Skip to main content

You are physically close to him. He’s in that urn over there.

The Invisible Man
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Incredible how you can see right through him. As a fan of Leigh Whannell’s sophomore film Upgrade, I was willing to give this latest telling of The Invisible Man a chance, even though I was doubtful of its repurposing, seemingly falling prey to the kind of unrefined stalker antics that largely did for Paul Verhoeven’s Hollow Man, the last major studio take on the premise (okay, excepting The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). And while it’s certainly the case that Whannell does rather limit his canvas in that regard, he has nevertheless made an undeniably effective stalker picture, one that features a number of quite satisfying plot turns.

I don’t particularly think touting The Invisible Man as a progressive women’s picture does it enormous favours, though, as many critics jumping on the bandwagon of approved perceptions (or should that be optics?) have. It is, after all, a very traditional movie at heart, one that, with a few tweaks, could easily have landed in the 80s heroine-in-peril cycle, a cycle critics ritually slaughtered out of hand. The difference here, ostensibly, is that Whannell has lent the picture a subtext, with the aid of star Elisabeth Moss. Indeed, Moss might be labelled the current incarnation of the scream queen, except for the #MeToo generation; she’s made her acting mark by being repeatedly tortured, battered and abused by menfolk (albeit, just psychologically in Mad Men).

The picture’s subtext is consequently one of no one believing the battered wife when she claims her charming husband is mistreating her. Too frightened to speak when he was alive, now he’s “dead”, it becomes quite clear that she is making up her claims. She has no proof. It’s an outlandish, unbelievable suggestion. She’s crazy, needs locking up. Yeah… put it like that, it’s about as subtle as in invisible man slashing the heroine’s sister’s throat in front of her in a crowded restaurant and leaving the bloody knife in her hand.

But, per the opening paragraph, undeniably effective. What the picture misses out on is any nuance, aside from the subtleties of Moss’ commendable performance. The Invisible Man is elegantly shot by Whannell’s cinematographer Stefan Duscio, making great use of the widescreen format with atmospherically empty-but-are-they spaces provoking a powerfully tense dread. The dramatic shifts and rug-pulls, however, are all muscle car, with twists even Thomas Harris would blanche at. The invisible villain has finally been killed? No, he has not; it was his brother all along (it wasn’t). En route, Moss’ Cecilia Kass is accused of hitting pal Aldis Hodge’s daughter (Storm Reid)! Cecilia discovers she’s pregnant! The fortune that was hers is snatched away if she’s pronounced loony! The finale is particularly deft, with a wired Cecilia slipping into a rapprochement with her ex (found tied up in the basement by his brother) but using the opportunity to become the Invisible Woman and get away with him slitting his own throat.

If Moss carries the picture with aplomb and gives it a veneer of substance, everyone else is left dangling with the kinds of unvarnished types you’d expect from a standard horror. Michael Dorman is the younger brother-in-law – apparently, and slightly unlikely but what the hell, as ultra-capable as his psycho brother, since he goes on a murderous spree in the mental hospital and then beats up Hodge (Edit: it's been pointed out to me that it's probably Adrian in the hospital, since the malfunctioning suit is replaced by a working one come the home invasion, but either way, it illustrates how opportunistic the plotting has become by this point, if we're supposed to swallow that Adrian decides to go home and hide in the basement on the assumption that little brother would screw up and SWAT would pay him a call). Oliver Jackson-Cohen is barely in it as Cecilia’s not-dead-ex Adrian, and entirely stock forgettable, which only underlines the movie’s B-credentials. He’s Michael Myers when the legacy of using that title surely deserved a whiff of Claude Rains.

The twist on invisibility – an optics suit: think Bond’s car in Die Another Day but niftier in design and not naff – is an effective and appealing one, and I liked the Predator rattle sound effect used when it becomes visible (at least, it sounded like that to me). The reliance on practical work is laudable (aside from the suit effects, there’s little obvious CGI), and Whannell proves himself a dab hand at eking the suspense from a scene. If this is the way forward, it bodes well for Universal’s horror staples. As does the news than Karyn Kusama will be directing their Dracula update. It also bodes well for Whannell’s Escape from New York (providing you think anyone should be remaking Escape from New York in the first place).


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?