The Invisible Man (2020) [Blu-ray]

Stop right there! If you are expecting a short, or if you assume every film made in Hollywood is "Woke" (a new word that now has become the new it vocabulary, hopefully Oxford Dictionary does not assume it is that important to change it's original meaning which means to awake after sleep).From here on out, I'm going to judge the film on the merit of the original source of story and I will provide spoilers throughout my review. But I shall condense the review into two sections. The first, for those that just want to know if the film is good, but fear spoilers. The second, for those that do not mind spoilers.Spoiler Free review:Loosely based on the original HG Wells novel this well acted, directed, and produced film takes a different and interesting spin on the original title while creating a completely new version that will more than likely remain unique for the rest of the legacy of The Invisible Man. It is not perfect, but it is entertaining. If you want an Oscar winning thriller film, then look elsewhere. However, if you want to enjoy a Saturday evening with a friend or alone and like to feel somewhat scared without much gore. Go right ahead and watch this film. But once again, this is a pop, sugar film that is well done but isn't a Kubrick film. However, if you want Griffin in a hotel room doing much the same as the original book, forget about it.*****************Spoilers Beyond this Level, Alert!! Alert!! Spoilers Beyond this Level*************************I repeat, Spoilers Beyond this level!!!!Now comes the real detailed review of the film. I tend to structure these reviews by different categories. Please follow the below:1. Story: The film is very loosely based on the original story. The film only has Griffin and his work in optics as the base of the story. The rest, is a re-imagining of the character as an evil manipulative sociopath that has victimized his wife/girlfriend, to the point that she's literally afraid of going outside to get the mail. This is an interesting take, and if I were to actually compare it to the original storyline, it shifts the whole theme of the story. In the original story, Griffin's greed and arrogance is what causes the conflict of the story. In a way, it's a moral tale, much like most older storylines. In this case, because there is no "build-up" or backstory to the character, you only are presented with one dimension or history to him. And this is where I find that I can't identify with the film. In essence, it starts to feel like method to say that Scientists are evil. And as someone that is seeing today's society take very, very disdainful views on Scientists (as though they are enemies of people), I actually disagree with setting up stories this way. However, once I separate my mindset from the actual story line. It is well scripted within it. The characterization of the wife, is believable. I've met a real life abuse victim, that got to that level. It took her years to break out of it, and even now she's still not fully normal. And like most abusers, they tend to be intelligent and good-looking. The fact that he's a rich scientist, is extra within this story. I believe it's introduced because logically speaking, the financing that would need to be made to the scientist to build the Invisibility Cloak, as I like to call it, must be in the millions. And if that were the case, funding teams, companies or individuals would ask for information upon the usage. Thus, the whole story would have to be restructured completely and there wouldn't be a film. So taking the fact that this is a narcissistic, pathological sociopath whom is a millionaire due to his brilliant work and whom has the resources to do the experiments that the original story would have caused great debt on. The other difference is that now he is married, and his wife escapes him from the very beginning of the film. This builds a different story in which the context, and the main viewpoint of the film is his wife or girlfriend (still didn't figure this out), whom is paranoid of him following her and ultimately ends up with an invisible him following her and making her life a living hell. The film could have gone either way with this plot. It could have delivered an ending where the viewer doesn't really ever know for sure if he is in fact haunting her, or it could leave the viewer with full knowledge that he is in fact using an invisibility cloak. The path this story chose was the latter. Thus, she ultimately is haunted by him. If you do not compare it to the original story and it's original moral dilemma, the story is creative and is interesting. It's not perfect, but it is well executed for a thriller film.2. Acting:Elisabeth Moss is one of the best actresses within her age group. She has never had a false note in all of the history of acting from the first moment I saw her in Invasion to Madmen to Handmaiden's Tale. She is one of this country's finest films (US) though I'm sure the British would say the same (she's dual citizen due to her English father). Oliver Jackson-Cohen is a great actor, while he is new, he is very talented and he is very easy on the eye. Thus far in The Haunting of Hill House he was great, and he is also great here. I see a very strong and good career. Aldis Hodge is also a very good actor, whom I recalled from Hidden Figures. And lastly, Michael Dorman (whom is the reason I decided to venture into this film) is a stellar actor. I loved him in Wonderland (Australian show), and in Patriot (one of my ALL-TIME fave shows). He is a very good actor and hopefully has a great future within US and of course in his native country. All actors are great within their parts, and they were well cast.3. Directing:The film is directed well. It builds tension with minimal extra-special effects. This is more a psychological thriller rather than a Halloween film. It's short on gore, and for this reason I praise it more. While I'm hard to scare, it had a few scenes where even I felt tension. And this says a lot considering nothing pretty much scares me at all.4. Cinematography:I must include this because the filming of the film, the shots, and the settings. Including Griffin's house are wonderful. I'd live there, forget about the film. I'd accept having to use minimalist furniture which I usually do not like (I like bohemian) to get those views.5. Production Value:Overall for the cost of $7 million in production of this film, the execution is well done. It proves that you don't need to spend $100 million and above in every film to achieve the end goal. You can have a small budget, and drive higher creativity due to it. To think that this $7 million film has resulted in a gross profit of over $120 Million. Kudos to them. The film is well executed in all areas. Of course, it may not be perfect, but it is an entertaining film.Lastly:For all those that claim this is woke. I assume you think a woman should be abused by her husband. That all white people are angels and all blacks and immigrants are bad and awful. That white people should not be friends with minorities. And that all men are good. Bottomline, not all white people within this film were evil. There were TWO, I repeat TWO that were. Griffin and his brother. The cops which unfortunately are killed within the film are actually good, and white. The man that goes out of his way to help the main character and drive her to Griffin's house which is an hour from the place she's running from is a white man. That the main guy and the brother are bad, which by the way the original story is about a white man who turns bad, does not mean the story is woke. The fact that her sister whom is a cop is friends with a black guy does not mean the story is woke. It just means that you are a bigot if you don't like people to befriend others in other races. And if you find the main actress ugly and a whiner, then I assume you probably are worse looking than her and feel jealous that within the story she's acting opposite a handsome man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, remember. And just because you think she doesn't work, doesn't mean that she didn't within the story. You are only seeing things from the point of view of after the split, you are only hearing the viewpoint on her from his brother. Period. You do not know why he liked her. And plenty of rich men end up married with wives that do not work and just do philanthropic charity volunteer work. Since this one is an abuser, he doesn't even want her to do that.

I saw the high reviews for this movie going in and I was really excited, given it had a high 80s with the audience and a low 90s with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. Generally, remakes are not reviewed highly if they simply retell the story, so I thought that a remake getting that high of scores meant they must have done something revolutionary with it.However, as the story moved along, the inconsistencies began piling up, such that I became convinced that there was a big plot twist coming. Big SPOILERS incoming.1. Adrian committed suicide, but somehow they either confirmed that with no body, or he snuck out of the morgue after feigning death and no one noticed. Maybe he paid off the morgue, the funeral home, the cops and the reporters? But that’s so many potential leaks, there’s no way that’s feasible. Especially since he wasn’t really a criminal mastermind. He was a California tech mogul. I don’t know how much power those guys have over the entire justice system, but I don’t think it’s that much.2. Why did her sister, who knew she was coming out of an abusive relationship, completely shut down on her after receiving an email? Something that is very easily faked and very easy to brush off. In the email, she says something like “I never want to see you again. I don’t want to know you.” And then she shows up at the sister’s house…Yet the sister is still convinced she sent the email? What kind of logic is that? She said she didn’t send it and is obviously going through a lot of mental trauma right now. Why not listen to her?3. Why did Sydney think Cecilia hit her? She was basically lying on the ground and the hit came from the side of her head. Sydney would have certainly seen her initiate the strike if that were actually her. The first reaction would have been something like “Ow! Something hit me. Did someone throw something through the window?” not “oh my God, this laying down woman who is my friend that just paid for my entire college education and who has no reason to hit me just hit me! She’s a dangerous maniac!”4. Multiple times, she had her hands on him. Smashing plates over his head, kicking and punching him. She must have known that he didn’t intend to kill her (because if he did, he would have done it ages ago), so there’s no reason to escape him. You have him on the ropes, you pick up a knife and finish him. But maybe she’s too scared from her past trauma with him. Fine.5. She saw that paint will reveal him. Why did she not find new ways to reveal him during those multiple times she got her hands on him? Her lack of preparation is staggering.6. Why did she not use the phone she found in the attic to prove that someone (even if it isn’t Adrian) was spying on her? She couldn’t have faked pictures from over her bed while she was sleeping. At least not without a ton of preparation that cops would not assume she did (like setting up some kind of tripod to take fake stalker photos of herself). That would have been enough proof to at least be taken seriously that someone was stalking her. And that unknown sender with the “surprise” text. Maybe they could have tracked that down somehow?7. Why did she find the suit and then hide it in HIS house? Why not take it? What was she hiding it for? Of course, this comes back in the final moments of the movie, but the only reason she would put it there is if she was preparing the final scene from that point on which, given her fear, I can’t imagine her thinking that far ahead. That suit was concrete proof that would have immediately enacted around the clock surveillance/protection and an investigation into what’s going on.8. When she told her sister about the suit and then her sister sees a floating knife behind her, why is the sister’s response complete horror? The sister is a cop, right? So wouldn’t her immediate response be “Cee! There’s a floating knife behind you!” and flip the table and draw her weapon (if she was carrying it) or something? Why would a cop that, in the previous 20 seconds they said was stronger and harder than even James, be struck with fear to the point of inaction? And why did Cecilia just lift her hand and hold the knife after it was used to kill her sister? Her hand was down. And then her sister is killed and she raises her hand and “catches” the knife, almost in the exact place that it had been floating. That doesn’t make any sense at all.9. As she is being arrested she claims she can “see” him, even though we can clearly see she can’t. She’s staring at where he might be standing, sure. But there’s nothing that would tell her that other than a boiling over of fear and paranoia.There are many other inconsistencies in the movie past that point, like how did Tom hide in her room at the asylum while also being the lawyer at her meeting? Surely she was escorted directly from that meeting back to her cell, so when did he have time to leave the meeting, put the suit on and go back in there? Or maybe that wasn’t Tom in there, but Adrian, in which case I ask, did they find the second suit? Or is there a third suit? How many suits did he make and did he somehow just lose track of the one she hid? Then there’s the question of how he was stabbed with a pen multiple times and still totally fine to restrain her, attack guards etc. Plus the question of how a suit made of cameras doesn’t make any noise when you move (and, more to the point, hides all sounds you make as a relatively large man walking around) and how using pepper spray on it would actually do anything to him, but past inconsistency #9, I had come to a very concrete conclusion:Cecilia is suffering from PTSD and and we were following an unreliable narrator. We were seeing the world through Cecilia’s eyes and seeing the PTSD and hallucinations that come with it. She did send the email. She did hit Sydney. She did not find that phone or anything else in the attic. She did kill her sister and the fights she got into with Adrian were all in her head. She had created some sort of alternate personality or alternate perception of the world that allowed her to do these things without knowing or recognizing she did them, and then fabricating the story of Adrian terrorizing her to back it all up.It could have been a really powerful message about the trauma and psychological side effects of being in an abusive relationship, even after you escape it and the threat is over (as he is dead).But no. They then reveal that it was just a big con job and the brother was in on it with Adrian etc etc. Rather than have a twist, which the bread crumbs were subtly leading to, they revert back to the predictable and safe ending.Now, I’m not one of these people shouting “Oh man, this is a feminist propaganda movie!” I didn’t actually get any political agenda at all from this movie. Maybe they were leading me down the path to intentionally make me start doubting that she was telling the truth and if that’s the case, then they succeeded in that. Although, giving us her perspective and showing us very clearly that she wasn’t doing it would make me doubt that was their intention. Even still ending it with a very wholesome “and we caught the bad guy and she was right all along” is not exactly ground breaking and it did not meet my expectations of a movie with such good reviews.When taken at face value, it was a good suspense thriller of an abusive relationship with the woman taking revenge at the end. But that isn’t new or interesting. Maybe I just expected too much from a mostly typical thriller movie.

Really good movie...I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Wish it was a little longer, but over all really liked the suspense of it from start to finish.

This project is the best Everett

Great endong

Filmaço, grande reimaginação de um clássico monstro da universal. Comparando com a múmia do Tom Cruise mostra o quanto menos é mais.

Movie arrived with damaged dirty slipcover... But the sealed blu ray was fine. Why bother with the slipcover at all.... Sticker residue and damage.The disks and blu ray case itself are perfect.

La paciencia tiene su recompensa!Durante meses estuve en espera de que bajara el precio, ya que pagar más de 900 pesos me parecía excesivamente cara, aún sin ser una collectors edition, digibook o una edición que justificara ese costo... hace un par de meses llegó a estar en 580 pero aún así me resistí a comprarla, afortunadamente ahora la encontré a 279, un precio accesible y razonable.De la película, el aspecto más deslumbrante de The Invisible Man son los largos períodos de silencio donde la gramática visual obliga a los espectadores a analizar realmente lo que está sucediendo en todo el entorno de la protagonista, la tensión nunca cede y estarás al borde del asiento en cada fotograma de la película.sin duda muy recomendable.Contiene subs y doblaje al español latino.

This is not your father's Invisible Man. This is your daughter"s.

Genuinely creepy movie.