The Invisible Man (1933) User Reviews

Visibly stunning!!!

[The_Void · 9/10 · 5 October 2005]

James Whale is, for good reason, most famous for his Frankenstein films. However, better than both (albeit marginally) is this film - The Invisible Man. When I first saw this, I couldn't believe that it's over seventy years old and upon a second viewing; the film just gets better and better. Considering the time in which it was made, The Invisible Man is one of the most amazing films of all time. The special effects are what really make the film. CGI has pretty much spoilt this sort of reaction to a movie. The Invisible Man really has that 'how did they do it?' feel, which movie audiences of yesteryear so often enjoyed, and it's done such a good job with it that I'm still wondering today. The plot gives way to lots of trickery and visual magic as it follows a mad scientist who has turned himself invisible. However, things aren't so simple because one of the drugs he used has properties that can turn a man insane; and this side of the drug has had a huge effect on our man. Believing he can take over the world, he recruits the help of one of his fellow scientists and sets about a reign of invisible terror.

You would think that it would be hard to convince an audience that one of your characters is invisible; but Whale makes it look easy! Claude Rains spends much of the film either under the cover of bandages or not even in it, but it doesn't matter because it's not him but his voice that makes the performance. The fiendishness of his voice is compelling and pure evil, and I don't believe that there is a better man in existence for this role. There isn't a lot of physical acting for him to do, but this is made up for with a dazzling array of special effects. We get to see a shirt move on it's own, things fly around rooms and havoc is caused. It really shows Whale's genius to pull this off. Whale is best known as a horror director, but it's obvious that he has a great respect for comedy also as his Frankenstein films were very tongue-in-cheek, and so is this film. The scenes that see the invisible man causing mayhem are hilarious, and will delight anyone who sees the film. Whale's ability to entertain is absolute, and that is why the films he made for the studio were always the biggest successes. The Invisible Man is one of the greatest achievements in cinema history, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong!

There's breathing in my barn!

[film-critic · 9/10 · 22 October 2005]

Claude Rains. The man. The myth. The legend. You cannot talk about this film, whether in conversation or in any review, without placing this actor on the tip of your tongue. He is the epitome of the madness that surrounded the power-hungry Invisible Man. In this day of modern cinematic wonder, most full-fledged actors would want their faces to be in front of the camera, showcasing the entire film. Directors would want this fledgling star to promote their film, get kiddies interested in spending their money, and for financiers to see the profits of their contributions. Let's face it, if Brad Pitt is in a movie, typically most audience members are actually going to "see" Brad Pitt. Thankfully, we have directors like James Whale and his interpretation of H.G.Wells' classic The Invisible Man. Whale took a powerful story, expanded it, breathed life into it, and followed up with quite possibly one of the most sinister villains in movie horror history since Hannibal Lector. He is crude, he is heartless, and he wants nothing more than world domination … he is Claude Rains … and yet, until the end of the film, we never see the white's of his eyes.

There are several reasons why I just fell in love with this film, outside of the cataclysmic performance of Claude Rains. Ohhhh, Claude Rains. I loved the way that this movie was filmed. I loved the scope of the Invisible Man's terror. Whale could have kept his antagonist to committing just single murders of friends and family, he could of just kept it confined to just one single town, he could have kept our focus directly on the turmoil of Rains, but instead, he decided (amazingly!) to open the entire can of worms with success. When I first began this film I was expecting the classic images of angry villagers with pitchforks storming the house that the Invisible Man lived within, but instead, Whale gave us this sort of random chaos that truly created fear around this character. Whale is able to give us the true terror of this madman by perhaps expanding his budget and showing us how big the terror of the Invisible Man is. For example, I never foresaw the horrific train accident, nor the random worker push off the mountain, and when Rains explained to Kemp what the human impact of falling down a ravine would be like, it literally sent shivers down my spine. Whale created a madman better than some modern horror films could ever accomplish.

For a film created in the 1930s, the special effects were spectacular. Sure, CGI was just a glimmer in Lucas' mother's eyes, but James Whale did a superb job of giving us these rare glimpses into the future of special effects. The way that he created the Invisible Man surprised me. I did not expect to ever see the creature without his bandages on, but within ten minutes we are shown the full scope of Whale's creativity. I thought the use of snow, dust, and even the early stages of the overused "green screen" was original for its time. To see Rains smoke as the Invisible Man put a smile on my face. This is a perfect example of a film that used just enough special effects, in the right way, to make the audience forget for a brief time that this was in fact a film … not real life. While the special effects did have one or two flaws (see the Invisible Man riding the stolen bike – were those wires?), I must credit Whale for pushing the envelope for the time. It was surprising to see such quality from such an older film.

If there would be anything that I would change about this film would be the subtext concerning the relationship between Rains and Flora (played by Titanic star Gloria Stuart). I thought this was nearly unnecessary. I understand the value of trying to give a human element to this monster, but I thought that it could have been done without these random scenes. There wasn't really any connection between the two, and we were left with very little information of them prior to the start of the film. Perhaps if there had been a stronger pre-story it would have congealed better. The same can be said for the chemistry and reasonings for the plot points surrounding Rains and Kemp. I could understand why they occurred during the film, but there had to be something more prior to the opening scene. I wanted to know more. I think that is a good sign for a film, when you are left wondering what was the story before this one … and even what was it afterwards.

Overall, I thought this was an exceptional film. I now have this newfound respect for Claude Rains, a man I knew nothing about prior to watching this film. He carried this film and honestly successfully pulled off one of the most frightening madmen this world has ever seen. I think what scared me the most about him was the fact that he actually, unlike some villains, actually followed through with his vile plans. He was evil, whether the invisibility did it or not, he was pure evil, and I loved every minute of it. The special effects were delightful, with a small subplot that this picture could have gone without. Amazing, and a perfect treat before Halloween!

Grade: ***** out of *****

Classic horror

[perfectbond · 8/10 · 18 December 2004]

I actually saw The Invisible Man (1933) shortly after I saw the James Whale bio-pic Gods and Monsters (1998), starring Ian MacKellan and Brendan Fraser. So it was with that image of the director in my head that I watched this film. Claude Rains (Casablanca) is perfectly cast as the mad scientist/invisible man. The remainder of the cast, though not really challenged much, are more than serviceable in what they are required to do. As has been mentioned by most of the other posters, the special effects hold up rather well even today. An amazing feat considering the film is over 70 years old! The DVD has several interesting documentaries / commentaries that made me appreciate not only this film's entertainment value but its historical significance as well.

Tremendous!

[TimViper1 · 10/10 · 22 September 2002]

This is definitely one of the best horror/sci-fi movies of all-time. The special effects are absolutely off the chart for 1933. I can only imagine the shock of the audiences on opening night back in 1933. "The Invisible Man" must have been the equivilant of Star Wars in terms of special effects for the time period. If you have never seen this movie, find it!

Somewhat Shocking!

[BaronBl00d · 6 November 2000]

Oh! What a wonderful film! The Invisible Man is fraught with witty dialogue, excellent character acting, inventive and creative special effects, insightful direction, and solid, tight scripting. The story is about a scientist that develops a serum which turns himself invisible, for good intent initially. The serum has negative side effects, one of which is turning the scientist into a raving,mad megalomaniac bent on conquering mankind and the world. What is most surprising about the film is its rather perverse sense of black humour(a James Whale specialty) and its cruelty. The Invisible Man is not a benign horror monster but rather a frightening, destructive force capable of acts of violence, madness, and viciousness. The direction is the real star of the film as Whale combines script, acting, mood, and setting amidst the background of ground-breaking special effects that are still impressive to this day. Whale laces his special humour throughout, and this film has no shortage of dark comedic moments. The acting all around is very good with people like Henry Travers, Gloria Stuart, Una O'Connor and William Harrigan especially as a jealous doctor giving all the support they can to a formless Claude Rains. Rains's voice is magnificent and one senses he was made to play the part that would make him famous. Look for Dwight Frye in a small role. A wonderful film experience!

To make the world grovel at his feet.

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 15 September 2005]

Spoiler ahead - a well known one though.

It was his first major film role, and he only appeared at the tale end of the movie for a minute - as a corpse! But Claude Rains was made as of that moment, though it would be awhile before he actually ceased being a villain in all of his films.

James Whale's THE INVISIBLE MAN is possibly the best of the early Universal horror series of the 1930s. FRANKENSTEIN and Dracula (both English and Spanish versions) are great films too, but the threat of Jack Griffin's discovery of invisibility makes the other two seem quaint as threats. One can run from Frankenstein, and one can stay indoors at night with a handy cross or garlic available. But how does one fully protect oneself against someone who is physically strong, mentally smart, and totally determined to kill you if you cannot see him? It's not easy, especially if the goal of this monster is to rule over others. As he puts it, he wishes to have the world grovel at his feet.

In the novel, Griffin's personality is shown to be so selfish from the start that one can tell that no matter what discovery he would have made he would have misused it for power. He has no redeeming features at all. However, his omnipotence is sort of curbed in one way that is not the case in the film. A character is invented by Wells (who is not in the movie) that Griffin frightens into serving as a slave or servant. The character manages to run off with Griffin's chemistry lab and chemicals, as well as Griffin's notebooks. As a result he is trapped in his invisibility, and can't get out of this situation until the novel ends.

The film does have some classic moments of humor (Whale liked to add black humor to his films). When a woman runs screaming down the lane at night followed by an empty pair of pants skipping along reciting "here we go gathering nuts in May" is one. So (more darkly) is during a massive search for Griffin, after he causes a train disaster. One of the volunteers, slightly apart from the others, is grabbed and thrown down and choked. Rains/Griffin, in speaking, says, "Here I am...AREN'T YOU GLAD YOU FOUND ME?!!" It is a chilling moment.

A wonderful blend of thrills and comedy, surrounding a science fiction tale of constant interest, this film never disappoints. I give it a 10 for entertainment value. For helping awaken viewers to reading the works of Herbert George Wells, I'd give it a 12.

Film Still Holds Up, Is Fun Except For Shrieker

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 10 October 2006]

This was great the first time I watched it, but slowly declined with multiple viewings over the years.

Why I slowly lost interest in this, I'm not sure, except for perhaps the incredibly annoying hysterical woman character played by Una O'Connor. Her constant screaming and shrieking took away my enjoyment of this film.

This was Claude Rains' first starring role and he did a fine job, even though you never see his face until the final minutes. His voice was good and his character interesting as he slowly went insane. He had this silly, sadistic laugh as he'd kill people. That's one thing that made this movie a bit different. When I watched this on DVD after a long absence, I was shocked to re-discover how violent Rains' character was in this film.

Even though the film is almost 75 years old, it's still fairly entertaining and not dated as much as you might expect. It also brings out a few interesting dilemmas that an invisible human being would have trying to stay undetected.

By the way, I still think this should be classified "science fiction," not horror.

"I think we'll start with a reign of terror."

[bensonmum2 · 9/10 · 17 May 2006]

People tend to use the word "classic" too freely. I can't help but laugh when I hear some of the movies that people call "classics". The term gets thrown around so much that it often looses some of its importance and real meaning. I try to reserve "classic" to a select group of films that I believe have achieved a certain status and have withstood the test of time. And I have no problem putting the label "classic" on The Invisible Man.

James Whale made a lot of great films in the 1930s. Some (Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, for example) may be better known, but I've always thought of The Invisible Man as the best of the bunch. It's got everything. Terrific performances, incredible special effects, nice comedic touches, and technical brilliance are found in abundance throughout the film.

• Terrific Performances: For someone who only has a few seconds of actual screen time, Claude Rains is amazing. His voice creates such a presence that at times it's easy to forget that he's not actually there. As for Una O'Connor, I've seen some people complain about Whale's use of her, but I think she was never better than in The Invisible Man. She's great whether playing the proper landlord showing a new guest to his room or as the overly hysterical woman afraid for her life. The rest of the cast, especially E.E. Clive and Gloria Stuart, is exceptional.

• Incredible Special Effects: It's amazing to revisit The Invisible Man and see how well the special effects have withstood the passage of time. They were state-of-the-art in 1933 and they remain impressive today. It took some real craftsmanship to pull-off the invisibility gags seen in The Invisible Man. To me, none is more impressive than the first time we get a glimpse under the bandages while he's eating and we see no lower jaw. Impressive stuff!

• Nice Comedic Touches: Billed as a horror film, The Invisible Man actually contains more scenes of humor than horror. I've already mentioned O'Connor, but she's only a small part of the humor in the film. The police, the various frightened passersby, and even Claude Rains himself add to the fun found in The Invisible Man. I'm of the opinion that it never goes overboard, but fits nicely into the plot.

• Technical Brilliance: Beyond the special effects, the film is wonderful from a technical standpoint. Lighting, cinematography, and set design are incredible and some of the best of the 30s. Everything looks perfect. In my opinion, Whale never did better. I've always been impressed by the way Whale used his camera as part of the action when many of his contemporaries seemed content with the "plant it and shoot" style of film-making.

The only negative aspect of the film that I can possibly complain about is William Harrigan in the role of Rains' rival, Dr. Arthur Kemp. He's just not as good as those around him. Other than that little quibble, I've got nothing to complain about. I believe it should be easy to see why I, for one, consider The Invisible Man a classic!

Excellent considering it's age

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 1 September 2005]

For a 72 year old film, The Invisible Man has rather faultless special effects and still seem impressive in this age of CGI. The story is quite simple but it's wonderfully directed by James Whale and has a rather cool atmosphere and enough menace about it to make it a rather good thriller.

Just like the more recent Hollow Man, the story is of a mad doctor (Claude Raines) who creates a serum that can turn a man see-through. As all mad doctors do, he experiments on himself and discovers the hard way that with transparent molecules comes insanity and a murderous streak takes over.

Since I've not read HG Welles' novel I don't know how true to the source material this film is but it's loads of fun and rather timeless. Don't let it's age put you off watching it. But some please gag that Innkeeper's wife!!!

Funny, and How did they do that?

[oskhen · 9/10 · 4 December 2005]

This movie is so great mainly because of two things: The effects and Claude Rains.

To take the first thing first: Effects in modern films doesn't amaze me anymore. "Oh, they have some extremely advanced computer-stuff, how amazing!" - no. Of course it's quite amazing that these computers are so advanced, but that leaves the honour to some computer-people - not to the director and special effects crew. No, it's these oldies that really have the effects, simply because they had to be creative. In The invisible man (and several others, like King Kong (from 1931, I think), I can't do anything but letting the technical masterpiece fill me with awe.

To take the second thing secondly: Claude Rains was, or so they say, really a rather bad actor who was taken because of his voice, and a great voice it is! I can't describe it, you have to hear it. I just wonder where that voice has gone in his other films... By the way is he the only one acting really naturally in this movie, which is from a time where every actor had been taken from the stage.

Oh, I almost forgot: The humour is several places really good. I do still, months later, see a couple of dancing trousers for my inner eye, to the song "Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nuts in May..." One of the funniest scenes I've ever seen!

Of course, it has its flaws, mainly in the acting, but considering that it is so old and so cool, it gets nine out of ten stars, something I give very, very rarely.

Fun and funny, great effects, fast and well acted, but lacks depth or complication

[secondtake · 7/10 · 16 February 2010]

The Invisible Man (1933)

The idea might go back to H.G. Wells, who wrote the book for this story in 1893, but director James Whale makes it a fast, chilling, and comical romp. I can see why Wells didn't particularly like it, but it has lost any literary pretensions and fits into the Universal horror film era that was rocketing the studio to success. Indeed, Whales had just already made Frankenstein, and there are some light echoes from that first film here--a scientist doing experiments that are not sane, a fiancée worried about his being away so long, and the townspeople gathering their bumbling wits together to get the creature.

The creature in this case is just a man, but his invisibility is his invincibility, and he goes on a reign of terror both funny (things fly and men and kicked in the behind) and terrible (lots of murder). Unlike Frankenstein, there is no greater pathos at work. We never really feel anything for the invisible man, played by Claude Rains (in a role that kicked off his career, which must have struck everyone with some irony, since we never really see him). The plot, and the reactions of all the characters from friends to scores of policemen, is simply how to get this guy, how to make him visible enough to see.

The effects are justly famous. The pace is fast, the acting good if a little campy at times, and the dilemma, without overtones, is still great fun, even almost eighty years later.

It alters you, changes you.

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 27 October 2009]

There's a snow storm blowing ferociously, a man trundles towards a signpost that reads Iping. He enters a hostelry called The Lions Head, the patrons of the bar fall silent for the man is bound in bandages. He tells, not asks, the landlady; "I want a room with a fire". This man is Dr. Jack Griffin, soon to wreak havoc and be known as The Invisible Man.

One of the leading lights of the Universal Monster collection of films that terrified and enthralled audiences back in the day. Directed by genre master James Whale, The Invisible Man is a slick fusion of dark humour, berserker science and genuine evil. Quite a feat for a film released in 1933, even more so when one samples the effects used in the piece. Effects that are still today holding up so well they put to shame some of the toy like expensive tricks used by the modern wave of film makers. John P. Fulton take a bow sir.

After Boris Karloff had turned down the chance to play the good doctor gone crazy, on account of the role calling for voice work throughout the film only, except a snippet at the finale, so Whale turned to Claude Rains. Small in stature but silky in voice, Rains clearly sensed an opportunity to launch himself into Hollywood. It may well be, with Whale's expert guidance of course, that he owes his whole career to that 30 second appearance of his face at the end of the film? As was his want, Whale filled out the support cast with odd ball eccentrics that are acted adroitly by the British & Irish thespians. Una O'Connor, Forrester Harvey, Edward E. Clive and Henry Travers are memorable. While American Gloria Stuart as the power insane Griffin's love interest is radiant with what little she has to do.

Based on the now famous story written by H.G. Wells, Whale and R. C. Sheriff's (writer) version remains the definitive Invisible Man adaptation. There's some changes such as the time it is set, and Griffin is not the lunatic he is in the film, which is something that Wells was not too pleased about in spite of liking the film as a whole, but it's still very tight to the source. Sequels, TV series and other modern day adaptations would follow it, but none are as shrewd or as chilling as Whale's daddy is. 9/10

so that was the old woman from "Titanic"...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 4 August 2005]

Having never read H.G. Wells' novel, I don't know whether or not the movie followed the story. But whether or not it did, "The Invisible Man" does have some good lessons about what we shouldn't attempt. Claude Rains plays scientist Jack Griffin, whose experiments make him turn invisible and give him a murderous streak. Sixty-four years before she played Kate Winslet's older self, Gloria Stuart plays Griffin's love interest Flora Cranley. I think that my favorite scene was when Griffin stole a bicycle, so the bicycle basically rode itself.

It's weird to think...Gloria Stuart is the only actress who has worked with both Claude Rains and Leonardo DiCaprio. Well...

Brilliant Special Effects

[J-1984 · 5/10 · 30 July 2001]

Considering that this film was made in the 30's, the special effects are incredible. However, being from a younger generation I found some of the over dramatics very irritating, to the point that I wished one character, played by Una O'Connor, would become one of The Invisible Man's victims. It was the bad acting that made the film drag along for me. But I do think that the special effects mean that this film should be seen, as well as the ever brilliant Claude Raines. Special Effects: 10/10 (for the period) Claude Raines: 9/10 Other Acting: 4/10

Works Very Well

[Snow Leopard · 1 December 2004]

This film version of the H.G. Wells science fiction classic works very well. It has a number of strengths, but it benefits most of all from James Whale's direction, creativity, and technical excellence. Both the flashier aspects of the movie (such as the "invisibility" effects) and also most of the basic elements are done with skill.

The story is for the most part based on the one main idea of "The Invisible Man" who combines his scientific genius with a generous supply of madness. The story is interesting enough in itself, and of course it provides all kinds of opportunities for visual tricks. Whale hits just the right balance in making good use of these opportunities without over-indulging himself.

The visual effects themselves are of excellent quality, and they are far better than all but the very best of the present-day computer imagery. While it is usually rather easy to spot which parts of a movie are computer-generated, Whale's effects are all but seamless, with the exception of a handful of brief moments. They are often quite impressive, without resorting to tired devices, such as explosions and the like, in order to impress those with shorter attention spans.

Claude Rains does quite well for having such limitations on what he could do. The rest of the cast is solid, if mostly unspectacular, letting the story do the work. Una O'Connor somewhat overdoes it with the screaming this time, but otherwise the characters are believable. The acting may seem slightly quaint to those who are accustomed to the pretentious styles of the present generation of performers, but it's certainly better than the grating, self-important performances in some of the recent movies of the same genre.

While the story does not have the thematic depth or the suggestive imagery of horror classics like "Frankenstein" or "Dracula", this adaptation gets everything it can out of the material, telling the story in an entertaining fashion and with technical skill.

Invisible Man of '33 is Still the Best

[d-salliss · 10/10 · 14 August 2005]

From the moment the mysterious stranger walks into the tavern at the start of the film, head bound in bandage, trilby hat, heavy overcoat, gloves and dark goggles, windswept, with a dusting of snow, we are horrified yet engrossed by the evil that lurks ominously about this character. Director, James Whales' classic, 'The Invisible Man,' is the closest big screen adaptation of author H.G. Wells's science fiction novel. Scientist Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) concocts a serum in order to make himself invisible unaware that one of the ingredients induces madness as a side effect. Once invisible, Griffin finds it necessary to exile himself from his colleagues and fiancé at a tavern some distance from his laboratory and place of work so as to synthesise an antiserum for the reversal of the effect of invisibility. The inquisitiveness of the local people, concerning his strange appearance and Griffins growing emotional instability finally drive him on a course of violence leading very soon to murder. Pursued by the police, Griffin eventually finding himself surrounded.

Produced in 1933, 'The Invisible Man' is typically a black and white creation but rather than subtracting from the enjoyment of this film it serves to give it a Gothic feel, pervaded in various degrees, throughout the Universal monster movies of the period, intensifying the eeriness of the subject matter. Given the age of this motion picture it would be unjust to compare the special effect with recent innovations such as CGI; however I believe those whom view this film will be impressed. When Claude Rains unwraps the bandage from around his head, for the first time, to reveal what appears to be an empty space within, it becomes one of those rare iconic cinematic moment not to be missed.

For most actors, to only have their face appear in the final moments of a film, allowing the audience a momentary glimpse of the main protagonist, would be an insurmountable handicap, nevertheless Claude Rains is able to make an impression from the very beginning through the dynamic and assured use of his remarkable voice. A worthy, fear-provoking performance.

'The Invisible Man,' never gets bogged down with a great deal of scientific gobbledygook with the exception of a short but necessary scene in which we are afforded the dubious science surrounding the fictitious Monocaine chemical which is at the root of Griffins madness. Fortunately, much of the film is spent exploring Griffins state of mind, his intentions, his actions and his attempted capture.

One of the absolute greatest Universal horror films

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 30 March 2006]

Apart from Bride of Frankenstein, this is probably my favorite Universal horror movie. It has been overshadowed by Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstein and the Mummy, but it's every bit as good as the best of these. That's because unlike these other films where you have real monsters, you have a "normal" man who becomes invisible and then slowly begins to act in an incredibly psychopathic way. At first, he kills with some hesitation. Later, he laughs maniacally as he kills with great style and panache--laughing diabolically after he ties a guy up and pushes the car with the man inside it off a cliff! It becomes an exploration of the inner evil within us all and so the sense of connection to the "monster" is greater than with traditional monsters because he's just like you and me--it's just that accursed formula that brings out the madness.

Claude Rains, though invisible for much of the movie, does a great job--his voice is one of the greatest in movie history. And the special effects, with one silly exception, are unbelievable for the 1930s--in fact, by today's standards most of them are terrific (especially for the scene where he slowly becomes visible). As I mentioned, there was one silly exception. Late in the movie, the invisible man removes his clothes to try to escape. However, his footprints clearly are those of a person wearing shoes! Oops.

Also, while it is a great way and gave it a 10 because it is such a marvelous film, there is one problem with the film (not the footprints--that was more of a funny mistake). Una O'Connor made parts of the film VERY difficult to watch due to her horrible over-acting (you'll see more of this in "The Bride of Frankenstein"). Her shrieking and histrionics were way overboard--and quite annoying. Subtle, it ain't!! And this is a shame, as the rest of the movie is so wonderful.

breath taking special effects

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 28 August 2015]

On a stormy night, a mysterious bandaged stranger comes in to an inn in Iping, Sussex. He takes a room and does experiments behind closed doors. The innkeeper tries to throw him out but he's attacked by an invisible force. The police come but he takes off his bandage and disappears. He is Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) who accidentally discovered invisibility. His fiancée Flora Cranley (Gloria Stuart) and his employer Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers) who is also Flora's father are both concerned. Griffin coerces his assistant Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan) in joining his mad plan to dominate the town.

The special effects are breath-taking especially considering the era it's made. They are almost seamless when the invisible man takes off his bandages. On the only hand, the story is only functional. It's not that scary as a horror. The town folks are too broadly low-brow. The cops are too stupid. Some of it reminds me of Keystone Cops which is a bad thing when the movie is trying to heighten the tension. This should be a lot scarier.

great classic

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 6 December 2006]

Distinguished character actor Claude Raines was "The Invisible Man" back in 1933 and, at age 46, it was his American debut in films. This all-time classic was directed by James Whale and has some astonishing special effects. It's the story of a scientist fooling around with chemicals and as a result, he's rendered invisible - and crazy, and getting crazier by the minute. He's determined to find the formula that will get him back to being seen, so in a disguise, he takes refuge in an inn where he can work. The disguise consists of a raincoat, gloves, pants, shirt, bandages, a fake nose, sunglasses and a wig. Unfortunately, he starts getting rough with both the staff and the room, and soon he's on the run, naked so no one can see him, killing as he goes and playing pranks, such as taking a cash drawer from a bank and then throwing the money around for people to catch.

We don't get to see Raines until the end, but we hear his masterful voice and really lunatic laugh. The effects are fantastic especially considering it's 1933, and lots of imagination was needed to make up for the lack of technology. People are swung into mid-air with nothing underneath, footprints appear in the snow with nobody apparently making them, a cash drawer hangs in the air - wonderful stuff.

This was a perfect role for Raines as the character's voice and dramatic ability is so important. He would go on to become one of the really great actors in films and would continue working until about two years before he died in 1967, at nearly 78.

The girl he leaves behind is beautiful, classy Gloria Stuart who played a series of gorgeous ingénues in films. 64 years later, she wowed them in Titanic.

Truly a vintage film from Universal.

Classic fantasy terror movie by James Whale with appropriate special effects by John P. Fulton

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 12 October 2019]

Vintage and engrossing horrror-fest with humorous and tongue-in-cheek elements based on HG Well novella about a scientist named Jack Griffin, - Claude Rains' fine role, though his face is not seen until near the final- who discovers a formula for invisibility slowly leads to megalomaniac tendency and drives him insane . As he becomes invisible thanks to his experiments with the drug monocaine, a surprising formula creating invisibility. As his mind and brain definitively wandering and he planning to use his recipe to rule over the world. Then the invisible man flees after being charged with murder, escaping from the police officers.

Decent Hollywood rendition of HG Wells story about a scientific whose invisibility causes wreak havoc, including train derailing, car crashes, throwing people down cliffs, killings and anything else. His megalomania that ensues about him using unseen invisibility to go against people is performed for pathos, suspense, thrills, chills but also irony and humor with tongue-in-cheek. The visual detail is maqnificent with adequate cinematography by Arthur Edeson, as well as magnificent FX by John P Fulton and John Mescal. Furthermore, setting standards have been very imitated, but they were difficult to surpass at the time. Claude Rains' first character, though his body does not shows up until the ending, but his voice characterization is awesome . The movie made Claude Rains a Hollywood star out of English-born player, even though his brief appearance. He played incisive and intelligent characters with condiderable success. Subsequently, Rains quickly developed an important career with essential roles as in Casablanca and Notorious .He was nominated four times for Academy Awards, Oscars, shamefully without winning once as best actor. Remaining cast is pretty good , such as Gloria Stuart, Henry Travers, William Harrigan, Una O'Connor, Walter Brennan, EE Clive, Dudley Digges, and John Carradine. The motion picture was professionally directed by James Whale, though he relies heavily on black humor and hilarious as well as absurd incidents. James Whale was one of the best Hollywood filmmakers. He directed a lot of prestigious films of all kinds of genres, drama, comedy, musical, adventure, such as : Journey's end, By candelight, One more river, Remember last night?, Show boat, The great Garrick, The man in the iron mask. Outstanding in Terror, mystery genre, such as : Frankenstein, The bride of Frankenstein, The old dark house and The invisible man. Rating 6.5/10.

It is followed by several sequels and remakes, such as : The invisible man returns 1940 by Joe May with Vincent Price, Cedric Hardwicke, John Sutton. The Woman Invisible 1940 by Edward Sutherland with John Barrymore, Margaret Hamilton, Virginia Bruce . The invisible man's revenge 1944 by Ford Beebe with John Hall, John Carradine, Gale Sondergaard, Evelyn Ankers. The memoirs of the invisible man 1992 by John Carpenter with Chevy Chase, Daryl Hanna, Michael McKean, Sam Neill . The Hollow Man by Paul Verhoveen with Kevin Bacon, Elizabeth Shue. And its sequel, The Hollow Man II, by Claudio Fah with Christian Slater, Peter Facinelli, Laura Regan, among others.

Superb adaptation of HG Wells' novel

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 3 September 2010]

I was interested in seeing this film. I like the book, I love Claude Rains and I loved the classics Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein which were also directed by horror maestro James Whale. After finally seeing it I wasn't let down. The only minor problem I had was that Una O'Connor's screaming occasionally got on my nerves, but that's to do with preference. The Invisible Man had held up amazingly well, and the production values look lavish and don't look as though they've creaked. The music is excellent, the direction is top-notch and the screenplay is great. The story is still compelling and does justice to the book, while the atmosphere is suitably eerie and the special effects are pioneering. The acting is fine, Claude Rains was a brilliant actor and gives a superb performance in the title role, despite the fact he spends most of the time swathed in bandages or invisible you know that wonderful voice he has anywhere. All in all, superb and anyone who loved the Frankenstein movies will love this. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Universal strikes again.

[blogmonstermike · 7/10 · 1 January 2016]

Claude was excellent as always! This was creepy and kept me on the edge, as a Dr. discovered transparency....why didn't he teach that trick to the president? Anyways, this had some intense and disturbing parts for its time, but it is a horror flick. Overall it was well done and moved at a good pace. The acting and story line were very good and compelling. This is of course one of those Universal Studio creep shows about a scientist and his associates that stumble on to something new and dangerous. As Claude uses his to gift to get what he wants, he eliminates those in his way. This is somewhat to quite entertaining and it qualifies for a rainy day movie for those who like suspense, surprises, and of course, murder!

'I'll show you all!"

[griffinsnyder · 3/10 · 19 February 2021]

The Invisible man was certainly an interesting film. I cannot say that I would categorize it anywhere near a horror film, but I did enjoy aspects of it. Jack's whole maniacal and borderline insane demeanor was what made the movie fun to watch. His various antics and hysterical laughter was very entertaining. The scene in the bar where Jack is in only a shirt and is being chased around the table laughing was amusing. And going back to his laughter, it was very similar to that of The Joker in his various iterations in film.

The reason I cannot categorize this movie as a horror movie is due to the fact that it is not terrifying and there are no attempts at making it so. Yes, Jack murders for seemingly no reason and terrorizes nearly everyone, but he does it while laughing and this creates a sort of light undertone, making it feel like it is not as serious as it needs to be. And there are characters like the wife of the bar owner who are insufferable and whose reactions are very far from that of reality. Her hysteric episodes and screaming were irritating and unnecessary. They felt theatrical rather than genuine and I unconsciously rolled my eyes during these scenes. There were times I considered even stopping the movie because these scenes were so poor.

Were it not for Jack's entertaining performance, I would not have enjoyed this movie nearly as much. The story itself was okay, but Jack's God complex and lack of empathy for others made a horrid movie a decent one.