In January of 1940 nearly seven years after the release of the first film (a classic in every sense of the word), it's sequel "The Invisible Man Returns" arrived, this time he's played by an American actor - the late and great Vincent Price.
In The Invisible Man Returns the dapper and refined 6 foot 5 actor portrays the invisible man with a fair degree of effectiveness (though certainly not as spectacularly or as vividly as his British counterpart years earlier) and the film as a whole is a handsomely staged, big-budget sequel that features a good cast and an even better crew backing them up. To put it one way when the invisible man returned so did the renowned special-effects expert John P. Fulton; whose indelible contributions greatly enhanced the distinctive visual style of The Invisible Man film series and several other early Universal classics. If only the director of this film was as talented as it's special-effect guru, but that's certainly not the case here. The first Invisible Man film benefited from the masterful direction of James Whale, however, this film was directed by a far less talented director, Joe May (a veteran German director of temperamental nature) whose workman-like sense of direction clearly doesn't produce the same levels of energy or enthusiasm. However, if there's one aspect where this film is superior to the first film, it would certainly be from a musical angle, The Invisible Man Returns is blessed with one of the best efforts from the the renowned duo of Hans J. Salter and Frank Skinner; who at the time were Universal Studio's go-to team when a new horror score was needed. I'd also say that The Invisible Man Returns has the edge in terms of cinematography, the sequel has a bit more spit and polish to it compared to the original, resulting in an overall smoother visual presentation. You certainly can't fault this films camera-work, it's beautifully shot from the opening frame to the last.
However, every time I see The Invisible Man Returns it leaves me with the same impression, though it's a good sequel, it's certainly not in the same league as the original. It's obviously lacking much of the verve and excitement that the first film has in spades. But why is that? First off lets start with the cast, Vincent Price though visually more impressive at a towering 6'5, but the actors voice is definitely not the equal to that of Claude Rains, maybe had he been 30 years older at the time that would have made the difference, as his voice became much more distinctive with age. Secondly director Joe May simply lacked the distinctive flair for sly and witty or "impish" humor that James Whale was well known for. Thirdly the movies script required that the invisible man's actions to be held much more in check this time around, because after all, unlike in the original film, in the sequel the invisible man is the "good guy" and as the rules stipulate the good guys can't be running around the countryside murdering and maiming. Those are three obvious reasons I could detect as to why this sequel fails to live up to the original - though there may be more. Even so there's still a lot to like about this classic film, such as, the invisibility effects which are every bit as good and in some cases even better than first film, you get a few good hefty doses of those distinctively ego-maniacal rantings and ravings (a side-effect of the invisibility drug), there's the aforementioned musical brilliance, then there's the humor aspect and though it's not as funny as one would hope, it's certainly not devoid of humor, as there are several funny moments seen throughout the film - people think they're seeing ghosts after all.
And if the Invisible Man Returns doesn't move you, relax, because there were at least three other "Invisible" movies made shortly thereafter in the form of "The Invisible Woman" (1940), "Invisible Agent" (1942) and "The Invisible Man's Revenge" (1944). It's my opinion that none of those three are better than the first two films, but they too have there moments and not surprisingly The Invisible Woman is the lightest and most whimsical of the lot (having none of the demonic charm and vindictive fury that THE Invisible Man, a.k.a. Claude Rains, exudes).
One last thing, as of yet I still haven't heard a compelling answer as to why they changed the named of the drug from Monocaine to Duocaine. Personally I always preferred Monocaine, simply because it sounds like the more dangerous of the two.
In The Invisible Man Returns the dapper and refined 6 foot 5 actor portrays the invisible man with a fair degree of effectiveness (though certainly not as spectacularly or as vividly as his British counterpart years earlier) and the film as a whole is a handsomely staged, big-budget sequel that features a good cast and an even better crew backing them up. To put it one way when the invisible man returned so did the renowned special-effects expert John P. Fulton; whose indelible contributions greatly enhanced the distinctive visual style of The Invisible Man film series and several other early Universal classics. If only the director of this film was as talented as it's special-effect guru, but that's certainly not the case here. The first Invisible Man film benefited from the masterful direction of James Whale, however, this film was directed by a far less talented director, Joe May (a veteran German director of temperamental nature) whose workman-like sense of direction clearly doesn't produce the same levels of energy or enthusiasm. However, if there's one aspect where this film is superior to the first film, it would certainly be from a musical angle, The Invisible Man Returns is blessed with one of the best efforts from the the renowned duo of Hans J. Salter and Frank Skinner; who at the time were Universal Studio's go-to team when a new horror score was needed. I'd also say that The Invisible Man Returns has the edge in terms of cinematography, the sequel has a bit more spit and polish to it compared to the original, resulting in an overall smoother visual presentation. You certainly can't fault this films camera-work, it's beautifully shot from the opening frame to the last.
However, every time I see The Invisible Man Returns it leaves me with the same impression, though it's a good sequel, it's certainly not in the same league as the original. It's obviously lacking much of the verve and excitement that the first film has in spades. But why is that? First off lets start with the cast, Vincent Price though visually more impressive at a towering 6'5, but the actors voice is definitely not the equal to that of Claude Rains, maybe had he been 30 years older at the time that would have made the difference, as his voice became much more distinctive with age. Secondly director Joe May simply lacked the distinctive flair for sly and witty or "impish" humor that James Whale was well known for. Thirdly the movies script required that the invisible man's actions to be held much more in check this time around, because after all, unlike in the original film, in the sequel the invisible man is the "good guy" and as the rules stipulate the good guys can't be running around the countryside murdering and maiming. Those are three obvious reasons I could detect as to why this sequel fails to live up to the original - though there may be more. Even so there's still a lot to like about this classic film, such as, the invisibility effects which are every bit as good and in some cases even better than first film, you get a few good hefty doses of those distinctively ego-maniacal rantings and ravings (a side-effect of the invisibility drug), there's the aforementioned musical brilliance, then there's the humor aspect and though it's not as funny as one would hope, it's certainly not devoid of humor, as there are several funny moments seen throughout the film - people think they're seeing ghosts after all.
And if the Invisible Man Returns doesn't move you, relax, because there were at least three other "Invisible" movies made shortly thereafter in the form of "The Invisible Woman" (1940), "Invisible Agent" (1942) and "The Invisible Man's Revenge" (1944). It's my opinion that none of those three are better than the first two films, but they too have there moments and not surprisingly The Invisible Woman is the lightest and most whimsical of the lot (having none of the demonic charm and vindictive fury that THE Invisible Man, a.k.a. Claude Rains, exudes).
One last thing, as of yet I still haven't heard a compelling answer as to why they changed the named of the drug from Monocaine to Duocaine. Personally I always preferred Monocaine, simply because it sounds like the more dangerous of the two.