ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

scarmiglionne Griffith plays a sinister, ruthless villain, and Kennedy does well as an early example of an antihero. The movie is far better than the title and many of these pretentious reviews would have you believe. This film has the skeleton of an entertaining story, but characters change alliances and motivations far too quickly, with any explanation as to why happening off-screen or apparently not at all. I say grab you drink of choice and have fun with it. Take it too seriously and one would wonder why you wanted this in the first place. Unless you just wanted to write a pompous ass review on imdb.

Adam Foidart Despite its shortcomings, "The Amazing Transparent Man" is smarter and better than most of the cheap sci-fi films you can find in your average movie bargain bin. It has an interesting premise, original characters and at just under an hour, it moves quickly so you won't be bored. There's some sci-fi mumbo jumbo to explain the invisibility, some pretty laughable special effects, but you can tell there was some effort put into this. The special effects aren't always awful either, I'd say most of the time they're passable. The ending is where the movie really shines, which is what makes up for the rough spots. If you're at all curious about this one or if you are a fan of these older quickie sci-fi flicks, this is one of the better ones. If you're not one of the connoisseurs though, I don't know if there's going to be anything here for you. (Dvd, September 20, 2012)

dougdoepke Plot—a mad scientist frees a safecracker from prison to help him put together an army of invisible men, which he can then sell for big money!So what's in a title. Apparently, a lot since the "Amazing Transparent Man" lowers expectations to near empty. Sounds like a teenage drive-in special where kids didn't care what's on screen as long as there's a dark place to park. But then there's the Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) whose goofy title may have consigned it to the teenage circuit, yet also turned out to be not just suspenseful but surprisingly sublime. So I guess you can't always tell the book by its cover.Anyway, looks to me like this horror flick was aiming at Shrinking Man type transcendence, but doesn't get it; and that's despite Dr. Ulof's philosophical ponderings. Unfortunately, the script just never gels into anything suspenseful. Mostly it meanders around the laboratory- mansion, instead. Director Ulmer does keep things moving, so at least the pace doesn't drag. Still, the narrative is too loose to build anything like tension or suspense. Then too, the production is pretty shoddy at points that other reviewers have ably detailed. On the other hand, movie vets Kennedy and Chapman are energetic enough. At least, they don't appear to treat this as just an easy payday. Plus, I did enjoy seeing Ivan Triesault (Dr.Ulof) as something other than the Nazi stereotype that he was usually consigned to. Still, I'm afraid this movie is an instance where-- all in all-- the book is told by its cover.

gavin6942 A crazed scientist (Ivan Trisault) invents an invisibility formula. An Army major (James Griffith) plans to use the formula to create an army of invisible zombies.Does this film rip off "The Invisible Man"? To some degree, of course. There is no possible way the creators did not know about that earlier film. But it goes its own way, too -- for one thing, the transparent man is not invisible from the beginning.The only person I know attached to this film is the makeup artist, Jack Pierce. That may explain why people have rated it so incredibly low. I am sure the cast was known in their day, but they are not known to me, and the fact this comes from a defunct movie studio suggests a lot. Director Edgar G. Ulmer is a legend in his own way, perhaps ironically.I appreciate that a guinea pig is used as a guinea pig, but beyond that, I do not know what to say. Even with its very short run time, it does not move quick enough in some scenes. The special effects -- which made "Invisible Man" a classic a few decades earlier -- are not nearly as good here. Perhaps author David Wingrove summed it up best when he said, "Its cheap-budget origins show throughout. Amazing claims too much for what is essentially a thriller involving an escaped criminal..."