Review #1359: The Invisible Man.Cast:
Elisabeth Moss (Cecilia "Cee" Kass), Oliver Jackson-Cohen (Adrian Griffin), Aldis Hodge (James Lanier), Storm Reid (Sydney Lanier), Harriet Dyer (Emily Kass), Michael Dorman (Tom Griffin), Benedict Hardie (Marc), and Amali Golden (Annie) Directed and Written by Leigh Whannell (#1093 - Upgrade)
Review:
I don't know how to go with this one. On the one hand, it is admirable to see Universal Pictures try something different from their original intent in reviving The Invisible Man for a new audience, where the film (with thoughts of Johnny Depp in the main role) was set to be part of their star-crossed attempt at a cinematic monster universe, fittingly dubbed "Dark Universe", which essentially nosedived into oblivion with the release of The Mummy (2017), a film that coincidentally I forget to even think of ignoring. Instead, the focus is now to do individual story-telling (i.e. literally just doing a horror film a fresh take like the first time), with Blumhouse Productions being the prominent production company behind this film (with Universal as distributor). Like the 1933 film, it is a loose (insert adaptation joke here) adaptation of the H. G. Wells novel of the same name, set in contemporary times just as before. This of course isn't the first film inspired by the novel in this century, with Hollow Man (2000) existing as a sci-fi horror thriller with Kevin Bacon in the main role. This is a movie that re-directs the focus from its main horror figure, which I suppose does help in trying to deliver a fresh perspective on something that has inspired at least ten theatrical films (some involving horror and other mainly involving sci-fi). There certainly is a decent selection of casting, where no one really seems to stick out in error, mainly since Moss dominates the attention for its benefit. The film also does work itself out well for its effects with the titular character when it feels like doing so, since the idea of a monster you can't see is still a scary concept if done right.
On the other hand, the film is a mild disappointment in the long run. It is occasionally scary, but it is a ride that seems a bit too long at a 124 minute pace, particularly with an ending that seems too neatly-packaged up to really have that last punch. I suppose my horror tastes might differ a bit from the buzz that encompassed this film upon release, since it is probably the first horror film of the year that didn't seem doomed to fail. Maybe people really do find this incredibly relevant to the modern age with its mix of invisibility and gaslighting. While I do having sticking points with the occasional horror films (whether liked or disliked), it can be waved away if the overall experience seems right to do so (i.e. not simply saying "it's just a movie" over and over). Without seeming like a complete spoil-sport, the key sticking point is in a scene that actually is fairly tense. It's a scene in a house, where the main character is (conveniently) alone and is fearful of what the invisible stalker could do next to her. She goes to the attic after calling and hearing her ex's phone up there. After finding it...she just leaves it there. Even just having him just take the phone back would have sufficed as an easy out. Look, I don't go to movies to pick at things like supposed "plot-holes", but thinking things all the way through does help in the long run for films, especially horror. In comparison, the original moved at a rapid pace with Claude Rains doing a well-done job at conveying a creepy (and sometimes amusing) presence into interesting horror entertainment, and that film was nearly an hour shorter than this one. In that regard, Jackson-Cohen does fine taking the reins in a role that requires occasional dialogue to make for some decent tension. Moss, as I mentioned before, is our main focus for the movie. She does a capable job, a presence that is easy to follow along with from her perspective, resilience in panic. Hodge, Reid, and Dyer round out the main core quite completely in filling the straight-edge counterpart to the horror trappings without being lost in the background. Dorman makes for a slimy minor presence, desperately needing more time to be on-screen to really stand out. In any case, the film does tend to look nice, pointing its camera to make you look to see if you can detect another presence besides what you see initially. Sometimes the film has a sense of humor, which delivers a chuckle that at least isn't meant to distract. As a whole, this is an okay movie. It isn't as put together as Whannell's previous effort with Upgrade, but it does ultimately provide adequate enough scares to likely win over a shaky yet mostly there foundation. Would I be interested in whatever Blumhouse could do next with a classic monster? Perhaps, if the story seems right enough to give horror thrills.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment