AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

preppy-3 A scientist (a sadly aged John Barrymore) invents a machine that can turn people invisible. He experiments on a young woman (Virginia Bruce) and it works. However the effect wears off after a while. Then some buffoonish gangsters get involved and the movie becomes unbearable.Squarely aimed at kids and full of violent unfunny slapstick. The cast (which also includes John Howard and Margaret Hamilton) are good but the material isn't there for them. The special effects are good but sparsely used (the film is only 70 minutes). The biggest problem in this film is seeing the great John Barrymore looking terrible in what was one of his last film roles. The role is clearly beneath him but he gives it his all. Still this is an unfunny and violent comedy that is forgettabke. Skip it.

dougdoepke Delightful comedy from start to finish, with plenty of bounce and throw-away lines. Of course, invisible people can be the stuff of horror, but there's plenty of shtick in the idea, as well. For example, the Topper series (1953-55) made good comedic appeal in TV's early days, while Abbott and Costello spoofed the idea in maybe their best " A&C Meet__" (1951).Here, it's a first-rate cast, including some of Hollywood's most colorful lugs— including, Ed Brophy, Donald McBride, Shemp Howard, and mugging it up comedically, John Barrymore. Seems Barrymore's invented a fade-away gizmo that he wants patented, but first has to get seed money from playboy John Howard. Then too he needs to hire a human guinea pig to prove that the gizmo works, and that's dress-model Virginia Bruce who's out for revenge against her cruel boss (Lane). Naturally crooks get wind of the invention and want to hijack it. So, amusing mayhem ensues.Note the lengths the script manages to avoid that awful word "naked". Instead a number of Code euphemisms are employed. Still, the shtick makes funny use of Bruce's being naked when invisible. In fact, the writers go to some lengths making her occasional lack of clothes realistic— e.g. she gets cold up at the cabin. Anyway, the well-timed gags fly thick and fast, along with expert pacing from director Sutherland. At the same time, Charlie Ruggles almost steals the show as the impeccable butler. All in all, this Universal production amounts to a genuine sleeper despite the darkish title, and definitely deserves more frequent revival.

mgconlan-1 No, "The Invisible Woman" isn't a movie for the ages (as the 1933 "Invisible Man" certainly is!), but it's a cheery little screwball comedy with a science-fiction premise grafted onto it. Mad (in the dotty rather than the floridly insane sense) scientist John Barrymore needs a volunteer to try out the invisibility process he's been working on for 10 years (a chemical injection followed by an electrical transformation, rather than the chemicals alone that turned Claude Rains and Vincent Price, respectively, invisible in Universal's two previous films on this premise) and finds her in Virginia Bruce, a store model who uses her new-found powers to get revenge on a martinet boss (Charles Lane). Directed by Mack Sennett veteran A. Edward Sutherland (who actually did make a serious horror film, "Murder in the Zoo," though for the most part he stuck to comedies like W. C. Fields' 1936 "Poppy"), "The Invisible Woman" is quite amusing (though it sags a bit in the second half) and a light-hearted romp. Barrymore manages to retain his dignity in his hapless role, though given what happened to him in real life it's almost unbearably ironic to hear him warning Virginia Bruce NOT to drink alcohol! As for Bruce, she was one of the most unjustly neglected and underused actresses of her era; she was superb in the 1934 "Jane Eyre" for Monogram (far better than Joan Fontaine in the 1943 remake for Fox!) but otherwise got to play only second-leads in prestige films (like the 1936 Cole Porter musical "Born to Dance," in which she introduced the song "I've Got You Under My Skin") and leads in movies like this; still, she's good here throughout, especially in the scene in which she attempts to rally her fellow models to resist their viciously repressive boss: "The Invisible Man" meets "Norma Rae"!

slayrrr666 "The Invisible Woman" is an underrated, but still problematic entry in the series.**SPOILERS**Answering a newspaper ad, model Kitty Carroll, (Virginia Bruce) travels to Prof. Gibbs, (John Barrymore) to become invisible. After the successful experiment, she runs out to exact revenge on her old employers, forcing Prof. Gibbs' patron, Richard Russell, (John Howard) to think his experiment his nonsense. Upon hearing of the invention, a squadron of gangsters ventures to his estate to acquire the invisibility device, but are driven away. When the success of the machine is proved to the others, they all agree it's the greatest invention of all time, but Kitty, tiring of being invisible, wishes to return to visibility. When the gangsters instead steal the invention, they all fight back to get the machine before the gangsters use it for their own means.The Good News: This one wasn't that bad. One of it's best features is that it's also the only one to cash in on the overtly obvious titillation factor. The fact that, in order for an invisible person to be unseen, they must be naked. In this one, because the invisible nude person is female, a model nonetheless, there's a much feistier atmosphere here, as in one scene in which the invisible woman decides to prove to the hero that she has "good-looking legs" by putting on just her stockings or by having her repeatedly reiterate how cold she is. One of the best scenes to illustrate this is the sequence in the cabin, where her indentations on a bear-skin rug are made all the more subtle when they are told of her nude appearance. In combination of these are the exceptionally good invisibility effects. From the usual floating unanimated objects in front of others to the denting of cushions, chairs and other apparel around, including several splendid transformation scenes from visible to invisible and back, this one's effects are just as good as the others and still manage to hold up quite well. The abundance of comedy, though, is the film's greatest strength. With the flirtatious atmosphere, there's plenty of innuendo, and aside from that, there's also some really great physical comedy, mainly pratfalls and such, that's guaranteed to bring out a couple chuckles. It's easily the most underrated entry in the series.The Bad News: While there aren't many problems in here, some do pop up. Most of this stems from the fact that the film completely disregards it's horror starting place and the near-constant comedy that was hinted at originally is brought to the forefront. This doesn't really seem to be a horror film at all, as the premise is meant to be a parody of the ones before it, the protagonist doesn't partake in anything that would consider the film to be scary, and it's far to light and fluffy to try it's hand at a horrific sequence. For being involved in the series, it's a little hard to shake that from the film. The subplot about the abusive boss is a confusing one, as it's something that could've easily been conveyed through dialog and only seems to be there to get in some more invisibility gags. They really seem to elongate the film more than anything, and as it's dropped from the film after about twenty minutes and never heard from again, it's inclusion seems a little odd to say the least. These, however, are it's only real strikes against the film.The Final Verdict: It's an underrated entry in the series that really won't strike fear in anyone the way the others were, but it's light tone and impressive invisibility effects still make this one a watchable one. It's more at home for those who enjoy the screwball comedies of the time that hardcore horror fans, but they should at least give it a shot before dismissing it.Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence