Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The 1933 film of "The Invisible Man" was going to be a tough act to follow as that is a standalone film.This offering from 1944, is a stale and routinely made yarn. The pub scene is mildly diverting but this is mostly tedious.Jon Hall (a totally obscure name) has neither the acting talent nor any charisma as the lead. Once again, Evelyn Ankers is wasted as she has little to do. The only redeeming quality is John Carradine as the eccentric scientist. Sadly, his screen time is all too brief. That slaphead Australian comedian Leon Errol is absolutely appalling!!

The original "IM" was directed by James Whalen. This fourth movie in the series was directed by Ford Beebee. That should tell you everything you need to know. But I'll expand on it anyway to meet the minimum word length requirements. The movie is crisply shot and photographed, has a few nice visual setups and reveals here and there, and features a good-looking-in- an-Errol-Flynn-way protagonist, so it has that going for it. But the plot takes forever to get going and isn't any good once it does. Hall has a certain screen presence, and his character actually has some sympathy coming, but there's nothing interesting about his so-called "madness", and things just poke along in scene after scene until you're tired of the whole thing and just want it over with. John Carradine gives his usual dependable performance, but he can't carry the film. Proof, if any were needed, that Universal could make mediocre films with the rest of the studios in the horror business, especially in the later years when their creative forces were wearing thin.

Despite the similar rating to INVISIBLE AGENT (1942) the film is not equal to its predecessor, in my opinion. In fact, I veered between *** and **1/2 for AGENT and between ** and **1/2 for this one: I opted for the midway rating because the former was undeniably silly despite its surface polish and the latter was somewhat unengaging but, at the same, solidly handled.In fact, THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE features a...ahem...revenge plot, settings and characters which would have been more suited to a Sherlock Holmes picture - which comes as no surprise at all since it was written by Bertram Millhauser, who scripted 5 of the 12 Holmes 'vehicles' made around the same time at Universal! Besides, Jon Hall is miscast as a villain (explained as such in the abrupt and none-too-convincing epilogue) - which the script names Griffin but then doesn't bother to make him a relation of the original Invisible Man(!), Leon Errol's comic relief is an acquired taste, and John Carradine here basically duplicates his role in RETURN OF THE APE MAN (1944)...although having his faithful (and invisible) dog as Hall's mortal enemy was a nice touch!

Lackluster sequel and the weakest movie in the Invisible man series. I was not impressed by this at all it was paced fast enough but it's nothing more then a mediocre flick that's average at best. and add to the fact you really have only 2 likable characters and only 1 too root for it makes it hard to watch even more. The Acting is so so. I though Jon Hall totally over acted as the invisible man and came nowhere to matching Claude Rain's or even Vincent Price's performance and plus his character is totally unlikable he is always a grouch and i just wanted him to shut up already he was great in the Invisible Agent but in this movie he was awful. John Carradine is very good here and does what he can i wish he had more screen time. Leon Errol is amusing here and gave me a couple of chuckles. Alan Curtis is so so here but really isn't given that much to do. Evelyn Ankers is GORGEOUS!! and does great here in her very limited screen time. Lester Matthews does what he has to do well. Overall a lackluster end to this series i would take a pass on this one ** out of 5 (barely)