7/10
"But if the worst comes to the worst, I can always get a job haunting a house."
26 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
In a way, this film is almost as good as the original 1933 film "The Invisible Man", but because it's a sequel it rates a minor notch lower. But it's got it's share of special effects that were pretty challenging for the era in which it was made, as well as a handful of inconsistencies in the story line like the previous film. I especially liked the stunt where Willie Spears (Alan Napier) is continuously dunked into the pond by the Invisible Man. In this picture, it's George Radcliffe (Vincent Price), and it's up to Dr. Frank Griffin (John Sutton) to find the antidote to the invisibility serum that has the potential to drive it's user mad and delusional.

What I found kind of funny, as well as ironic, was the use of a police report to identify the Invisible Man from the 1933 classic. The photo of Claude Rains in this film occupied about as much screen time as his corpse did at the end of the first movie. Otherwise, Rains was nowhere visible in the story. Similarly, we only see Vincent Price at the very end of the movie when he's taken the antidote to make him corporeal once again.

But the biggest kick I got out of the movie was when the helmeted police wearing gas masks and cloaks came on the scene to hunt down and capture the Invisible Man at Radcliffe Manor. It made me wonder if in fact they could have been the inspiration for Darth Vader. Ultimately, the film is a fun part of the Invisible Man legacy, leaving only one question in this viewer's mind coming out of the picture - Can an invisible hand leave visible fingerprints?
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed