Le retour de l'homme invisible

I had watched this twice as a kid on Italian TV and remember loving it; however, as was the case with THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942), when I caught up with it again as an adult via DVD, it proved something of a let down! Mind you, it's still a pretty good film and John P. Fulton's trick work is as brilliant as ever. And yet, I felt that it tried a bit too hard to duplicate those elements which made the original so successful to begin with: the eccentric Englishness so unique to Whale's work, for instance, comes off as somewhat heavy-handed this time around; the very young Vincent Price has yet to come into his own as a horror icon and his lapses into madness are overdone, not matching Claude Rains' menacing delivery. Besides, the identity of the villain is no mystery here! Still, while I particularly missed the wit of the original, Joe May's expert handling and Milton Krasner's effective lighting give the film a suitably Germanic feel at times. Ultimately, I feel that of all the first sequels to the original Universal monster films (BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935], DRACULA'S DAUGHTER [1936], THE MUMMY'S HAND [1940] and FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN [1943]), this one is perhaps the least impressive - as all the others seemed to go in different directions.

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."

The Invisible Man (1933) stands alone as being the greatest adaptation of H.G. Wells' story because it follows the novel's storyline and captures the atmosphere of the original work. The film also has the ability to polish some of the scenes with humor. Like other Universal horror classics, it deserved and got sequels, and though the Invisible Man Returns was a lesser effort, it was far superior than any other attempt to remake the classic (the recently made Hollow Man was down right horrible and, yes, hollow.) The Invisible Man Returns begins by introducing us to the brother of the first film's invisible one who escapes prison using the formula his brother developed. This is a far-fetched and awkward way to create a sequel, but once it's out of the way the rest of the film again captures the formula, fun and atmosphere of the original. Followed with mixed results by The Invisible Woman (comedy), The Invisible Agent, The Invisible Man's Revenge and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (which features the Invisible One).

THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS is really the story of Frank Griffin's brother, Geoffrey (VINCENT PRICE), who is wrongly accused of murder and imprisoned. Helping him escape is a doctor (JOHN SUTTON) who injects him with a serum to make him invisible. Griffin then sets about trying to get to the bottom of who the real murderer is.

That's the only weak spot in the story. The identity of the real murderer is known much too soon rather than stalling the revelation for better suspense.

Lovely NAN GREY (who resembles blonde Brenda Joyce in so many scenes), is excellent as the love interest. She gives a warm and natural performance as the woman who sympathizes with Griffin's plight. VINCENT PRICE is fine until he has to show madness and descends into overacting with his maniacal laughter. SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE and ALAN NAPIER set the standard for good acting among the supporting cast. Napier is especially effective as a man tormented by the Invisible Man in a scene that takes place in a lonely wooded area.

There are times when the character of Frank Griffin is written in a way that is most unsympathetic and mean spirited and Price is especially nasty in conveying this aspect of his role. In other words, there's a touch of villainy in his performance.

But the story is a clever one, standing apart from the original INVISIBLE MAN that starred Claude Rains and is well done. Some of the special effects may be a bit creaky but understandably so, and nevertheless the film is a fine example of how far those effects had advanced technically by the '40s.

Well worth watching, especially if you're a fan of Universal's horror films.