Movie Review: THE INVISIBLE MAN

THE INVISIBLE MAN

1933
Unrated


"The fools wouldn't let me work in peace. I had to teach them a lesson."
-- The Invisible Man

The Invisible Man is a 1933 dramatic horror film directed by James Whale that's based off the 1897 H.G. Wells novel of the same name. It tells the story of Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) who, through an experiment gone wrong, has found himself completely invisible to the world around him. Wrapped in a slew of bandages, he stumbles upon an old inn one night and barters for a room to stay so that he can work on an experiment to alter the effects and return him to his normal state. After a few weeks, however, the inn's owners decide to throw Griffin out for not paying the money he owes. Enraged, Griffin hurts the inn's owner and unveils himself to the townspeople, running away as quickly as he can, leaving his things behind. He turns to his old friend Dr. Arthur Kemp (William Harrigan), with whom he worked under Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers), for help and partnership. Griffin tells Kemp of his plans to use his invisibility to create a new world order in which he will lead the people through fear. Terrified for his life and for those around him, Kemp notifies Cranley as well as the authorities of Griffin's proximity before he can start his reign of terror.

I've always been quite a fan of the classic films, and although I haven't seen as many of them as I'd like, I think I have a pretty decent grasp on what makes a good classic film in comparison to what makes a bad one. When it comes to the old-time horror flicks, however, I have yet to come across a truly bad one (well, except maybe for 1943's Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man). The fact that I had yet to see The Invisible Man was a bit of a bother for me, considering I've tried to see most of all the old Universal monster movies. I think I still have a couple left, but that list is definitely dwindling down towards its end.

Let's start with the screenplay for this film. While we're not getting anything terribly impressive, there's enough here to like considering the film's relatively short run-time (it goes on for just over an hour). There's a lot of classic horror cliché playing here: a leading character who isn't truly defined as neither protagonist nor antagonist suffers some sort of medical debacle or mystical enchantment that turns him into a beast that the countryside quickly learns to fear. We have our seeming damsel-in-distress who thinks that love will be enough to cure the beast. We have a strong supporting male who plays foil to our undefined lead, and we have an older man who plays a scientist-type who seems to have all the answers. So in that, our characters are created. However, I especially thought that our Invisible Man was rather well-written, with his maniacal ideas about world domination penetrating quite clearly. The storyline itself is basic: man is changed by failed experiment; man wreaks havoc; man is chased by authorities. You can imagine how it's going to end.

I do want to touch on the acting a little bit because I found it to be a level above what we normally see out of classic horror films like this. Rains is spectacular despite the fact that you only see his face for a few seconds towards the end of the film. Most of his time on-screen is spent covered in bandages, and the rest of his performance is purely vocal, but he still manages to bring a strong presence to the screen even when he isn't physically visible. Had the filmmakers chosen to make the character of the Invisible Man completely invisible, rather than have him put on clothes to make a physical appearance, Rains's voice alone would have been able to make the character believable and still rather terrifying. We also get some good performances from Harrigan and Gloria Stuart, who plans Griffin's love interest in the film.

The real icing on the cake, however, is the special effects used to make the Invisible Man come to life, so to speak. After doing some research, I learned that the special effects wizards who created the effect for the film used a primitive version of "green-screen" technology. Rains would wear an all-black, form-fitting suit then be filmed in front of a completely black screen. When the filmmakers went back to substitute the background, they used matte paintings of the sets behind Rains to fill in the spaces. It's so well-done that you'll almost forget that this movie is now seventy-eight years old. It's hard to believe that special effects this fantastic were made all the way back in 1933, but even today, they should be applauded.

Overall, The Invisible Man is a stunning movie that left me wanting more. While I know that a slew of sequels were made, I'm sure none of them could possibly come close to the greatness that this film exhibited. Is it the greatest classic horror film I've yet to see? Not quite - it'd be rather tough to beat out 1935's Bride of Frankenstein. However, it's still one of the better ones you're likely to come across, so if you're into the classic movie fare, definitely give this one a go.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

1935
PG

Bride of Frankenstein is a 1935 horror film directed by James Whale that serves as a direct sequel to 1931's Frankenstein. We pick up where the previous story left off, seeing the windmill where the Monster (Boris Karloff) burn to the ground. The townsfolk, thinking that the Monster has been destroyed, take Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) back to his home where his soon-to-be-wife Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) nurses him back to health. During his recovery, he is visited by Doctor Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) who has taken interest in his ability to create life. The doctor shows Frankenstein his own creations and asks for his help in creating a female partner for the now-on-the-loose Monster. After disregarding the offer, Pretorius finds the Monster and commands him to kidnap Elizabeth in the hopes of blackmailing Frankenstein into helping with his experiment.

In the annals of my movie-viewing history, there have only been a few instances where a sequel outperforms the original film. A lot of film buffs claim that The Godfather: Part II is better than its immediate predecessor (I tend to disagree, having enjoyed the first installment much more). I think that Terminator 2: Judgment Day is a huge step up from The Terminator. You could also make the argument that The Empire Strikes Back is better than the first Star Wars movie. However, once you get past these and maybe less than a handful of other examples, you'll have exhausted your evidence. Luckily, I have found one more piece for the argument in Bride of Frankenstein.

I know that I usually start with talk of screenplay, but let's go with acting first this time around. Overall, the acting in this movie is a huge step ahead of the performances put forth in Frankenstein. With Clive and Karloff the only major returning characters - aside from Elizabeth who is played by a different actress this time around - we have a slew of new, albeit supporting, characters on exposé. Ernest Thesiger is sufficiently creepy and maniacal in his role, crafting a very charismatic villain. Early on, you almost want to like the guy, but there's something that constantly chews at the back of your mind that tells you this guy is bad news. I did have a little bit of grief with the character Minnie (Una O'Connor), who was either an extremely nosy concerned citizen or a worker in the Frankenstein mansion. O'Connor played the part a little too over-the-top for my personal tastes, but she does provide a couple of laughs here and there. However, our two returning leads are the real story here. Clive takes his familiar role and makes Frankenstein a more realistic man. He has the ability to tone down the manic energy that drove his character in the original film, crafting a subtly great performance. As good as Clive is, the real props have to go to Boris Karloff who completely humanizes the Monster by the end of the movie. Through a series of events, the Monster quickly learns how to speak in stunted English, but his vocabulary grows throughout the film. We even see some emotion, including a single teardrop running down the cheek! (I'm a sucker for that, folks. You can bawl all you want, but if you can keep it to a single teardrop running down the cheek, you'll completely hook me into the emotion.) Congratulations, Mr. Karloff, for humanizing a re-animated mass of dead tissue.

Now, to the screenplay, which I found to be quite superb. We actually open the film with a prologue in a British loft with two men and a woman who is quickly identified as Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester), the author of the novel, Frankenstein. She starts to tell the men the continuation of the story, and that's how we get to the events of this movie. One of the things I liked about this screenplay, in contrast with its predecessor, is the fact that we are given a much more humanized Monster. We see his progression from a mindless brute to a thoughtful and - even if he's still prone to outbursts of anger - caring man. There's one scene that put an emotional stamp on the film. During his wandering around the forest, the Monster stumbles upon an old cottage that housed an old blind man (O.P. Heggie) who graciously welcomes the Monster into his home. He tells the Monster that he has prayed to God to send him a friend, and the two soon develop a close friendship (this is where the Monster starts to learn language, by the way). I don't really know what more to say about it other than the screenplay is definitely a step up from the first film, and I was thoroughly impressed with it. Oh, and the climax of the film is, well, brilliant, to say the least.

Because this movie is a sequel, you may need to see the original Frankenstein before delving into Bride of Frankenstein. I mean, I'm sure you could pick up the storyline pretty easily - they do give a little bit of a re-cap in the prologue - but I think you'll have more of an appreciation for the brilliance of Bride of Frankenstein if you take the time to watch the original first.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: A-
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #1502 Thumbs Up