Fear the Invisible Man

The costumes? The moment of time, The accent, Lots are revealed from a handwritten notes, the weather, the whole environment is very well done. But as both a cutting edge of becoming invisible and to just do a very impossible task by the invisible man to obtain his journals. Why? It cannot be shared by any means, there's only one single copy. I tried to detach myself from the present but I can't do it, So as I watched about halfway I started googling and I ended up letting the YouTube quickies play while I watched the movie. If I didn't get bored halfway I would have not allowed any distractions obviously but Freebies has got the most boring ads so there you go.

Firstly, I never completely tear down small budget independent movies like this as it's hard to get movies financed, cast and made.

That being said, this Is very poor fair. Considering it is an invisible man movie it could and should have been fairly watchable at the very least. However, the plot is boring, the dialogue laughable, the acting for the most part is historically bad, the direction is talentless, the editing is practically non existent, it's like they just shot what was needed and cobbled it together with sticky tape.

There are a couple of parts that are passable. Mhairi Calvey is ok in the lead and some of the effects are ok considering the budget.

Shame Really, could have been so much better.

After the fantastic opening scene this quickly descends into total boredom. The first issue I noticed was that the dialogue quality was pretty terrible, especially for the invisible man which sounded like it was recorded in the bathroom and not at the location. The voice acting was good though. In fact overall I had no problem with the acting overall. The effects are 10% incredible, 50% adequate and 40% a bit of a mess. There are some minor plot holes and nonsensical character motivations like almost everything the detective does. The production quality is mostly very good, the locations and costumes are really excellent and the cinematography is faultless, if a little uninspired. Technically the only issue is the awful dialogue quality and some of the ADR is probably the worst I have ever heard in anything ever. The real issues that make this film so bad is that it lacks atmosphere and it's really boring. After the start nothing happens. Even the ending is a non-event. I'll end by comparing this to some other films: For similar story but with good pacing and characters watch Hollow Man (2000), for great practical effects and relatability watch The Entity (1982), for great atmosphere and mystery watch The Others (2001) and for a character driven story watch The Invisible Man (2020).

One piece at a time, every great classic is being destroyed. Every day, I hear the words of George Orwell in his most famous work - "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

This was no exception. Being a fan of the HG Wells' work, I really wanted to like this. Unfortunately, this was 100 minutes wasted.

The movie itself was as boring as watching paint dry. Besides that, for a story about the invisible man, we seem to spend most of the movie following the girl around instead.

In the original, the process not only turned the inventor invisible, but also insane. With this incarnation, we are never shown anything at all about his past pre-transformation, so we have nothing on which to base his current obsessions. If you ask me, he doesn't act any differently than most people walking around today.

The acting was subpar, but that wasn't the worst. The worst was the apparent complete lack of a continuity editor. So many things are wrong that anyone competent at the job should have caught. For instance, when the man gets shot, there's no blood anywhere - obviously, because his blood would be invisible as well. But when the wound is bandaged, suddenly the blood becomes visible seeping through the gauze. But it's ok, because we're told that his blood becomes visible when it coagulates. :eye_roll: Really? OK, so why, when he steps on a broken bottle later do we see blood dripping and pooling on the glass? A wine bottle is taken from a wino and broken - mid swig - yet there is no liquid in the bottle when it shatters. When books are thrown in to a fireplace, there burst into flames as if they were made of magicians' flash paper. I could go on and on, but I have no desire to bore you just because I had to sit through this snoozefest.

Finally, as with most modern era flick, the past has been modified to reflect current attitudes towards casting... if you know what I mean. Not to mention the mixed affections being placed in front of us as every turn.

Do yourself a favor. Either watch the original 1933 version or better yet... read the book while you still can. I'd go so far as to say that even "Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man" would be better time spent than watching this.

Let's start the review - some of this film is exceptional, the period feel, the locations, the cutting, the costumes, the set dressings, but the acting is awful. A shambolic borefest populated largely by rank amateur actors who should seriously look at their 'true' job prospects before inflicting themselves onscreen. The lead woman,I won't name her as she deserves no recognition whatsoever, who plays the heroine, the widow who prefers red to black in her mourning costumes, and a change of costume in every scene (costly) in this mess, if I can call her lead woman, s a shrieky voiced ham who misses every cue and acts (if you can call it that) as if no other actors are present in every scene she appears in (get back to the day job Mrs, acting ain't for you) , which indeed, is to a certain extent true, as her companion in this rubbish is invisible through most of the film. Mike Beckingham plays the invisible man invisibly, his attempts to deliver the strangulated dialogue in the scenes where he is supposed to be there, but not there (he's invisible) are mournful. A career as a road sweeper beckons. As for the actor who plays the 'colonel', Wayne Gordon, well... did anyone tell him what movie he was actually in??? His delivery is like someone trying and failing for an audition in 'Spooks' - dreadful! Hopelessly miscast and hopelessly lost in his own self esteem as an actor, (a graduate from the McDonald's school of acting - a flat white and a cheeseburger please Wayne) are the two descriptions that spring to mind. Moving on to the veteran actor David Hayman's brief appearance in this mess - why David, why? Why did you get top billing, your fee, your name, were you an 'angel' financing this farrago of a film? Do tell! Are you that desperate for work? Shame on you! Choose your parts better next time luv ok? I won't mention the rest of the cast, I hope the pay check they got for this was worth the humiliation of actually appearing in it, Nuff said. Another dud from 'director' Paul Dudbridge! Bin it, don't buy it!