The Invisible Man Returns.

Review #2279: The Invisible Man Returns.

Cast: 

Cedric Hardwicke (Richard Cobb), Vincent Price (Geoffrey Radcliffe), Nan Grey (Helen Manson), John Sutton (Dr. Frank Griffin), Cecil Kellaway (Inspector Sampson), Alan Napier (Willie Spears), Forrester Harvey (Ben Jenkins), and Paul England (Detective) Directed by Joe May.

Review: 

You have to be a bit bold to flat out call your movie a sequel to H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man, particularly since well, Wells didn't do a follow-up work to his famous 1897 novel. The 1933 adaptation by Universal (as directed by James Whale) even matched the book in killing off its lead character. But here we are because Universal Pictures loved the idea of doing follow-ups to their horror films and had a hit with Son of Frankenstein (1939). Universal apparently had an interesting time to pick a director and an actor for the title role (thinking of Rowland V. Lee to direct) but eventually settled with May to direct and picked Vincent Price (having originally thought about casting someone familiar like Boris Karloff at first before going for "young and good-looking upcomer"). This was released at the tail end of May's career as a director (having emigrated from Austria to America in the 1930s) as he directed just four further films prior to his death in 1954 at the age of 73. Four writers were utilized for this film: Lester K. Cole and Curt Siodmak wrote the screenplay while May, Siodmak, and Cedric Belfrage wrote the story. The movie apparently was shot over the course of a month in late 1939. The effects were credited to John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgcock, which apparently dealt with shooting in black velvet. The next two films dealing with invisible people from Universal were not exactly horror films, but Siodmak wrote both of them (with May being there as well for one of them) with the sci-fi comedy The Invisible Woman (1940) and the action/spy film Invisible Agent (1942). Jon Hall served as the new title character for that film and The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944).

Admittedly, the sequel does have one neat card to play: it isn't merely just doing the last film again, particularly since it seems hard to top Claude Rains and his performance from a few years ago. For one, it is more of a gradual unravelling as one might see from a procedural, complete with a somewhat low-key lead presence (note that "Sir" Hardwicke actually isn't in the film for very long). The justification for how one gets to see a new invisible man is pretty interesting: when framed for murder and on the door for execution, friends resort to helping a guy turn loose and invisible. It has a "fine" pace at 81 minutes that is more interesting when trying to play for effects rather than play itself in showing the locale that is, well, not nearly as effective in relief that one already saw years prior. It probably is more interesting to wonder just what one would end up doing in terms of stability when it comes to the idea of invisibility, and like before it presents someone who gets wrapped up a bit in chaos but otherwise had a genuine idea in mind in going with the whole thing. This was the fourth feature film for Price, who actually would go through a variety of supporting roles (with some top billing) in noirs and period films before getting latched onto as a horror guy by the 1950s. He does just fine for a role that is all about the voice over all, which he plays with concern rather than ham, which probably makes sense. Hardwicke gives the worried elegance of someone doing a job quick and easy while Grey and Sutton at least fill out the movie in casual interest (i.e. a bit of science-babble and babble about their friend). Kellaway isn't even forced to play skeptic to what's going around him, he just plays it straight. As such, it may be a hokey sequel not quite up to the original stuff, but it at least has some commitment to doing drama with some quality effects and useful enough pacing to keep one invested to the bitter end. It's a familiar comfort, go figure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Return of the Fly.

Review #1738: Return of the Fly.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (François Delambre), Brett Halsey (Philippe Delambre), David Frankham (Ronald Holmes / Alan Hinds), Danielle De Metz (Cecile Bonnard), John Sutton (Inspector Beecham), Dan Seymour (Max Barthold), Jack Daly (Granville), Janine Grandel (Mme. Bonnard), Michael Mark (Gaston), and Ed Wolff (The Fly-Creature) Written and Directed by Edward Bernds (#1017 - Space Master X-7)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember The Fly (1958), directed by Kurt Neumann, based on that short story of the same name by George Langelaan about a man-fly hybrid creature told in flashback about how he ended up where he was, which ended up with a fairly interesting classic and other things. Naturally, there was a rush for another movie (despite the whole "dead fly" thing). Sure, there are a few signs that this might not be the most relevant course for a sequel. For one thing, the only person to return for it from the previous film is Vincent Price, who apparently liked the first draft of the script more than the one cut down later for production costs (Herbert Marshall, who played the inspector, apparently could not do the film because of sickness). Another is the fact that this was made for roughly $200,000 less than the last one. If you remember, both films were done under the unit of Robert L. Lippert (a "King of the Bs" kind of producer, who actually started as a theater chain owner), and he decided to bring in Edward Bernds to direct; perhaps it is fitting that it was him, since one of his five films that he directed with Lippert as producer was the film usually put on the double-bill with The Fly in Space Master X-7 (1958); a handful of his hundreds of films produced for 20th Century Fox involved CinemaScope, since he was contracted to make a number of films for them with the lenses, and this one would be done in black-and-white while re-using the lab sets from before (incidentally, this was put on a double bill with The Alligator People).

So yes, the course of action taken was to set the film years after the original and involve the son of the original lead focus. Honestly, for a made on the cheap kind of movie that was dubbed "The Zipper" by Price, it could have been a lot worse. Again, there is probably a limited amount of ideas one could make involving a guy and a fly costume, but I find what they came up with at least semi-plausible, since it isn't just another fluke accident. Unfortunately, the lesser effects for its title creature and trappings of conveniences and contrivances ultimately help to sink the film into mediocrity. Price leads the film in dignity, mostly because each Fly film doesn't lend itself to many opportunities to ham it up for most folks; there's that tinge of awareness that makes for somewhat useful drama. Of course, it is also evident where in the 80-minute run-time they decided to cut down elements for gimmicks, and it seems apparent right around the time the creature shows up (done out of spite by a secret crook). Halsey does fine with the small moments required in measured curiosity, but it probably doesn't help when he is sidelined for the parts involving the Fly (since not only does it not speak, it is played by a circus giant). Frankham might be an interesting double-crosser, but really this doesn't go too far being convenient stuff. Sutton doesn't exactly stoke much interest as the supposed inspector successor, standing in the background to say mild stuff after over half the film has already ended. I can't quantify exactly what De Metz is to the main characters, and honestly you won't really remember, because there isn't really much to the dynamic between her and Halsey. One will have a weird time figuring out which effect brings the film down more: the effect of seeing the fly-human creature, bumbling around looking like they want to not have the heavy contraption to slip from their head...or the human-faced fly that looks a bit too transparent (the mini-voice isn't helpful either). Honestly, I wasn't really expecting the film to end on a downer note, but the way they manage to tie it all together with its climax is pretty weak. Sure, there are probably only two ways this can end: life or death; however, it just seems a bit too silly to really stick the landing, probably because there's the whole matter of "well, somebody killed two people, but it wasn't the MAN who did it" (a crook may be a crook, but...you know, they are still dead). Really it seems more amusing that the creature can evade a whole bunch of cops (at least ones in the 1950s...wait, just when is the movie set?) and then come back to its original trappings with no trouble.

There would be another Fly film years later with Curse of the Fly (1965), which was one of Lippert's last features as producer. Look, both versions of The Fly (1958, 1986) are good enough to stand on their own without any follow-up, that much is for sure. But I suppose if one really needed to know where filmmakers can go with another story about man-flies, I guess you won't have too much disappointment with this movie. It isn't terrible, but mediocrity with horror is dime of a dozen that may or may not suit one's curiosity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Birds (1963).