Movie Trailer For Universal's "The Invisible Man" Will Be a Major Flop

[Rex fury]

I saw it today and really liked it. Adding the domestic violence angle made it a more intense viewing experience for me. Like The Shape of Water, it brought the "monster" into a new era without  disrespecting what came before and without trying to be yet another superhero movie. I understand Universal is still looking at a Bride of Frankenstein film. I hope they take cues from the audience reaction to both Shape and Invisible Man.
RF

[Sir Masksalot]

I saw it over the weekend. It was grim and scary (my wife was freaking out) but very well crafted. I couldn't help but imagine all the other things
Griffin should've been doing while invisible. Now if it were me ....

[John Pertwee]

We went to see it last night and I really liked it. I thought I had it all figured out but they did a great job tricking me into thinking A when it turned out to be B and C.

[Joseph_Baeza]

All I can say is that The Invisible Man is Citizen Kane next to the Tom Cruise Mummy film.  Thank you, Blumhouse.  They understand that if you put together a decent plot and cast some high quality character actors, you can make a solid low-budget thriller that makes a ton of money without all the CGI nonsense. Universal mastered this concept in the 1930's.

[Haunted hearse]

I saw it in the theater yesterday, and I really enjoyed it. It did some very inventive twists on the character, and those he victimized.

[Lunkenstein]

I will definitely watch this when it becomes on-demand.

[aura of foreboding]

Watched it tonight in the comfort and safety of my own home through the Fandango app. 

Holy cow.  I hate to say it, but I TOLD YOU this was going to be good.  And it was excellent.  Such a phenomenal film with a phenomenal cast.  This is how you make a movie in 2020.  Really, really well done.  The Invisible Man, himself, was terrifying on several levels -- a good monster movie in a new vein.  Could they do this will all of the Universal Monsters?  I don't think so.  You have to maintain iconography for Frankenstein, Dracula, Creature, and Wolf Man.  But The Invisible Man doesn't need it to work.  I fear the new Dracula project set in the present, because Dracula needs his cape and medallion and ring, so it worries me, but it worked for The Invisible Man.

[Mord]

 I saw it in the theater, when it came out. I feel the same way. Universal was wise to team up with Blumhouse.

[zombiehorror]

It was just ok.  First of all it was a decent movie but it wasn't The Invisible Man.  Definitely didn't have anything to do with any plot point (besides obviously a man being invisible) from either the novel or movie.  I feel the film would have actually been better served by not giving away the whole invisibility angle in the title; for most of the story it could have been played out as a vengeful spirit until the big reveal.  The script also had some very pedestrian writing, things that were a little to convenient to push the story along.  This type of script could definitely work for any of the other Universal Monsters if all you need is the basic concept; man creates being from cadavers, a vampire, a werewolf, a resurrected mummy, a creature from a body of water...etc...etc.........just throw the "famous monster" name on it as the title.

Had to add, in the end I call the version The Invisible Meh.

[geezer butler]

I watched it the other night and really like it. I have to say I was cynical at first, basically because I didn't like Leigh Whannell's attitude. Every interview I read he went out of his way to say (and I'm paraphrasing) "I want to stay away from the guy with bandages and floating teacup" type of thing. Another interview in Scream magazine, he said "I was not interested in doing a Penny Dreadful version with top hats and long trench coats (laughing)."

I'm probably oversensitive but I thought "what's so funny about that?" I like old school Gothic horror. They're not common anymore, but every few years we see some good stuff: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), Sleepy Hollow (1999), From Hell (2001), The Wolfman (2010), Crimson Peak (2015), Penny Dreadful (2014-2016). So again, I don't see what's so funny.

Anyhow, I'm over it because I have to admit, at least in this case, Whannell's instincts were spot on. I def like the modern approach. For example, and maybe I'm projecting my own politics, but I like how the techbro douche bag and slimy lawyer are the villains.  And I actually like that the film de-emphasized the science of invisibility, and instead focused on the terror an invisible man could cause.

[BigShadow]

I've heard many mixed reviews on the movie with most leaning toward the "negative" side.  I don't think I'll be giving it a chance just like the new Mummy movie.  These remakes, or whatever you want to call them, just don't appeal to me.  Each writer tries to put their own spin on a character and mythos, and 9 times out of 10 it ruins the movie...for me anyway.  The only "remake" I enjoyed was Dracula Untold (2014).  It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good either...just a popcorn flick.  But I'm partial to Vampire movies, so I have a little bias.

[geezer butler]

Like I said, I was skeptical, but I ending up liking it a lot. Very suspenseful imo. In this case I like the original take on classic character. The one thing I would say, and others here have pointed this out too, is  there's no connection to the source material. It's really an "Invisible Man" movie in name only. No connections that I'm aware of to either the HG Wells novel or the Universal classic film. I like Dracula Untold as well, but I guess that doesn't really connect to the novel or 1931 film either.

IDK. I understand why old school fans don't like these remakes and reboots, but I guess I like the idea of keeping these characters circulating in the public consciousness. And I can tell you young people are unlikely to watch 1930s black and white films on their own. By introducing these new versions to younger audiences, hopefully that inspires some people to look up the original versions.

[YoungestMonsterKid]

I've heard the director and writer wanted this movie to concentrate on the #MeToo movement and toxic masculinity in the guise of a horror movie.  I know such topics have been touched upon before, but it seems like movies in the last few years have concentrated more on social justice and virtue signaling rather than a good story.  Unfortunately this seems like the case here.

Good thing all the old stories never had any social commentary.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Good thing all the old stories never had any social commentary.

Social commentary ruins horror movies.

[geezer butler]

Social commentary ruins horror movies.

I respectfully disagree. In fact, I argue some of the best horror and sci-fi films are rich in political and social commentary: Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Rosemary's Baby, American Psycho, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Gojira, Get Out, V for Vendetta, 1984, Candyman, The Purge, They Live, Videodrome, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Shining .  .  .

I would say some of the best films in general are rich in political and social commentary: 12 Angry Men, How to Kill a Mockingbird, Philadelphia, Thelma and Louise, Selma, Fight Club, Do the Right Thing, The Battle of Algiers, Dr. Strangelove, Grapes of Wrath, Boys n the Hood, the East . . .

If I may be so bold, is it possible this is more about not liking the ideological content of said "social commentary," than a universal dislike of films with social commentary?