The Invisible Man (2020) (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

I have a few fair answers to those questions.

I think that's some poor bastard that they killed, set to look like a suicide and passed off his body. They're rich so I have no problem believing that they could grease enough palms to get that done and it's not like he had an outstanding reason to kill himself (it's not like he was wanted) so they probably wouldn't look that deeply into a suicide.



I just took his meaning to be that she'd be locked up in a hospital for a while until she was 'cured'/bought out of the psych ward.


Dear God, do I now wish that there was a scene of him invisibly driving a visible car down the street with other drivers doing a double take at the sight.

Those are decent guesses - but a movie shouldn't force the viewer to guess about such important plot points. It wouldn't have taken much to clear up these discrepancies but the 10-cent script couldn't bother!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I don't honestly care about all those things. I have to have a certain amount of disbelief for this movie to work. I went with it.

My bar is was I entertained or not. In this case, I was. So I'm happy.

Hey, that's cool - and I mean that sincerely. Even when I loathe a film and have no clue how anyone could like it, I never begrudge anyone their happiness. They'll remind me that I liked "Armageddon"!

I'm not gonna argue with people that they didn't enjoy the film - as long as others don't insult me and pooh-pooh my POV.

Which you didn't do!

I will say part of the disappointment for me is that "IM" has gotten very good reviews - 90% on RT. That elevated my expectations - 90% on RT means I go in with a different set of expectations vs. the 10% that "Fantasy Island" got.

My hometown WaPo gave it 1.5 stars - haven't read the review yet, so I'll be curious to see why they disliked it...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

BTW, has anyone emerged from "Mad Men" with a better career than Elisabeth Moss? Of all the actors on that show, it seems like people would've expected Hamm or Jones or Hendricks to have the most post-"MM" success, but it's clearly Moss...

 

[Jason_V]

Hey, that's cool - and I mean that sincerely. Even when I loathe a film and have no clue how anyone could like it, I never begrudge anyone their happiness. They'll remind me that I liked "Armageddon"!

I'm not gonna argue with people that they didn't enjoy the film - as long as others don't insult me and pooh-pooh my POV.

Which you didn't do!

I will say part of the disappointment for me is that "IM" has gotten very good reviews - 90% on RT. That elevated my expectations - 90% on RT means I go in with a different set of expectations vs. the 10% that "Fantasy Island" got.

My hometown WaPo gave it 1.5 stars - haven't read the review yet, so I'll be curious to see why they disliked it...

This is how I look at everything (movies, books, music, etc.): whatever it is, it is someone's favorite. Even if I don't like it, someone out there does. It's silly to call people names or denigrate based on opinions like this. (The "true fan" thing irks me for this exact reason.)

There's plenty of room in this world for all of our opinions. As long as they don't physically hurt anyone or cross into illegal territory.

 

[steve jaros]

Saw this today in "IMAX". Was surprised at how much I liked it. IM is a bit over two hours long but doesn't feel it. The tension builds from the git and the long stretches that are punctuated with action are orchestrated beautifully by the cast and director.

And by the orchestra too - I recommend seeing this in IMAX or Dolby Cinema, as the booming musical effects provided by the IMAX system was integral to the thrills.

B+

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Saw this today in "IMAX". Was surprised at how much I liked it. IM is a bit over two hours long but doesn't feel it. The tension builds from the git and the long stretches that are punctuated with action are orchestrated beautifully by the cast and director.

And by the orchestra too - I recommend seeing this in IMAX or Dolby Cinema, as the booming musical effects provided by the IMAX system was integral to the thrills.

B+

I saw Dolby Cinema, so you can't blame my severe dislike of the movie on inferior projection/audio!

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm going to try to see this movie tomorrow based on the mostly positive remarks in this thread.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How do people feel about the choice to make the dude

Spoiler

invisible via an "optics" suit vs. the more traditional potion/serum?

While the choice is more believable/real world in some ways, I think it opens its own can of realism worms...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Wow isn’t that a spoiler?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Wow isn’t that a spoiler?

Spoiler

The optics suit thing?

I don't think so.

I mean, we all know the dude will be invisible, right? And the movie makes it clear early on that

Spoiler

he's an "optics genius".

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this means

Spoiler

he'll use a suit to make himself invisible...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Spoiler

The optics suit thing?

I don't think so.

I mean, we all know the dude will be invisible, right? And the movie makes it clear early on that

Spoiler

he's an "optics genius".

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this means he'll use a suit to make himself invisible...

I haven't seen the movie yet and I didn't know he was an

Spoiler

"optics genius".

I wish I didn't find out until I actually started watching the movie.

 

[JohnRice]

Yes.

It is a spoiler. Maybe it's not like exposing Keyser Soze, but a spoiler all the same.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I haven't seen the movie yet and I didn't know he was an

Spoiler

"optics genius".

I wish I didn't find out until I actually started watching the movie.

Virtually every review of the movie mentions this. We find out maybe 10 minutes into the movie.

Honestly, I don't see how knowing the method the invisible man uses to become invisible spoils anything...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yes.

It is a spoiler. Maybe it's not like exposing Keyser Soze, but a spoiler all the same.

Sometimes I think people regard any information whatsoever as a "spoiler".

How should the movie's plot synopsis go? "Stuff happens to a woman"?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Virtually every review of the movie mentions this. We find out maybe 10 minutes into the movie.

Honestly, I don't see how knowing the method the invisible man uses to become invisible spoils anything...

Don't assume people read reviews as there aren't any I do any longer except the ones posted here. Anyway, the damage is done for me and I've edited posts to limit exposure to other people. Let's move on.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes.

It is a spoiler. Maybe it's not like exposing Keyser Soze, but a spoiler all the same.

That's what I thought, I'm still going to see the movie anyway, but perhaps not until Monday or Tuesday.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I find it perplexing that people who come into threads that discuss movies they've not seen would get mad that they learned something about those movies.

If you're that concerned about potential spoilers - to the point where minor information gets considered a spoiler - maybe avoid the thread until you see the movie?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I find it perplexing that people who come into threads that discuss movies they've not seen would get mad that they learned something about those movies.

If you're that concerned about potential spoilers - to the point where minor information gets considered a spoiler - maybe avoid the thread until you see the movie?

Maybe, you should be more careful especially considering the movie just opened yesterday. Anyhow, I'm done arguing with you about this issue.

 

[Malcolm R]

There's still a repeat of this spoiler in Post 30.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There's still a repeat of this spoiler in Post 30.

Thanks, Malcolm.