Vuelve el hombre invisible

Universal's first sequel to the Claude Rains classic, whilst not as stylishly bizarre as James Whale's original, is still a very enjoyable sequel. The film stars Vincent Price (who, when he was not covered by bandages or special effects only appears as himself for one minute in the film) as Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe who is condemned for a murder he did not commit, which leads to him to be beg Dr. Frank Griffin (John Sutton) to inject him with the invisibility serum despite Griffin's warning that it will drive him mad. The film went through a few screenwriters and directors before Universal chose Joe May to direct and Lester K. Cole and Curt Siodmak to write the script. Despite being plagued with production problems (the films budget of $243,750 and 27-day filming schedule were not adequate for the special effects and May's time to direct), the movie was a huge hit. It saw the studios back lot turned into an English mining town complete with a coal pile and coal escalator that was 75 feet long, and the special effects by John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgcock receive an Oscar nomination.

It took Universal Studios seven years to produce this sequel to The Invisible Man, but in some regards, it was worth the wait. Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) is an innocent man condemned to death for a murder he didn't commit. At the last minute, Radcliffe's gal pal, Helen (Nan Grey), and the friendly mad doctor, Frank Griffin (John Sutton), decide the only way to save Radcliffe is by injecting him with the invisibility serum invented by Jack Griffin. Radcliffe's invisibility enables him to escape the gallows and easily elude the police led by the wily Inspector Sampson (Cecil Kelloway). Radcliffe figures out the identity of the murderer but his behavior soon borders on madness, unsettling Dr. Griffin and Helen. Should they continue to aid Radcliffe or rat him out to the constabulary? Will Radcliffe remain sane long enough to clear his name or will the law have to gun him down like his phantom predecessor, Jack Griffin?

This is a real rarity among sequels in that it is nearly as good as the original. It's one of my favorites in this genre. The story moves along briskly, features some intriguing scenes, and offers some occasional humor. The acting is solid. The special effects though primitive by today's standards are still effective. That doesn't mean it is without it share of faults. Chief among them is why they didn't inject Radcliffe earlier instead of waiting till the day of his execution? Or better yet, inject Helen, so she might solve the crime. Speaking of solving the crime, Radcliffe uncovers the real murderer's identity much too easily. Still, I would love to see Universal Studios remake this someday with a woman as the unseen protagonist/fugitive-Thandie Newton would be my choice. But, knowing Universal Studios, I probably couldn't get that lucky.

In general, it seems that sequels seldom live up to the originals. There are just too many examples I can think of when this was the case. In addition, sequels that take an entirely different approach to the original subject matter often are abysmal failures as well (such as the wonderful VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED and it's incredibly awful and saccharine CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED). In light of this, I was very pleasantly surprised to this see that this film, while quite different from the fantastic original, is still an exceptional film.

Much of the reason for the film being so good was that the film was made by Universal Studios during a very productive period for their horror films. They just knew how to put the whole package together to make a dandy film. Additionally, the cast really helped as well, as Vincent Price (mostly just his voice, as he IS invisible through almost all the film), Cedric Hartwicke, Cecil Kellaway and many others worked together to quite nicely. The writing, also, is a big standout, as the film COULD have easily been just another "hack" sequel. Using bits of humor here and there throughout the film and providing a great ending really made this film worth while.

The writer of the summary needs to watch the movie again- Vincent Price is NOT related to the Invisible Man Griffin, nor his brother. His character name is Radcliffe.Personally, I don't think that Price was doing that much over-acting- when the part called for him to be deranged,it seems that his portrayal was accurate. Nan Grey plays her part well- and is as lovely as she was in "Dracula's Daughter." I find Cecil Kellaway's Inspector Sampson to be a little too self-assured in parts, but Alan Napier shows a depth of characterization far beyond that which he would show in his role of Alfred the butler in the 1960s "Batman" television show. Though this sequel is not as impressive as Claude Rains "Invisible Man"-it remains a worthy sequel- far better than "Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man."

There are a lot of reasons why this 1940 sequel is better than the original INVISIBLE MAN. In the first movie, the Invisible Man was a dilettante, a haughty scientist who shot himself up with the invisibility drug "for kicks." Claude Rains played the character with such a supercilious air that it was hard to care when he lost it all.

But in this well-written sequel, the Invisible Man is a true hero. Geoffrey Radcliffe is a wealthy gentleman with class, courage, and a sense of humor. Someone has framed him for murder, and with the help of his devoted girl friend and trustworthy company doctor, he sets out to make things right.

Vincent Price is perfect as Geoffrey. He gives this invisible man plenty of guts, along with goodness, humility, and a wonderfully self-deprecating sense of humor. When madness sets in, of course, Price can babble with the best of them. But this time around, you care. This is a man who ran his business empire for the benefit of the workers, a man who can tease his weeping girl friend about how "lucky" she is not to see his face.

Ladylike and innocent-looking Nan Grey is a horror legend for her bit role as the waif-like streetwalker in Dracula's Daughter. Here she gets to play the same gentle, sensitive type, only warmer and more womanly. Watching Helen Manson sit up all night watching over her suffering love, falling asleep in her chair, and fainting at the sight of his disfiguring bandages, you will fall in love with her yourself. It's easy to see why Geoffrey loves her enough to risk madness and death to be by her side, and why the villain was willing to stoop to murder for her sake.

Sir Cedrick Hardwicke is mostly remembered today for playing kindly, kingly old gentlemen in epics like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. But here he is a ruthless, cold villain, a murderer who fights for greed and gain. The attraction to lovely Helen is only hinted at, just a glance here and a tender word there. But it gives just the right touch of depth and tragedy to an amazingly nuanced performance.

Just as many critics feel Dracula's Daughter was a deeper film than Dracula, so INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS may well be an improvement over the original classic.

Long live Universal Horror!