GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

lemon_magic 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.

mark.waltz The saving grace in this, the last of the "Invisible Man" series (other than a brief return with Abbott and Costello who basically encountered every Universal monster at some point in their career) is John Carradine as a mad scientist, a variation of Ernest Theiser's mad doctor in "The Bride of Frankenstein", complete with an invisible zoo who wants to add the vengeful Jon Hall to his collection of guinea pigs (one of which he actually has). Carradine does not realize what a monster he's creating as Hall is out for revenge against old business partners he claimed left him for dead in Africa years before. Now, he claims not only their entire estate but their daughter as well.The most moving element of all the "Invisible Man" movies is here with the presence of Carradine's loyal dog, brought back to sight through a blood transfusion who goes out of his way to expose the evil Hall by baying outside the mansion where Hall runs to after committing his most evil act. Leon Errol adds comic relief as Hall's cockney sidekick (hysterically "winning" at a game of darts), while Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard are sadly wasted after a great start as the accused Baron and Baroness who may or may not be guilty, a fact which is never proved. Universal horror perennial Evelyn Ankers is their beautiful daughter and Alan Curtis the man she truly loves in spite of Hall's demanding of her hand in marriage. Still entertaining, although revenge here does not result in being sweet, only misguided, and providing us with an invisible man who deserves no sympathy.

mgconlan-1 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.

MARIO GAUCI 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!