The Invisible Man (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
LOW BUDGET, DRAGGING PLOT - Dont bother
stevebarrows11 August 2020
If you are a fan of "Invisible man" movies, if you are expecting some fun special effects, and new twists,, dont bother here.

It is akin to a stage play. 3 actors. 2 sets. 2 dimensional characters.

If you want to watch a movie for the sake of seeing someones art, ok go ahead.

Nothing new, nothing flashy. adequate directing and production.

Sorry but I feel like I wasted my time. I think the average person would find it boring.

MAYBE, just MAYBE if you have NEVER even heard of the invisible man book or related movies, you MIGHT find it worth your time.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Undoubtedly the worst version of the story
Leofwine_draca5 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This version of the classic H.G. Wells novel seems to have been made by a local theatre group. It has no budget and only a couple of different locations, the main room being an art room dressed up as a laboratory. Needless to say it pales in comparison to any other version of the story you've ever seen, including the Mexican ones. The whole experience is cheap-looking and poor quality, a slow moving conversation between the main character and his blonde assistant for the most part. There are no effects of any kind. You end up wondering just why they bothered.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wrong movie
anniegoode-6428828 February 2020
I thought this was the movie Invisible Man with Elizabeth Moss...this is the worst movie ive ever seen..kept watching for Elizabeth Moss to appear
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Invisible Talent!
chuckmac-3609317 March 2020
Some of the worst acting I have ever seen. Sarah Navratil takes first place here, followed closely by her boyfriend. The part of Griffin was tolerable. I accidentally watched this one instead of the 2020 version. What an awful mistake to make!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An after-school special without the "special"
gregory_m_allen13 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I put this movie on to have something going on in the background and it wasn't even good enough for that. It opened with the main actor in makeup that I think was supposed to look like his flesh was disappearing and thus showing the muscles and nastiness of the inner head...but it really looked like his head was swapped with a meat balloon. And I would think that as the flesh on the top becomes invisible, the head would appear smaller, however, the this disappearing head seemed to be getting much larger. And I had to turn it off when his invisible dog got loose and he was pretending it was pulling away from him but it really just looked like he was break dancing for the first time and also on crack. Last time I was pulled I dont remember my legs pushing me along. Then a car hit the invisible dog and it turned into a crappy white stuffed animal. Soooo...Oh and here's a kid with a frigging "hard part" haircut. I'm done. Off.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I'd rather watch paint dry
ashross-0263012 May 2020
Like most people, I accidentally watched this one instead of the 2020 one that supposedly has Johnny Depp in it. I unfortunately watched it all the way through. The end was the most confusing, I just kept laughing. What was the budget for this film? I just wasted a little over an hour of my life. It doesn't even look like it was made 3 years ago! Please, don't watch this.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Cardboard acting and dull
seanfacebook12 June 2020
Lost interest fairly early on. Only got to the end as the wife decided we should stick it out. It is like watching a 6th form school play in acting and dialogue. Dig out the 1933 film which is far, far better.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
very slow
tk-9023425 February 2020
In a day when we are used to seeing movie plots move right along, this one gets stuck and crawls along. Would not advise watching.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
great film!
fafaaaziz27 August 2020
Saw it by mistake , was looking for the 2020 film but found the story line gripping and the acting was great ! don't know the reason for the bad reviews here
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Absorbing
romolo-110 April 2020
Contrary to other reviews I found this movie to be very good. Special effects are at a minimum and is more concerned with the story line. I think reviews were from ones expecting big special effects and did not bother to follow the story. Sarah Navratil did a great job playing Heather.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Probably the worst film I've seen in the past 5 years
tierney-steve3 May 2020
Watched this by mistake thinking it was the 2020 Invisible Man and thought I'd see it through to the end. Writing this review so others done waste a tad over an hour of their lives. I won't discuss the negatives because I wouldn't know where to start.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Independent, minimalist version with focus on the acting
bartlpeter12 February 2018
This is an interesting loose adaptation of H.G. Wells's "The Invisible Man" with the feel of a theatrical play - actually the script could be adapted for a play with little work. Apparently filmed mostly on location at or around Stanford University, with a minimalist cast of 4 actors. Also very obviously done on a minimal budget; nevertheless the look is "modest" rather than "cheap" in my view. The cinematography is very good.

Besides the overall theme of a scientist named Griffin researching invisibility and testing it on himself, the script has little in common with the original book. Rather - and again like a play - it focuses on the interactions between the main characters, in particular Griffin himself and his assistant, Faith, This is a film focused on actors and dialogue rather than action or special effects, which I see as a positive but obviously many will disagree.

The two main actors - Jonathan Le Billon and Sarah Navratil - are not exactly household names but they are experienced actors, and I thought they were pretty good. In particular, Le Billion plays Griffin as a sort of stereotypical awkward and tormented scientist in a way that is convincing. Sometimes I think he stepped slightly into a caricature of the stereotype but I think that was what the script was asking for. Sarah Navratil, a very attractive actress, did manage to persuade me that her character, Faith, was actually attracted to Griffin (which seemed unlikely at first) and there was real chemistry between the actors. Far less convincing was the notion that she was having a serious relationship with the university professor Steven, played by T J Sloan. His role is "the girl's current douche boyfriend", a guy who you are supposed to dislike, but it never became convincing to me that Faith would seriously date him in the first place. However, although he is an unpleasant and annoying character, he is not a true "villain" and so is a more complex character than one could have expected.

The plot and its two or three subplots are not really that interesting in my opinion. But Billion's and Navratil's acting kept me interested from start to finish,
8 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good story, bit violent.
lschwrk15 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The shine was taken off this story with the presence of over the top violence...The rating for Family acceptance seems to be the amount of nudity? That is insignificant compared to the use of the knife in this movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Faithful retelling of the HG Wells classic story
rich-3204 May 2020
If you're a Science Geek, a fan of HG Wells, A fan of the book, or a fan of the 1933 version with Claude Raines, this movie will hit the mark. Not much special effects. The science that is used is supported by real Physics and convincing that theoretical invisibility could indeed be possible someday. My guess is that the negative reviews here are people expecting to be wowed by SFX or a complex storyline with mystery. You'll find none of that here. But the acting is decent and the production, while low budget, isn't obviously so. It's available on Amazon Prime if anyone needs to find it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brava!
dimyana30 April 2018
Well done. The passion and heart of this project are evident. These people clearly gathered together to CREATE ART and what a gift to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Highly Recommend.
5 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
10 Stars
meghanacounts20 April 2018
This movie as great. I found all the actors convincing in their roles, and I felt the script created a fun, new and fresh take on the invisible man from H.G. Wells. The practical effects were spot on, showing that it doesn't take a big budget to create the illusion of invisibility.
3 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed