Great Film, but...


Man, the extras and minor characters in this film are hams.. I never really noticed it as a kid, but since I just bought the Legacy set, its quite apparent. That Innkeeper's wife is a real nuisance, and if I was the Innkeeper I would have told the Invisible Man to kill her. Secondly, you can tell in a couple scenes, mainly the Innkeeper's wife again, they make goofy hammy faces whenever the camera gets in their direction, just to be a scene hog.

Other than that, I'll always love these Universal classics, as they are what got me into horror.

Jesse

"Contemplate this on the tree of woe"
-Thulsa Doom, Conan The Barbarian

reply

The inkeepers wife was absoulutley the most annoying character to appear in ANY film in my opionion.But as I said in my review,Claude Rains made up for it with his excellent performance.

PROFESSOR MORIARTY!!!!

reply

I am quite old, (almost 79).

I was 6 years old when my mother and father took me to see the Invisible Man at a theater in San Diego, California.

I sat there almost in terror at several of the scenes. Like when he unwound the bandages so he could eat in his room at the inn.

Also, the footsteps appearing in the snow as he walked toward the RR tracks to throw the switch to send the train to destruction.

For along time afterward, I had bad dreams about this movie.

I have no idea why my parents took me to see it.

I have seen many movies since then, but this one still remains with me.

Jim

reply

Well, I discovered this movie a month ago, at a movie theater, and I too will remember it (its feel, melancholy, almost horror) for a long time. I guess some masterpieces don't age !

reply

It will be really awesome to have a film for so many years...
Time rules..

----------------------------------------
Knowing better's better than knowing earlier

reply

Jim- Not sure if your going to read this but here goes (I am replying to your older posting)
I am always interested, when I watch older movies, on how it played to the audience. You are a perfect example of someone who I'd like to get your impression not only of this movie, but of some of the other classics that you remember seeing on their initial release.

It is interesting that you found the footsteps frightening, why do you think that stayed with you as long as it did?

What other scenes did you find to be scary?

I first watched this movie on TV during the late 60's. The scene that always stayed with me was the opener, that snowy night, and the line "a room and a fire." That to me made the movie.

reply

In the late 70s, early 80s my brother used to watch all of these classics. I'm four years older than he, and I was in my mid to late teens. These movies scared the crap out of me! I didn't try watching them until recently and can't get enough of them!

reply

[deleted]

I agree. Everytime she screamed, I winced! But overall, it's a great film!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Aw, Una O'Connor ruled!! She was a great actress, and if you notice in the film she's even told "Aw, shaddup!" while she's wailing away. Loved her in Bride of Frankenstein too.

reply

[deleted]

She was wonderful in everything she did even the nude hula scenes now excised.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

reply

I actually thought in Bride of Frankenstein she was used a bit too often, and it made her performance redundant and didn't serve the movie : as great as she was in these two films (absolutely loved her in the Invisible Man), it seems she always plays quite the same way. But I only saw her in these two...

reply

yeah I kind of agree the extras where lame

still a great film

8/10



I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn


reply

Great film, but 20 minutes too short to really flesh out the story and do the novel justice. Was 70 minutes typical for the main feature length at that time?

reply

Yes it was.

reply

I totally agree. The Innkeepers wife was very annoying character and thoose are some of the fakest faces in a movie I've seen.

reply

I watched the bonus features on this and I remember film historians saying James Whales just LOVED the woman who played the inkeepers wife just BECAUSE she was so annoying and dramatic. But I have to say, it got extremely annoying after a while...

www.simplydustinhoffman.com
-#1 site for Dustin Hoffman fans-

reply

I thought her over-the-top screaming - especially when there was actually no particular reason to scream... meaning, most of the time - was totally hilarious. And I´m quite sure the director was aware of it as well; lots of funny stuff in the movie.


"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Yes, she was annoying to me until I read that she was used as comic relief because of her rubber face.

reply

Whether she served a good purpose or not, I agree with Whale -- she was a delight to watch, very amusing --- and much of the film was meant to be funny.

While here, I'll add two things about this entertaining movie:
(1) while I liked the innkeeper's wife, too many of the other characters (cops, townspeople)were just like her: funny faced, silly acting boobs. It got tiring (and silly) after a while, too many buffoons.
(2) I wish I had time to document this, but it seemed to me that the movie had lots of director flaws in it! A lot of scenes ended abruptly when there were great opportunities to milk them for more. And Travers (the father of Stuart), who is a great character actor I suppose, seemed very weak here. He delivered his lines without any enthusiasm, as though he were bored!

reply


Whale had worked with O'Connor in some British stage plays and loved her. She could also tone it down, if you see her in THE INFORMER (1935). And she was pretty restrained, comedically speaking, in ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

reply

Its weird, I usually love O' Connor when she was in a Errol Flynn, here I wanted her to shut her up, only so much screaming of that caliber that I could take!

reply

It is important to realize, that in these very early films, the actors got their training on the stage.
Stage acting is much larger and hammier than screen acting.

Television acting is different from screen acting, and stage acting is different from both.

The hamminess is forgivable here. Great film. Loads of fun.

This film is 80 years old. You can't think about it in 2013 terms.

reply

The acting here by most of the supporting characters is terrible by the standards of any time and medium be it stage or film.

It seems to me that the director thought that the kind of people who might go to see an horror film don't appreciate fine acting anyway so why waste time on it.

reply