Trailer for a new Invisible Man movie

Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
So I guess it is official that the Dark Universe is dead and they are going with a more low budget horror route for these characters. I'm excited, but also a little upset that the Dark Universe wasn't a success.

I loved Upgrade, so I hope this film will be good too. It just needed Kevin Bacon to be in it,
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



A system of cells interlinked
Caught this last night. Leigh Whannell is hit or miss for me, put this, like his last film Upgrade, was mostly a hit. The explanation for the invisibility was probably the most plausible of all the iterations of this story, so not much suspension of disbelief there. Moss was great, with the rest of the cast doing an adequate job, as well. My only issue with the film was the morality play at the end surrounding a death. That said, this is well made thriller, and definitely worth a watch.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



It has some interesting ideas I'll give it that, but the execution was ridiculous. I laughed most of the time due to the over-the-top acting (Moss does this thing with her face when she acts mad and I just can't take it seriously anymore. But she wasn't the only culprit). Add to that the unbelievably nonsensical plot. Are we sure this wasn't meant to be a dramedy? On top of that I called the ending. Especially the
WARNING: spoilers below
brother being involved in one form or another part.


I can't say I fully hate it, though. I did get some good laughs.



Caught this last night. Leigh Whannell is hit or miss for me, put this, like his last film Upgrade, was mostly a hit. The explanation for the invisibility was probably the most plausible of all the iterations of this story, so not much suspension of disbelief there. Moss was great, with the rest of the cast doing an adequate job, as well. My only issue with the film was the morality play at the end surrounding a death. That said, this is well made thriller, and definitely worth a watch.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the ‘morality play surrounding a death’? The whole victim-finally-beats-up-abuser idea?



A system of cells interlinked
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the ‘morality play surrounding a death’? The whole victim-finally-beats-up-abuser idea?

WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
It was left up in the air as to whether or not Adrian was involved in the invisible man stalking business at all, with quite a bit of evidence pointing to his brother being the culprit all along. This creates a dual problem when attempting to resolve the morality of the entire thing at the end. Either he wasn't involved, and Cecilia gets away with murdering a guy whose crime was earlier domestic abuse, with a police officer friend letting her get away with it, while also letting her walk out with a suit that renders her invisible, which would most likely be used for further crime..

OR.... He did mastermind the entire thing, which sends cracks through the entire narrative, making it heavily reliant on a bunch of plot devices and random things happening at just the right time to make it all work out like he had planned. How long had he been walled up in his basement? Did his brother let him in and out every time he went out, just in case he got caught? With Cecilia locked up in a mental ward, how did he know she would engineer a plan to escape so soon, while also overpowering and killing her brother, and on and on...

If it's the first option, the whole film was a faux-woke dressing down of alleged toxic masculinity, with a sly wink-wink, nudge-nudge smile from Liz Moss at the end of the film, indicating murder is OK, as long as men are the victims. If it's the second option, it;s a house-of-cards-script that tumbles to the ground under the least bit of scrutiny...


Regardless, film was shot and acted well, and had great tension and atmosphere.



Can you elaborate on what you mean by the ‘morality play surrounding a death’? The whole victim-finally-beats-up-abuser idea?

WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
It was left up in the air as to whether or not Adrian was involved in the invisible man stalking business at all, with quite a bit of evidence pointing to his brother being the culprit all along. This creates a dual problem when attempting to resolve the morality of the entire thing at the end. Either he wasn't involved, and Cecilia gets away with murdering a guy whose crime was earlier domestic abuse, with a police officer friend letting her get away with it, while also letting her walk out with a suit that renders her invisible, which would most likely be used for further crime..

OR.... He did mastermind the entire thing, which sends cracks through the entire narrative, making it heavily reliant on a bunch of plot devices and random things happening at just the right time to make it all work out like he had planned. How long had he been walled up in his basement? Did his brother let him in and out every time he went out, just in case he got caught? With Cecilia locked up in a mental ward, how did he know she would engineer a plan to escape so soon, while also overpowering and killing her brother, and on and on...

If it's the first option, the whole film was a faux-woke dressing down of alleged toxic masculinity, with a sly wink-wink, nudge-nudge smile from Liz Moss at the end of the film, indicating murder is OK, as long as men are the victims. If it's the second option, it;s a house-of-cards-script that tumbles to the ground under the least bit of scrutiny...


Regardless, film was shot and acted well, and had great tension and atmosphere.
Ha, interesting. I read it as genuinely woke and it did annoy me a little with the double standards, it didn’t occur to me it could be tongue-in-cheek like you’re saying. I think it would be brilliant if it was a meta-comment on wokeness, but it might be reading too much into it? I don’t know. My feeling is the cultural shift right now promotes exactly this sort of ‘murdering guys whose only crimes are domestic abuse’ thing. This was the case with Vigilante (2017) with Olivia Wilde and even back in ‘In Bed with the Enemy’ with Julia Roberts...



Welcome to the human race...
WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
It was left up in the air as to whether or not Adrian was involved in the invisible man stalking business at all, with quite a bit of evidence pointing to his brother being the culprit all along. This creates a dual problem when attempting to resolve the morality of the entire thing at the end. Either he wasn't involved, and Cecilia gets away with murdering a guy whose crime was earlier domestic abuse, with a police officer friend letting her get away with it, while also letting her walk out with a suit that renders her invisible, which would most likely be used for further crime..

OR.... He did mastermind the entire thing, which sends cracks through the entire narrative, making it heavily reliant on a bunch of plot devices and random things happening at just the right time to make it all work out like he had planned. How long had he been walled up in his basement? Did his brother let him in and out every time he went out, just in case he got caught? With Cecilia locked up in a mental ward, how did he know she would engineer a plan to escape so soon, while also overpowering and killing her brother, and on and on...

If it's the first option, the whole film was a faux-woke dressing down of alleged toxic masculinity, with a sly wink-wink, nudge-nudge smile from Liz Moss at the end of the film, indicating murder is OK, as long as men are the victims. If it's the second option, it;s a house-of-cards-script that tumbles to the ground under the least bit of scrutiny...


Regardless, film was shot and acted well, and had great tension and atmosphere.
WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
I never thought it was ambiguous because in the scene where Cecilia's first institutionalised and locked in her cell, you can hear Adrian whisper "Surprise" as a taunt to drive home that, yes, they're stuck together. Then when they're having dinner at his house at the end, he says "surprise" in the same tone of voice with this knowing look in his eyes - he's smart enough to know that she's shown up trying to get a confession out of him and doesn't say anything that would be admissible as evidence, but he does say enough to subtly let her know that he did plan the whole thing and there's nothing she can do about it (and it's only then that she goes through with murdering him). Cecilia only keeps the suit as a means of disposing of the evidence since nobody else knew there was a second suit.

As for the plan with the brother, it doesn't surprise me that they'd practically have to work in shifts to keep an eye on her. If anything, I'm thinking that Adrian wears the suit during the scene where the brother visits Cecilia in the institution and notices that she takes the pen while the brother isn't looking, hence why he sends the brother to go after her later that night so he can still have that plausible deniability if something goes wrong.
__________________
Iro is to reviews as Kubrick is to films.



I watched it last night. Thought it was meh.

This movie would have been brilliant if Adrian hadn't spoken in his invisible form. It would have left the whole thing ambiguous as to who he really was, and forced the audience to question.



Welcome to the human race...
I definitely question why that would be brilliant.



I definitely question why that would be brilliant.
WARNING: spoilers below

Then people would have had different theories. Whether it was Adrian or his brother, and that would have led to more theories.

Now we know for certain.




A system of cells interlinked
WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
I never thought it was ambiguous because in the scene where Cecilia's first institutionalised and locked in her cell, you can hear Adrian whisper "Surprise" as a taunt to drive home that, yes, they're stuck together. Then when they're having dinner at his house at the end, he says "surprise" in the same tone of voice with this knowing look in his eyes - he's smart enough to know that she's shown up trying to get a confession out of him and doesn't say anything that would be admissible as evidence, but he does say enough to subtly let her know that he did plan the whole thing and there's nothing she can do about it (and it's only then that she goes through with murdering him). Cecilia only keeps the suit as a means of disposing of the evidence since nobody else knew there was a second suit.

As for the plan with the brother, it doesn't surprise me that they'd practically have to work in shifts to keep an eye on her. If anything, I'm thinking that Adrian wears the suit during the scene where the brother visits Cecilia in the institution and notices that she takes the pen while the brother isn't looking, hence why he sends the brother to go after her later that night so he can still have that plausible deniability if something goes wrong.
Great post. I missed that critical detail of Adrian saying "surprise" while invisible. We have a small child, who was asleep one room over while we watched, so we had the volume fairly low. it registered to me that she heard something, by I was unable to detect exactly what.

Thinking about it, I missed probably the single most important detail in the entire film. This solves the morality bit in some ways, but not totally. The retaliatory murder still isn't totally justified, but Adrian isn't just a past abuser, but also a murderer himself. Alas, he murdered her sister, so... considering it that way, I can identify with her at least a bit on her actions at the end of the film.



Welcome to the human race...
WARNING: spoilers below

Then people would have had different theories. Whether it was Adrian or his brother, and that would have led to more theories.

Now we know for certain.

WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
Not every film needs to be ambiguous enough to spawn different theories, especially if ambiguity would interfere with the handling of its thematic content. The film already hammered home how much of a violent, gaslighting abuser Adrian was before the whole invisible man thing even comes up so it would be inconsistent (if not irresponsible) to suggest that he was ultimately innocent and that Cecilia kills him because she's crazy with paranoia.



A system of cells interlinked
WARNING: "The Invisible Man" spoilers below
Not every film needs to be ambiguous enough to spawn different theories, especially if ambiguity would interfere with the handling of its thematic content. The film already hammered home how much of a violent, gaslighting abuser Adrian was before the whole invisible man thing even comes up so it would be inconsistent (if not irresponsible) to suggest that he was ultimately innocent and that Cecilia kills him because she's crazy with paranoia.

Agreed. My main (and now retracted) issues mostly dealt with my perceived problems with the ambiguity in the film. Turns out, I had missed critical details.



@Iroquois

I get your point. But I guess we were seeking different things from it. I wanted it to be a celebral story, because I looked at it as a thriller. Especially with how it ended.



Welcome to the human race...
I'm of the opinion that "thriller" and "cerebral" are mutually exclusive concepts - after all, the primary purpose of a thriller is to thrill.



A system of cells interlinked
@Iroquois

I get your point. But I guess we were seeking different things from it. I wanted it to be a celebral story, because I looked at it as a thriller. Especially with how it ended.
I guess my question would be: Does cerebral always need to be synonymous with ambiguous?