested in providing a character study. Instead, Griffin is a scheming, irrational, hothead with a persecution complex and Hall spends his time playing up that angle. One wonders why Lon Chaney wasn't given this role and, given its limitations, it is easy to envision him delivering a superior portrayal. The beneficiary of this underwritten part is Leon Errol as Higgins who gobbles up screen time as Griffin's sometimes sidekick and jams the narrative into neutral whenever he's onscreen. This is a standard, comedy relief role that is way too common in these genre films but Errol is an ingratiating performer who at least makes it bearable.
One of my pet peeves with many of these Universal "horror" films is how they squander their best name assets and devote better roles and screen time to performers most people aren't interested in; The Invisible Man's Revenge is Exhibit A in this department. Blessed with such intriguing performers as John Carradine, Gale Sondergaard, and Evelyn Ankers the film unfathomably shuns them to the sidelines. Miss Ankers suffers the most egregiously as she has what amounts to a glorified cameo with maybe 5 minutes of screen time. After the intriguing opening sequence when being confronted by John Hall Miss Sondergaard disappears from the rest of the movie with only one brief reappearance. As for Carradine, he has two scenes with Hall and his enactment of the crackpot Dr. Drury is a refreshing take on a stock characterization. As with the ladies it's a pity he doesn't have more to do. Filling the void is Lester Matthews who could have nabbed costar billing with Hall for all the screen time he's given. Nothing against Matthews - who delivers a believable turn particularly in the scene where an invisible Griffin invades his boudoir to torment him - but he isn't someone the paying customers are interested in seeing emote. Rounding out the cast is Alan Curtis who delivers a forgettable performance as yet another vanilla hero out of his depth when coping with the villain. Keep an eye out for Universal regular Doris Lloyd as a cockney barmaid in the pub sequence and the ever-creepy Skelton Knaggs in a bit.
At the end of the day The Invisible Man's Revenge is a sharp-looking misfire that returns the concept to a more serious tone after the goofy hijinks of The Invisible Woman and Invisible Agent. The general notion is strong and in more creative hands the film could have emerged as the most terrifying in the series. It is always fascinating to watch the celluloid prestidigitations of John Fulton and contemplate how they would have thrilled 1944 audiences while, for the most part, still being enjoyable to this day. Unfortunately the movie ultimately resides as a tantalizing glimpse into what could have been rather than a tangible success. Fans of John Carradine, Gale Sondergaard, and especially Evelyn Ankers will be disappointed with their limited involvement in the story but fans of Fulton's special effects will likely find some amusement.
The film begins with Robert Griffin (John Hall) arriving on the London docks as a stowaway. After a change of wardrobe he heads to the estate of Sir Jasper and Lady Jane Herrick (Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard), two old friends with whom, over five years earlier, he conducted an African expedition to locate a diamond field. Turns out they discovered the gems but Griffin was injured and left behind in hostile territory; the Herricks claim they were told he died and thus departed without him. Griffin produces a contract which stipulates he is owed half of the fortune they discovered but now demands everything plus the hand of their daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers) in marriage. Having squandered this windfall and terrified by Griffin's erratic behavior the Herricks boot him out after Griffin suddenly succumbs to a glass of whiskey (possibly drugged by Jane). Fired by revenge Griffin rather improbably stumbles upon "old crank" Doctor Drury (John Carradine) who demonstrates his ability to render animals invisible. Naturally Griffin wants to take the next step and be the first human experiment . . .
As concocted by Bertram Millhauser the screenplay has no affiliation with other invisible man films besides assigning the name "Griffin" to the main character. The revenge premise is a good launch point for the plot and the narrative strives to be clever in the way it depicts the characters of Jasper and Jane. While Griffin is clearly established as a homicidal maniac from the opening frames there is some conjecture as to whether or not his beef with them is legitimate. Unfortunately the script does away with this ambiguity pretty quickly and anything the Herricks do to Griffin seems justified given how irrationally crazy he is. Meanwhile the plot rambles all over the place and instances of illogic, chance, and poor character decisions conspire to do the film in. For instance, Griffin carries a newspaper clipping from Capetown detailing his bloody escape from an insane asylum complete with a glamorous head shot of him; stupidly he leaves it in the pocket of his discarded clothes for someone to read. The way he literally stumbles onto the doorstep of the one man in the world who can render him invisible strains credulity as well. Narrative thrust really screeches to a halt with a painful pub scene wherein the invisible Griffin pilots darts supposedly thrown by his one "friend" Herbert Higgins (second billed Leon Errol) to win the grifter a few pounds. Millhauser injects an element of vampirism by having the invisible subject only able to return to his normal state by draining the blood of another person; the logistics of this are better off not pondered but add a macabre element to the proceedings. Unfortunately for horror fans John Hall spends most of the film in a visible state (most likely so female audience members could drool over his handsome features) that minimizes the more fantastic elements of the premise.
Director Ford Beebe provides a polished look to the movie and efficiently opens the tale with Griffin's arrival via a London-stamped cargo bale placed on the foggy dock. He establishes the character as unstable based on his behavior but goes the extra mile with the aforementioned newspaper clipping gag; informative for the audience but completely illogical within the story. The film then devolves into a very talky affair with minimal action and plenty of exposition before the invisibility shenanigans commence. As developed by John Fulton these effects are sometimes provocative but all too often sloppily rendered. There is a great moment where the invisible Griffin sticks his arm into a fish tank and splashes water on his face to deliver a startling visual. Rivaling that is the scene wherein Griffin, temporarily visible, begins to lose his corporeal state and turns albino before slowly fading away as he runs down a hallway. The film climaxes with a desperate fight in the Herrick wine cellar between Julie's fiancée Mark Foster (Alan Curtis) and an invisible Griffin that is both clever and well staged by Beebe.
John Hall is given a broad canvas to work with as Robert Griffin and is the only actor in the Universal series to enact an Invisible Man in two films (albeit as two completely different characters). Hall doesn't play for tragedy or sympathy in the role and goes for straight lunacy; unlike previous incarnations where the formula to render one invisible also comes with progressive insanity Griffin is clearly nuts from the start. The character had all kinds of possibilities and a more subtle, sympathetic approach would have elevated the film tremendously but Millhauser's script isn't interested in providing a character study. Instead, Griffin is a scheming, irrational, hothead with a persecution complex and Hall spends his time playing up that angle. One wonders why Lon Chaney wasn't given this role and, given its limitations, it is easy to envision him delivering a superior portrayal. The beneficiary of this underwritten part is Leon Errol as Higgins who gobbles up screen time as Griffin's sometimes sidekick and jams the narrative into neutral whenever he's onscreen. This is a standard, comedy relief role that is way too common in these genre films but Errol is an ingratiating performer who at least makes it bearable.
One of my pet peeves with many of these Universal "horror" films is how they squander their best name assets and devote better roles and screen time to performers most people aren't interested in; The Invisible Man's Revenge is Exhibit A in this department. Blessed with such intriguing performers as John Carradine, Gale Sondergaard, and Evelyn Ankers the film unfathomably shuns them to the sidelines. Miss Ankers suffers the most egregiously as she has what amounts to a glorified cameo with maybe 5 minutes of screen time. After the intriguing opening sequence when being confronted by John Hall Miss Sondergaard disappears from the rest of the movie with only one brief reappearance. As for Carradine, he has two scenes with Hall and his enactment of the crackpot Dr. Drury is a refreshing take on a stock characterization. As with the ladies it's a pity he doesn't have more to do. Filling the void is Lester Matthews who could have nabbed costar billing with Hall for all the screen time he's given. Nothing against Matthews - who delivers a believable turn particularly in the scene where an invisible Griffin invades his boudoir to torment him - but he isn't someone the paying customers are interested in seeing emote. Rounding out the cast is Alan Curtis who delivers a forgettable performance as yet another vanilla hero out of his depth when coping with the villain. Keep an eye out for Universal regular Doris Lloyd as a cockney barmaid in the pub sequence and the ever-creepy Skelton Knaggs in a bit.
At the end of the day The Invisible Man's Revenge is a sharp-looking misfire that returns the concept to a more serious tone after the goofy hijinks of The Invisible Woman and Invisible Agent. The general notion is strong and in more creative hands the film could have emerged as the most terrifying in the series. It is always fascinating to watch the celluloid prestidigitations of John Fulton and contemplate how they would have thrilled 1944 audiences while, for the most part, still being enjoyable to this day. Unfortunately the movie ultimately resides as a tantalizing glimpse into what could have been rather than a tangible success. Fans of John Carradine, Gale Sondergaard, and especially Evelyn Ankers will be disappointed with their limited involvement in the story but fans of Fulton's special effects will likely find some amusement.
"Have you been scolded or have you got the mange?"
The_Movie_Cat2 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
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.
The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) **1/2
Bunuel19768 July 2005
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!
The studio system simply fails
davidmvining28 October 2022
I think the Universal Monster franchise has reached a new low in The Invisible Man's Revenge. There have been lazy films, but this might be the most simply inept film put out by Universal about one of its monsters. Taking some of the laziest setups and then mangling it director Ford Beebe and his writer Bertram Millhauser craft a meandering, pointless tale of revenge that just kind of lurches from one half-formed idea to another. The disappointing thing is that I rewrote this movie in my head as I was watching it, rearranging and rewriting scenes so that they made more narrative sense, and it wasn't a huge lift.
Robert Griffin (Jon Hall), who is apparently completely unrelated to the Griffins who have dominated most of this franchise even Invisible Agent where Hall played the grandson to the original Griffin, arrives on an English dock after having stowed away from Cape Town after years abroad and with convenient amnesia that made him forget everything about why he was in Africa to begin with. He had been there guiding an expedition to find a diamond mine, funded by Sir Jasper (Lester Matthews) and his wife Lady Irene (Gale Sondergaard). Griffin got hit on the back of the head near the end of the expedition, losing his memory, and then being kept in an insane asylum for years. When he gets back to England, he's determined to get what's his.
How Griffin plays out his first scene with Jasper is one of the big early problems with this film. Griffin is justifiably angry at what happened to him and Jasper's claims to poverty, but he's outright vengeful from the start. He's immediately jumping towards blackmail. He's unsympathetic this way. Jasper drugs him and sends him to drown in a river, which he survives when he's found by local drunk Herbert (Leon Errol) who gives him a place to rest. Griffin goes off, though, and ends up at the doorstep of Dr. Peter Drury (John Carradine) who has been experimenting with invisibility and convinces Griffin to be his next subject, which, of course, Griffin accepts, gets invisible and then disappears to begin to exact his vengeance.
This whole opening is just wrong. Griffin is too malevolent from the start. The arrival at Dr. Drury's door is too convenient. Griffin's acceptance of invisibility is too easy. Rewrite this so that Griffin shows up at Jasper's door with an open heart, not ready to accept that his friend tried to kill him but willing to give the man a chance. Jasper, out of fear, tries to kill Griffin again, and dumps Griffin in the river. Dr. Drury finds the floating body and decides that a nearly dead man that no one knows is the perfect experimental subject for his invisibility experiment. Griffin wakes up invisible, but he remains a good man, unknowingly having the inherent madness of the drug affecting him, first in small ways, as he tries to figure out what he can do from there. There, Griffin is a sympathetic character made invisible and wronged by two men.
Another subplot of the film as it plays out is Jasper's daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers), an attractive young woman that Griffin had designs upon before the expedition, but she barely knew him. She's engaged to marry someone else, the journalist Mark (Alan Curtis). Part of Griffin's demands is that Julie love him and become his wife. Really, Griffin is awful from the beginning. Anyway, invisible, we get to watch Griffin use Herbert for...reasons. He gives Herbert the now typical speech in an Invisible Man movie about acquiring power, and he sets Herbert on those first steps by...taking him to the local pub and having him do trick dart shots. Herbert wins five pounds. He's well on his way to ruling the world, for sure. It also serves nothing of the plot. It's an obvious excuse for special effects and nothing else. It stops the movie cold. Well, I suppose it's slightly amusing, I guess.
Things get unnecessarily convoluted when Dr. Drury figures out that complete transfusion of blood will make the invisible person visible again (he tests it on his dog). Griffin finds out, and starts to use this to his advantage, becoming visible to try and claim his rights over Jasper and Julie. It's an idea actually born from Invisible Agent, but it's poorly used here and inconsistent (the dog never goes invisible again where Griffin goes invisible after a certain amount of time after each transfusion).
Imagine a rewrite where the good man Griffin is steadily growing mad, Julie was his love before the expedition and she wants to help him now that he's back and obviously not dead, and Griffin has to kill people to be visible for his lady love, perhaps even in a situation where he needs to take her fiancé for his blood (this does happen, but Julie doesn't care about Griffin so it doesn't really have any kind of emotional dimension to it as it actually plays out).
Really, this movie would have been really easy to fix. It didn't need a page 1 rewrite, throwing out everything, but it did need a fairly large overhaul that would have preserved setting, situation, and characters while rewriting a lot of dialogue to cast characters in different lights and allow an actual progression of character-based actions that leads to a conclusion and emotional catharsis. It really wouldn't have been that hard. The pieces are all here, but they're just really poorly used. That's where I come to say that The Invisible Man's Revenge is inept.
Most of the Universal Horror franchise has shown how the studio system was resilient and could make good things in an assembly line-like organization. However, this shows how the studio system could simply fail. This is the same cast that has been working through the last few films, and Ford Beebe had been attached to the whole franchise for a little while, acting as producer on several other, better films, but here they never get around the fixing the script. Universal had a whole host of contract writers (think Sunset Boulevard) that did uncredited work on screenplays all the time, and not one could make this better? This is dreary and awful filmmaking, taking the most interesting and malleable concept in the monster universe and simply fumbling the handling of it.
That being said, the special effects continue to be quite good with some new additions (like the moment Griffin throws water on his face to partially reveal himself to Lady Irene), and the acting is fine, though how you could cast John Carradine in an Invisible Man movie and not cast him as the Invisible Man himself considering his voice is beyond me. Jon Hall is fine in the role, though.
Robert Griffin (Jon Hall), who is apparently completely unrelated to the Griffins who have dominated most of this franchise even Invisible Agent where Hall played the grandson to the original Griffin, arrives on an English dock after having stowed away from Cape Town after years abroad and with convenient amnesia that made him forget everything about why he was in Africa to begin with. He had been there guiding an expedition to find a diamond mine, funded by Sir Jasper (Lester Matthews) and his wife Lady Irene (Gale Sondergaard). Griffin got hit on the back of the head near the end of the expedition, losing his memory, and then being kept in an insane asylum for years. When he gets back to England, he's determined to get what's his.
How Griffin plays out his first scene with Jasper is one of the big early problems with this film. Griffin is justifiably angry at what happened to him and Jasper's claims to poverty, but he's outright vengeful from the start. He's immediately jumping towards blackmail. He's unsympathetic this way. Jasper drugs him and sends him to drown in a river, which he survives when he's found by local drunk Herbert (Leon Errol) who gives him a place to rest. Griffin goes off, though, and ends up at the doorstep of Dr. Peter Drury (John Carradine) who has been experimenting with invisibility and convinces Griffin to be his next subject, which, of course, Griffin accepts, gets invisible and then disappears to begin to exact his vengeance.
This whole opening is just wrong. Griffin is too malevolent from the start. The arrival at Dr. Drury's door is too convenient. Griffin's acceptance of invisibility is too easy. Rewrite this so that Griffin shows up at Jasper's door with an open heart, not ready to accept that his friend tried to kill him but willing to give the man a chance. Jasper, out of fear, tries to kill Griffin again, and dumps Griffin in the river. Dr. Drury finds the floating body and decides that a nearly dead man that no one knows is the perfect experimental subject for his invisibility experiment. Griffin wakes up invisible, but he remains a good man, unknowingly having the inherent madness of the drug affecting him, first in small ways, as he tries to figure out what he can do from there. There, Griffin is a sympathetic character made invisible and wronged by two men.
Another subplot of the film as it plays out is Jasper's daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers), an attractive young woman that Griffin had designs upon before the expedition, but she barely knew him. She's engaged to marry someone else, the journalist Mark (Alan Curtis). Part of Griffin's demands is that Julie love him and become his wife. Really, Griffin is awful from the beginning. Anyway, invisible, we get to watch Griffin use Herbert for...reasons. He gives Herbert the now typical speech in an Invisible Man movie about acquiring power, and he sets Herbert on those first steps by...taking him to the local pub and having him do trick dart shots. Herbert wins five pounds. He's well on his way to ruling the world, for sure. It also serves nothing of the plot. It's an obvious excuse for special effects and nothing else. It stops the movie cold. Well, I suppose it's slightly amusing, I guess.
Things get unnecessarily convoluted when Dr. Drury figures out that complete transfusion of blood will make the invisible person visible again (he tests it on his dog). Griffin finds out, and starts to use this to his advantage, becoming visible to try and claim his rights over Jasper and Julie. It's an idea actually born from Invisible Agent, but it's poorly used here and inconsistent (the dog never goes invisible again where Griffin goes invisible after a certain amount of time after each transfusion).
Imagine a rewrite where the good man Griffin is steadily growing mad, Julie was his love before the expedition and she wants to help him now that he's back and obviously not dead, and Griffin has to kill people to be visible for his lady love, perhaps even in a situation where he needs to take her fiancé for his blood (this does happen, but Julie doesn't care about Griffin so it doesn't really have any kind of emotional dimension to it as it actually plays out).
Really, this movie would have been really easy to fix. It didn't need a page 1 rewrite, throwing out everything, but it did need a fairly large overhaul that would have preserved setting, situation, and characters while rewriting a lot of dialogue to cast characters in different lights and allow an actual progression of character-based actions that leads to a conclusion and emotional catharsis. It really wouldn't have been that hard. The pieces are all here, but they're just really poorly used. That's where I come to say that The Invisible Man's Revenge is inept.
Most of the Universal Horror franchise has shown how the studio system was resilient and could make good things in an assembly line-like organization. However, this shows how the studio system could simply fail. This is the same cast that has been working through the last few films, and Ford Beebe had been attached to the whole franchise for a little while, acting as producer on several other, better films, but here they never get around the fixing the script. Universal had a whole host of contract writers (think Sunset Boulevard) that did uncredited work on screenplays all the time, and not one could make this better? This is dreary and awful filmmaking, taking the most interesting and malleable concept in the monster universe and simply fumbling the handling of it.
That being said, the special effects continue to be quite good with some new additions (like the moment Griffin throws water on his face to partially reveal himself to Lady Irene), and the acting is fine, though how you could cast John Carradine in an Invisible Man movie and not cast him as the Invisible Man himself considering his voice is beyond me. Jon Hall is fine in the role, though.
Lively finale
Leofwine_draca12 May 2022
THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE (1944) is the last in the consistently enjoyable Universal series and the first since the original where the protagonist is an out-and-out bad guy. Here he's a murderer on the run who seeks shelter at the home of renegade scientist John Carradine. Carradine has an invisible dog and now has the perfect opportunity to try his serum on a human guinea pig for the first time...
It's another lively story with good humour and fine special effects, and they offer something here here by having semi-transparency as a new state. The returning Jon Hall gives a totally different performance to his one in the last movie, and overall this is full of intrigue, plotting and peril. I'm always a sucker for a movie where a dog is one of the heroes too and I love Brutus in this one.
It's another lively story with good humour and fine special effects, and they offer something here here by having semi-transparency as a new state. The returning Jon Hall gives a totally different performance to his one in the last movie, and overall this is full of intrigue, plotting and peril. I'm always a sucker for a movie where a dog is one of the heroes too and I love Brutus in this one.
Last In The Series.
AaronCapenBanner25 October 2013
Jon Hall returns, though not as Invisible Agent Frank Raymond, instead as escaped criminal Richard Griffin(no relation to the previous Griffins apparently) who finds refuge in the home of Dr. Drury(played by John Carradine) a kindly inventor who also has developed an invisibility serum, which he tests on Griffin, who then uses it to avenge himself on the treacherous couple(played by Lester Mathews and Gale Sondergaard) whom he blames for cheating him and leaving for dead. Griffin is already crazy, so the serum isn't to blame this time...Evelyn Ankers has a small role as a potential love interest. Poor entry was also the last, and it's easy to see why: below average F/X(visible wires in lifting scenes!) uninteresting and tired story, and a waste of good actors. No point to this one at all, and is best forgotten.
Under-appreciated Gem of the Genre
lodger39 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This, the last of the Universal 'Invisible Man' series (before meeting Abbott & Costello), is a very enjoyable film that showed there was still life left in the concept. I won't outline the entire plot here, but be warned that spoilers will follow. Jon Hall, in his second invisible outing, plays a criminal named Robert Griffin who uses a formula for invisibility to exact his revenge on those that wronged him. It is interesting to note that in all the other films in the series it is the potion that affects the mentality of the respective invisible men, but in this film Griffin is unhinged to begin with and uses the opportunity invisibility allows him to realize his mad ambitions. In this particular aspect, and in a few other instances, this film is closer to the book than the other films (although the first film is an unrivaled masterpiece). As an audience we feel no real sympathy for the Griffin in 'Revenge', only fear. This is a dangerous man from the start who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Another enjoyable feature of this entry is the very creative use of special effects, something that each film toyed with in new ways. Although the budget must have been pretty small for a film of this type (the matte effect isn't as perfect as in other films) the crew still managed to perform some amazing tricks. Of particular note is the scene where Griffin puts his invisible arm into an aquarium, the arm becoming visible like a bubble, and then confronting his foes with water outlining his invisible face. Very eerie and very effective. This film has something to offer any fan of classic horror. Granted, computer effects have done away with the types of effects done decades ago, this film did more with them that other invisible man movies have in later years (especially the hollow attempt done recently) and remains enjoyable to this day.
The Invisible Man's Revenge(1944)
robfollower16 July 2020
On Hall is much stronger here than in Agent; constantly barking out orders, his voice has a real evil tone in it even if I still miss Claude Rains or Vincent Price. Comedian Leon Errol is quite a decent foil for him as his alcoholic pal though for me the standout of the film is John Carradine, in his first Universal horror role. As Professor Drury, he gives a very detailed variation on the typical Mad Scientist, filtering some humanity and even humour through his performance while dominating every scene he is in. Composer Hans J.Salter wrote an original score for this film and it does the job while not being nearly one of his best. His theme for Griffin, threaded nicely throughout the score, is suitably dramatic but is rather forgettable and a more dissonant, eerie motif used as a kind of 'madness theme' is more effective, while on other occasions it seems the composer is trying to give him more feeling than the film actually suggests. Despite its general mediocrity, I still just about enjoyed The Invisible Man's Revenge; it entertains if you don't expect much, but it clearly shows the studio running out of ideas for the subject, a shame as the Invisible Man series shows quite a bit of invention for the most part.
There is no revenge, it's another reboot of the series
ashecatlin24 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
There is hardly and invisible man in this, like most this is another reboot of the brand.
Some guy escapes a nut house, they never made it clear if he was or wasn't a killer before hand. Then buys a suit, breaks into someone's house and says he's owed most of their money as they had a deal. They drug him and throw him out, as normal people would do. Then he stumbles across a random bloke an stays with him, then they break up and he bumps into a mad scientist. Who turns him invisible then he goes with the random bloke to play darts. After that he threatens the people he went to first., the tell the scientist to turn him visible again so he can get with a girl. He kills him and then I forget how the movie goes.
It's not memorable to say the least, it's just another stinking reboot of a good brand. Why after the had a phenomenal first one, they decided to piss up stream is beyond me. Hollow Man as well as the remake shows the potential that this series could have lived up to, heck they could have even done a Mummy of Frankenstien route were it's not always the same bloke. But for some baffling reason they insert comedy into the series and try to force the invisible aspect into the movies, it just never works.
Some guy escapes a nut house, they never made it clear if he was or wasn't a killer before hand. Then buys a suit, breaks into someone's house and says he's owed most of their money as they had a deal. They drug him and throw him out, as normal people would do. Then he stumbles across a random bloke an stays with him, then they break up and he bumps into a mad scientist. Who turns him invisible then he goes with the random bloke to play darts. After that he threatens the people he went to first., the tell the scientist to turn him visible again so he can get with a girl. He kills him and then I forget how the movie goes.
It's not memorable to say the least, it's just another stinking reboot of a good brand. Why after the had a phenomenal first one, they decided to piss up stream is beyond me. Hollow Man as well as the remake shows the potential that this series could have lived up to, heck they could have even done a Mummy of Frankenstien route were it's not always the same bloke. But for some baffling reason they insert comedy into the series and try to force the invisible aspect into the movies, it just never works.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
