The Invisible Man!

Regarding the cameras in the restaurant, I always thought it was easier and a stronger argument
for people to highly suspect of Cecilia killing her sister rather than some...invisible entity. That and depending on the camera angle.

Also, it seems no time had gone by between the restaurant and when she’s locked up while chaos continues to ensue. It’s plausible all evidence and whatnot (including camera footage) was being reviewed at the time. An example, when the cop immediately thinks Cecilia was the one taking the cops out even when she’s obviously sort of removed from the situation.
All of these indicators of people thinking Cecilia was the one rather than some inexplicable reason is more plausible to believe that than what was truly happening. I did not find it to be a big issue because of this.

Then at least give us some token exposition to mention that the cameras are inconclusive here or they weren't working or the angle makes it look like she did it. It's just ridiculous. There are security cameras EVERYWHERE these days. I find it hard to believe the detectives didn't review every angle to make sure they had an open and shut case here.

The film showed us the blade was nowhere in her hand when her sister died.

Any lawyer would've asked for discovery or reviewal of the footage to create reasonable doubt. Her detective friend wouldn't have reviewed it?

In the ending, Cecilia is at least smart enough to have Adrian look like the knife is in his hand before she cuts his throat IN HIS SECURITY CAMERA FRAMES.

IMHO it's poor writing. They only think about the security cameras as a narrative device WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT.
 
I really don't think the camera issue is as big as some people seem to make it out to be.

They shouldn't need to spell out every little thing. A restaurant like that isn't going to have more than maybe three cameras in the fairly small dining space, and they will be focused on the entrances and exits, not the center of the dining area. It's entirely understandable that there would be no clear view of the knife attack. That, coupled with the obvious fact that no one is going to seriously consider the "invisible man theory", dispenses with any logical issues, in my opinion.

I loved this movie so much. Strong performances all around, with directing and camerawork that expertly builds tension out of empty rooms, hallways, and slow pans. My only squabble was with the ending:

I feel like it would have benefitted more from a more open-ended conclusion. Don't show Adrian alive, have her return to the house and find the other suit gone. I get wanting the protagonist to find peace and some form of closure, but I think it would have had a more lasting impact if you never knew whether it was Adrian or if his brother had just been playing games all along.
 
Then at least give us some token exposition to mention that the cameras are inconclusive here or they weren't working or the angle makes it look like she did it. It's just ridiculous. There are security cameras EVERYWHERE these days. I find it hard to believe the detectives didn't review every angle to make sure they had an open and shut case here.

The film showed us the blade was nowhere in her hand when her sister died.

Any lawyer would've asked for discovery or reviewal of the footage to create reasonable doubt. Her detective friend wouldn't have reviewed it?

In the ending, Cecilia is at least smart enough to have Adrian look like the knife is in his hand before she cuts his throat IN HIS SECURITY CAMERA FRAMES.

IMHO it's poor writing. They only think about the security cameras as a narrative device WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT.

I don’t think that’s exclusive for a movie like this, the camera situation didn’t detract from it by not exploring this in depth as it’s being suggested; the evidence review could’ve been happening either way. I think it was dispelled in a tad more subtle context
(e.g. Sydney thinking is was Cecilia who hit her, security guard telling Cecilia to “stand back”).
It went with the narrative already presented to the public.

I didn’t personally need someone to say “Camera angles are being reviewed” for me to thoroughly enjoy the film.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think that’s exclusive for a movie like this, the camera situation didn’t detract from it by not exploring this in depth as it’s being suggested; the evidence review could’ve been happening either way. I think it was dispelled in a tad more subtle context
(e.g. Sydney thinking is was Cecilia who hit her, security guard telling Cecilia to “stand back”).
It went with the narrative already presented to the public.

I didn’t personally need someone to say “Camera angles are being reviewed” for me to thoroughly enjoy the film.

My problem is the movie made a big deal about cameras from the very first scene. Cameras are a recurring motif in this film as sort of like a tool for abusive jerks like Adrian. At one point, we see Cecilia put nail polish over her laptop camera for fear he might hack into it and try to spy on her.

If it went with the narrative then they needed to explain it better or present it better.
 
I really don't think the camera issue is as big as some people seem to make it out to be.

They shouldn't need to spell out every little thing. A restaurant like that isn't going to have more than maybe three cameras in the fairly small dining space, and they will be focused on the entrances and exits, not the center of the dining area. It's entirely understandable that there would be no clear view of the knife attack. That, coupled with the obvious fact that no one is going to seriously consider the "invisible man theory", dispenses with any logical issues, in my opinion.

Yet they consider it when she's released after the institution attack while she's imprisoned and the brother goes after her there.

Once again, any lawyer would ask for reviewal of the footage. It's flimsy storytelling. ****ing city of Chicago got the footage of those brothers buying all their equipment for Jussie Smollet. We saw them buying the rope, the bleach, the red NON-MAGA hats. I find it hard to believe there wasn't footage at least showing that something strange was going on there.

And here's an easy fix. Adrian forces the knife so it looks like it's in her hand when the throat of her sister is slashed. The movie does this VERY THING at the end so it looks like Adrian committed suicide. And Cecilia does this because Adrian has security cameras EVERYWHERE in his own home because he's a paranoid lunatic.

Easy fixes.

I feel like it would have benefitted more from a more open-ended conclusion. Don't show Adrian alive, have her return to the house and find the other suit gone. I get wanting the protagonist to find peace and some form of closure, but I think it would have had a more lasting impact if you never knew whether it was Adrian or if his brother had just been playing games all along.

As I said earlier, the ending is anti-climactic. It's not a very strong ending.
 
Yet they consider it when she's released after the institution attack while she's imprisoned and the brother goes after her there.

Once again, any lawyer would ask for reviewal of the footage. It's flimsy storytelling. ****ing city of Chicago got the footage of those brothers buying all their equipment for Jussie Smollet. We saw them buying the rope, the bleach, the red NON-MAGA hats. I find it hard to believe there wasn't footage at least showing that something strange was going on there.

And here's an easy fix. Adrian forces the knife so it looks like it's in her hand when the throat of her sister is slashed. The movie does this VERY THING at the end so it looks like Adrian committed suicide. And Cecilia does this because Adrian has security cameras EVERYWHERE in his own home because he's a paranoid lunatic.

Easy fixes.
The audience doesn't need to be spoonfed.

Look at your example. We have video footage of the brothers in the Smollett case because cameras are placed at the register and doors. Like I said, there is no reason to assume there would be clear footage to contradict the evidence at hand. This just feels like a really strange thing to nitpick.
 
There's a lot of silly plot conveniences in this, like
The email sent to her sister, and how her sister just immediately flips was wholly unbelievable. Based on what she had gone through, that scene would have gone completely different.
The fact that passwords and keycodes are not being changed by Adrian, even though he's a genius and stalking his ex and she's likely going to go back to his house.
There's no way a dead man's cellphone account would still be working either. After people die, their accounts are shut down.

Sometimes you just gotta suspend your disbelief and enjoy the show.
 
This was great. Elisabeth Moss was great and the movie was very suspenseful. I'm a big fan of the original 1933 Invisible Man so I was excited to see this.
 
The audience doesn't need to be spoonfed.

Look at your example. We have video footage of the brothers in the Smollett case because cameras are placed at the register and doors. Like I said, there is no reason to assume there would be clear footage to contradict the evidence at hand. This just feels like a really strange thing to nitpick.

Yes there is definitely reason to believe it, especially in a high class restaurant. IMHO it's not spoonfeeding because it's a major part of the film's narrative that's established from the very beginning.

I checked security camera angles and footage from restaurants. There's plenty of reason to believe there'd be contradicting footage on hand, especially if there was enough to let her free after the institution attack.
 
The movie was good but some scenes didn't make sense or could have made better.
Also she was rich so she could have bought thermal goggles or installed thermal cameras outside the house. Also I wonder why she still went to the house even thought she knew Adrian was there?
 
The movie was good but some scenes didn't make sense or could have made better.
Also she was rich so she could have bought thermal goggles or installed thermal cameras outside the house. Also I wonder why she still went to the house even thought she knew Adrian was there?

I'll give the movie an out on the thermal goggles. If he's watching her every move, would the thermal goggles have really helped? Granted, they could just come up with an easy excuse that it masks thermal heat.

Like he already hacked her e-mail, that means he could hack her Amazon account or whatever and cancel an order on thermal goggles.

I assume she went to the house because she was desperate for some proof and thought she might've been able to get there ahead of him?
 
If your main problem with a film about an INVISIBLE tech genius is related to security camera footage, I don’t know what to tell you.

A simple explanation is that the INVISIBLE man was able to disable/enable security cameras at his convenience depending on what he wanted to do, just like he was in control of so many other things throughout the film.
 
First and foremost he was a tech nerd with apparently Batman levels of prep time and foresight.
 
I thought this was good for a contemporary version of the story but a little overpraised. As far as Universal horror remakes go, I thought it was about on the same level as the Benicio Del Toro Wolfman movie (which I also enjoyed). Elisabeth Moss was good in it but
we should have gotten to know Griffin a bit more as opposed to him being in just two or three scenes in the film when he wasn't in his invisible tech. If we got a few more scenes showing how manipulative and abusive he was, then he would have been more effective as a villain.
 
I thought this was good for a contemporary version of the story but a little overpraised. As far as Universal horror remakes go, I thought it was about on the same level as the Benicio Del Toro Wolfman movie (which I also enjoyed). Elisabeth Moss was good in it but
we should have gotten to know Griffin a bit more as opposed to him being in just two or three scenes in the film when he wasn't in his invisible tech. If we got a few more scenes showing how manipulative and abusive he was, then he would have been more effective as a villain.

Regarding your spoiler point, there is a precedent for this in the original 1933 film and I thought the way this film handled it was appropriate and befitting of this version.

In the original film, Griffin (the Invisible Man) is already invisible when the film starts. He remains invisible up until the very last minute of the film as he dies and becomes visible again.

We actually saw a fair amount more of Griffin in this film, including the opening escape scene and that extended sequence at the end. I thought the way the film went about this was pretty effective and thought we saw enough of him. The film does a fairly good job of presenting him as an abusive, manipulative monster without needing to show much of his and Cecilia's past time together. We learn a lot about their relationship without being shown extensive flashbacks that probably would have dragged the film down.

The fact that she has to make such a complicated and harrowing escape from him in the middle of the night (ending with him chasing her and trying to forcibly remove her from the car) was a great way to start to film off and show how much control he had over her. Then, we see just how afraid Cecilia is of him even after she's escaped, and we learn plenty of things from her throughout the film about the way he treated her in the past. The fact that Griffin would go so far (after becoming invisible) and spend so much time trying to stalk her, destroy her life, control her, and manipulate all of these events to ultimately "get her back" -- even going as far as setting up his own brother to be captured or die -- showed just how truly evil and insane he really way. A man with such vast intelligence, wealth, and resources chooses to spend all of his time doing all of that? The guy was beyond ****ed up.

I also liked that this was more like the original book as opposed to the 1933 film, with Griffin already being insane prior to become invisible, as opposed to going insane from some kind of experiment.

The movie is not perfect by any means, but I thought it was very solid and about as good of a low-budget, modern update that they could have come up with for the most part.
 
Basically he had the mindset of Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, he could have whatever he wanted but couldn't stand the fact that couldn't have one thing.
 
Basically he had the mindset of Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, he could have whatever he wanted but couldn't stand the fact that couldn't have one thing.

Griffin is classic narcissistic control freak syndrome. He can't stand something getting out from under his control and defying him. It doesn't matter how much else he has, that one thing defying him and not being under this thumb is a thorn in his side that he can't stand.
 
I haven't seen this yet but I'll just say I'm happy that Blumhouse is kinda showing how to make popular and profitable films on a budget.
 
There's a lot of silly plot conveniences in this, like
The email sent to her sister, and how her sister just immediately flips was wholly unbelievable. Based on what she had gone through, that scene would have gone completely different.
The fact that passwords and keycodes are not being changed by Adrian, even though he's a genius and stalking his ex and she's likely going to go back to his house.
There's no way a dead man's cellphone account would still be working either. After people die, their accounts are shut down.

Sometimes you just gotta suspend your disbelief and enjoy the show.

Cell providers dont keep up with whether their clients are living or dead. They only care that the payment is made.
 
Cell providers dont keep up with whether their clients are living or dead. They only care that the payment is made.
As a former employee of a major cellphone company who had to work the "deceased customer" report, I'll have to kindly disagree with your hypothesis.
 
This film was incredible! Effective, suspenseful and very very smart. Leigh Whannell is a brilliant director!
 
I think Moss’ acting was great. Otherwise it’s a mediocre suspense movie, I don’t really like it.

At first I thought there are some weird choices of camera angle. But then I realise maybe all the scene
in which we saw no character might involve The Imvisible Man
 
I haven't seen this yet but I'll just say I'm happy that Blumhouse is kinda showing how to make popular and profitable films on a budget.
I find it quite ironic in my showing all the trailers were Blumhouse productions films like fantasy island and the hunt which imho like quite average( Fantasy hasn't been released in the UK yet) Thankfully this film was a pleasure to watch. Just great acting and atmosphere slight annoyances but overall this was a nice surprise.
 
I haven't seen this yet but I'll just say I'm happy that Blumhouse is kinda showing how to make popular and profitable films on a budget.
Yep.
The horror genre itself has always been tailor made for low cost crowdpleasers for the teenage/ young adult demographic. Blumhouse realized you don't even have a make a good film, just have a great premise, cut a couple of cool trailers, and watch the money roll in. Look at the trash heap that Fantasy Island turned out to be and it's turning a nice profit. The good thing is most of the BH lineup is good.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"