Onward Review

After a bit of a sequel run as of late, Pixar is back doing what they do best. Original animated films. Prior to “Onward,” four of the last five movies that Pixar released were sequels. In fact, this whole past decade was quite sequel heavy for Pixar, which is in stark contrast to what they did during the beginning of their tenure as an animation studio. Starting with “Toy Story” in 1995 and going to “UP” in 2009, they made nine original films and one sequel, that of “Toy Story 2” in 1999, which itself was initially envisioned by Disney as a direct-to-video sequel. But in the 2010s, Pixar made 11 movies and seven of them were either sequels or other franchise continuations (“Monsters University” was a prequel, which is why I make that distinction). When you look at this whole picture, generally speaking, Pixar does much better with their original films, at least in terms of quality. Outside the “Toy Story” franchise, their sequels just aren’t quite up to par in comparison, which is why I’m glad they’re starting the 2020s with two original films, “Onward” right now and “Soul” in June. Is this going to be the beginning of a trend for Pixar? I don’t know. Pixar has announced dates for their upcoming slate of films, but have yet to reveal what any of those projects are. I hope it is, though.

Normally when it comes to Pixar, awareness is super high and I don’t have to spend much effort convincing people to go see their movies. The discussion is more or less centered around us comparing notes as to what we all thought of it, since a large percentage of people have already ran out to theaters. However, box office results from this past weekend suggest a slightly different story. Without adjusting for inflation, “Onward” came in just below “The Good Dinosaur” in terms of opening weekends with $39.1 million, and only ahead of “Toy Story” in 1995, which opened to $29.1 million, and “A Bug’s Life” in 1998, which opened to $33.3 million. As you might guess, ticket prices were much lower back in the 90s, which means Pixar did indeed suffer their worst opening weekend in their studio’s history with “Onward” in terms of the number of tickets sold. There’s probably a wide range of reasons as to why this happened, all combining together to hurt “Onward,” but I honestly think the awareness of this movie just isn’t as high. Those who are aware of this movie’s existence also just might simply not be as interested as they usually are when it comes to Pixar movies, so I need to put a little more effort into getting you out to see this, so long as you aren’t quarantined.

When I first saw advertising for “Onward,” I immediately thought of Netflix’s 2017 film “Bright,” the movie where Will Smith starred as a police officer and his companion was an orc. Essentially that was a fantasy movie where the fantasy creatures had lost their magic powers or chose not to use them and began to live normal, human lives. The premise for “Onward” is very similar, albeit without the heavy-handed political themes or the bizarre nature of pretty much everything involved. It’s almost as if people at Pixar watched that movie and decided they could do something similar, but much better. The only thing that throws a wrench into that theory is the fact that this was announced at D23 in July 2017, five months before “Bright” came out. Writer and director Dan Scanlon claimed his inspiration for the film came from his own personal history of his father dying when him and his brother were younger. He wrote the story after hearing an audio clip from his father. That makes too much sense to be false, but I still like my theory because “Bright” and “Onward” are awfully similar. Like “Bright,” our world here is also full of fantasy creatures living normal lives like humans or animals. Although their reason for transitioning away from magic is that technology made more sense than magic.

That idea of technology overpowering magic is an interesting parallel to reality. One could argue that constant flow of technology via all of our electronics and devices has hurt creativity. If “Onward” helps inspire more adventure and creativity, I certainly think that’s a great thing for the younger generation. However, that specific setting is used more of a backdrop to the current adventure rather than being a main focus. The movie’s driving force is precisely what I alluded to earlier with director Dan Scanlon’s personal experience with his father and brother. “Onward” is primarily focused on the two brothers, voiced by Chris Pratt and Tom Holland. Holland’s character, Ian Lightfoot, has never met his father as his father died before shortly before Ian was born. Ian’s older brother Barley Lightfoot, voiced by Chris Pratt, does remember their father, but was really young when he died. On Ian’s 16th birthday, he is given his father’s magical staff as a present with a spell included that will bring their father back for 24 hours. However, they fail in their execution of the spell, only bringing their father’s legs back. This immediately sends the two brothers on an adventure as they try to figure out a way to complete the spell properly before the 24 hours run out.

The first thing that I want to say about this is that it’s a lot of fun. I’m not one who has ever played Dungeons and Dragons, but “Onward” very much has the structure of a Dungeons and Dragons style of adventure. The end credits of the movie is what specifically clued me in on this as it mentions that there are specific elements of this movie that were taken directly from early Dungeons and Dragons games. When I saw that in the credits, it immediately connected with me that the movie I just watched was essentially Pixar’s “Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie.” The two brothers are on a quest to find a stone that will help them complete the spell. And there’s a lot of obstacles along the way that they have to overcome. The older brother, Barley, is super nerdy about all of this with his cards and games that he insists are historically based. Barley is also super outgoing and carefree, so the idea of risk excites him rather than scaring him. Ian, on the other hand, is a lot quieter. He’s working on his self-confidence, but isn’t sure of a lot, yet he’s the one that the staff works with. He’s also unsure of his brother’s plan, but he decides to go along with it. This sort of chemistry with the brothers adds a significant dose drama and excitement that propels the movie forward.

To go along with this high-octane adventure that doesn’t slow down, giving this a fairly unique flavor for a Pixar film, this is also a movie that has 100 percent of the Pixar touch. Every time you go into a new Pixar film, a high dosage of emotion is pretty much the expectation. Rarely, if ever, do they make your cotton candy style of kids film with a fun adventure and no depth. They always try to pack a huge, emotional punch. If you don’t walk out of the theater on the verge of tears or being deeply affected in other ways, then Pixar essentially didn’t do their job. With “Onward,” the second you hear that this is a Pixar movie where the plot centers around the death of a father and two brothers trying to bring him back for 24 hours, you know exactly what this movie is going to try to do at some point and thus you brace for impact and try to be strong through it all. This is why, in my initial Facebook reaction last week, I turned the word Pixar into a verb. “Onward” is a movie that you know is going to Pixar you, or hit you with a strong dose of emotion. Even though I was braced for impact, it Pixared me anyways, leaving me an emotional wreck. The reason why it was so effective is that it Pixared me in a way that I wasn’t expecting to get Pixared.

I don’t want to get into a whole lot of details in regards to the specifics here. The obvious reason is that I don’t want to give out any spoilers or even hint at any so that the experience for you is ruined. But I also don’t want to dive into my personal reasons as to why this affected me so much because that might be a backdoor way to give spoilers. If I tell you my personal experiences, then you might be able to connect the dots as to what happened in this movie. But nevertheless, this movie hit really close to home for me, which means I might value it slightly higher that some people because of that. And that’s OK. Pixar is really good at getting personal with their audience, which means the movies of theirs that you like the most are most likely determined by your own personal experiences. That said, I have no idea exactly where this movie ranks for me when it comes to Pixar’s filmography. I need to sit down and figure that out. I will say that the more movies that Pixar releases, the harder it becomes to get my exact ranking nailed down because we’re at a point where it might be difficult for a new Pixar movie to even make my top 10 due to the consistent quality that they put out. At this point, my top five might be set in stone given how many near perfect films Pixar has released.

Despite where this movie may end up on my Pixar ranking, one thing is for sure. This didn’t deserve to have the label of Pixar’s least attended opening weekend. And I don’t think the panic in the United States of the coronavirus is strong enough at the moment to convince enough people to stay away from theaters this past weekend to give it that label. In terms of the worldwide gross, of course it makes sense for Asia and Europe to not show up in huge numbers, but in the United States I wouldn’t say as much. I honestly think that a large percentage of the reason why the numbers were so low is because either the awareness wasn’t super high or people saw the trailers and weren’t too terribly interested. In which case, I’m here to tell you that, at the very least, this movie is fun and exciting. There’s never a dull moment. If you’re a Pixar fan, which most of us should be, I’m confident in my claim that you will at least find this to be an enjoyable ride that’s well worth your time. I can’t guarantee that the movie will effect you in the same way it did me due to how personal it felt, but it might. If you’re not in the mood to go to a crowded venue, go on a weekday night or a matinee showing. Or wait a week or two. But go see this. I’m giving “Onward” a 9/10.

Movie Preview: March 2020

The second month of the year has come and gone and, without any sort of "Black Panther" around to light the box office on fire, it was again a normal February, which is historically one of the lowest grossing months of the year. "Sonic the Hedgehog" was the big story this time around as it broke out in a big way, making $123.4 million in the month of February, but that was pretty much it. In second place was "Birds of Prey" with just $77.7 million in February, a total that "Joker" flew past in just three days back in October. "The Invisible Man" ended the month on a good note, but it only had two days to work with when it came to February. Moving onto March, this is the month in recent years that has often signaled the beginning of an early summer. And while this month has the firepower to do so with several big titles, this might be a difficult month to predict. The coronavirus has rightfully dominated the news this year and has just recently began to spread in the United States. Because of this, crowded movie theaters might not be people's favorite place to be. Some studios might decide to postpone certain movies altogether, like was just the case with the latest Bond movie "No Time to Die." With all of that in mind, this is what the current schedule looks like.

March 6th - 8th-

Leading the charge in March will be Pixar with their 22nd animated feature in Onward. After releasing two straight sequels, and four sequels in their last five movies, “Onward” is the first of two original animated films that Pixar is releasing in 2020, with “Soul” currently scheduled for June. Whether or not this is the beginning of a trend for Pixar returning to making more original films is yet to be determined as Pixar has scheduled dates for their slate of films from 2021 to 2023, but hasn’t given any information as to what they are. “Onward” is a movie that takes a page from Netflix’s 2017 film “Bright” as it is a movie full of fantasy characters who now live like normal human beings or animals without magical powers. However, two brothers whose father has passed away find a magical staff and have the opportunity to live with their father for one more day, but the staff only brings back his legs, sending them on a magical adventure. In terms of the box office, Pixar has been on a roll with their recent sequels, three of which have opened above $100 million, but their original films open more down to Earth. Even so, anything less than $50 million for “Onward” would actually be considered a disappointment for Pixar standards, even when it does come to their original films.

Continuing on that financial side of things real quick for “Onward” before moving onto our other film of the week. We’ll find out here really soon exactly what “Onward” is going to do, but the last two Pixar films that were released were 2017’s “Coco” and 2015’s “The Good Dinosaur.” Neither would make the perfect apples-to-apples comparison due to their release on a Wednesday during the week of Thanksgiving, but “Coco” had a three-day opening of $50.8 million and a five-day opening of $72.9 million. “The Good Dinosaur,” Pixar’s lowest-grossing film, had a three-day opening of $39.2 million and a five-day opening of $55.6 million. In 2015, “Inside Out” opened to a massive $90.4 million while “Brave” in 2012 surprised a bit with $66.3 million, both of those opening on a regular three-day weekend. Taking a quick look at one Pixar sequel in 2017’s “Cars 3,” which was another film that opened on the lower end of the Pixar spectrum, that one even landed a $53.7 million opening. The tracking for “Onward” isn’t necessarily through the roof and the reaction is a bit lukewarm, but it does have strong enough reviews at an 87 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. That combined with the Pixar brand should, in theory, help it get high enough to at least hit par for the course.

After that slight deep dive into “Onward,” the other movie on the wide release schedule is The Way Back, which is not to be confused with 2013 film “The Way, Way Back.” Only one “way” here. This movie is a sports drama, perhaps leaning a bit more on the drama side of things, starring Ben Affleck and directed by Gavin O’Connor, who previously directed movies like “Miracle,” “Warrior” and “The Accountant.” So O’Connor is familiar with this specific genre and has a good resume there of quality films. Even though “The Accountant” has nothing to do with sports, that re-teams him with star Ben Affleck. In “The Way Back,” Affleck plays a former basketball player who turned down a scholarship to Kansas and is now struggling with alcoholism that is ruining his life. However, his high school alma matter offers him a job to coach their basketball team, which in turn gives him an opportunity to turn his life around. The movie is currently tracking to open in the $6-10 million range, which feels about right. In 2011, O’Connor’s “Warrior” opened to $5.2, while 2016’s “Eddie the Eagle” opened to around $6 million. On the higher end of the spectrum, a pair of Disney sports movies, “McFarland, USA” and “Million Dollar Arm,” opened to $11 million and $10.5 million respectively.

March 13th - 15th-

Barring a colossal failure on the side of Pixar or a huge surprise with one of these new films this weekend, "Onward" will claim a second week on top of the charts. But there's going to be four new wide releases this week all fighting for a spot somewhere in the top five and early indications seem to favor the Christian film I Still Believe. This movie comes from the exact same team as "I Can Only Imagine," who are looking to catch lightning in a bottle twice after "I Can Only Imagine" ended up earning $83.4 million domestically, which is one of the highest totals for a Christian film. The thing here is that Bart Millard and his band MercyMe are a bit more widely known than Jeremy Camp, the subject of "I Still Believe." Nevertheless, with Easter coming on April 12 and no other Christian film in the way, this is poised quite well for Christian audiences as it tells the story behind Jeremy Camp and how his first wife Melissa was diagnosed with cancer shortly before they married, which led him to write the song "I Still Believe." Christian films can be hard to predict at the box office and while "I Still Believe" probably won't hit as high as the $17.1 million opening of "I Can Only Imagine," a large sample of other Christian films suggest that $10-15 million is in play.

On a wildly different note, we swing from the uplifting Christian film to the movie that might be the most controversial film to be released as of late. That movie is The Hunt. Loosely based on a 1924 short story titled "The Most Dangerous Thing," this is a Hunger Games style of movie where a bunch of strangers wake up in a clearing only to learn that they are being hunted by a group of elites. The movie obviously does not shy way from the extreme politics of it all with the hunted representing the conservatives with the elite that are doing the hunting are representing the liberals. All of this being done in a very violent and comedic, tongue-in-cheek sort of way. Back in August, President Trump actually tweeted about the movie, accusing it of made solely to inflame and cause chaos, which might not necessarily be wrong. Although Mr. President may have not realized that the conservatives are actually the heroes of the movie while the liberals are the villains. Either way, the movie was pulled back in August following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, but Universal decided to eventually throw it back on the schedule while implementing a very self-aware advertising campaign that highlights the controversy and invites the moviegoer to come and decide for themselves.

The third movie of the weekend is the year's next superhero movie, Bloodshot. Although this is one of those superhero movies that many people may not realize exists or even realize is a superhero movie. And the unfortunate reality is that this is the case because "Bloodshot" is not Marvel or DC. It comes from Valiant Comics. Haven't heard of them? Well, they were founded in 1989. Sold in 1994 to Acclaim Entertainment, which went bankrupt in 2004. The company was restarted in 2005 by a pair of entrepreneurs in 2005. So yeah, it hasn't been all rainbows and butterflies for Valiant. Bloodshot is a character who got assassinated along with his wife and brought back by a team of scientists who use nanotechnology to turn him into a superhuman, biotech killing machine. When he slowly gets his memories back, he escapes and goes on a revenge mission to kill the man who killed his wife. Bloodshot is played by Vin Diesel, which is the biggest thing that this movie has going for it. Although as popular as Diesel is, he's not been known to carry a new franchise on his back based on his name alone. Because of that, one of his solo outings, that of "The Last Witch Hunter," might be a good comparison. That movie opened to $10.8 million back in 2015.

While it's true that comedies have a tendency to randomly break out and thus become a bit unpredictable, it nevertheless seems that My Spy is destined to come in last place out of the new wide releases this weekend. Although it's certainly not without its own bit of star-power as it's led by Vin Diesel's "Guardians of the Galaxy" co-star Dave Bautista, who is trying his hardest make a name for himself outside his beloved Drax role, but that hasn't exactly worked out lately, with the most recent failure being last year's "Stuber," which could only muster $8 million in its opening weekend, despite seeing Bautista team up with Kumail Nanjiani. "My Spy" has Bautista teaming up with 11-year-old Chloe Coleman, playing a 9-year-old girl in this movie, as he plays a CIA agent who is getting one last shot to prove his worth and thus becomes at the mercy of said 9-year-old girl who figures him out after he gets assigned to surveil her family. The movie seems like it's directed at a family audience, but went with the PG-13 rating, meaning it might awkwardly fall in the range of not pleasing families nor adults. The movie is directed by Peter Segal, whose last two movies, "Second Act" (2018) and "Grudge Match" (2013) opened to $6.5 million and $7 million respectively.

March 20th - 22nd-

After a weekend that had four new wide releases, the final two weekends in March both only have one movie each. This third weekend belongs solely to the release of A Quiet Place Part II. As I've mentioned a couple times this year when doing monthly previews and reviewing "The Invisible Man," 2020 has been a year where a whole bunch of horror movies have been dumped. But if "The Invisible Man" was the first major horror release, "A Quiet Place Part II" is the second one. And this could very well be the biggest three-day opening of the year so far, which currently belongs to "Bad Boys for Life" at $62.5 million. In 2018, "A Quiet Place" became quite the phenomenon as it opened to $50.2 million, which is practically unheard of for an original horror film based on no previous material. In fact, under those qualifications, it could be argued that "A Quiet Place" set that record, depending, of course, on what you qualify as a horror film. Said record was taken away by last year's "Us," which opened to $71.1 million. Given how popular "A Quiet Place" was, how recent it was released, and how it demands to be seen with a large crowd in a theater, "A Quiet Place Part II" is positioned to soar at the box office, potentially matching the range of "Us" or 2018's "Halloween," which opened to $76.2 million. The all-time horror record is "IT" in 2017 with $123.4 million.

March 27th - 29th-

The final wide release of the month is the movie in the most awkward position at the moment and that is Disney's Mulan. While Disney has been somewhat hit and miss with their live action remakes in terms of the box office success, the three times that they have dove into their classic 90s renaissance films has delivered massive results, with "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" all delivering $1 billion worldwide. So naturally it makes sense financially to explore other 90s remakes, which is why we have "Mulan." However, Disney has decided to go down a slightly different route with this one, which has produced mixed results in terms of fan reaction to the trailers. Instead doing a direct remake of the 1998 animated film, Disney is ditching the musical element of this, as well as some beloved characters, like Eddie Murphy's Mushu. Why? Well, Disney has decided to be more true to the original Chinese lore here. Even though "Mulan" is arguably one of the more beloved Disney animated films, it was a situation where Disney took a Chinese story and "Disneyfied" it by completely changing everything and making it their own thing. While the Americans liked the results, the Chinese people arguably hated "Mulan," which leads us to the unfortunate elephant in the room.

Disney's goal with this "Mulan" remake was to first and foremost please the Chinese market by creating a "Mulan" movie that honored their culture and traditions. If they had to piss off a few bitter Americans in the process, that seemed worth it financially given how big the Chinese movie market is. But yeah, in case you've been living under a rock the last few months, the whole country of China right now is essentially quarantined due to the coronavirus. There is no Chinese movie market at the moment. And while some movies might be able to survive momentarily without China, "Mulan" is not one of them. The movie has a reported production budget of at least $200 million and an American fan base that is not too happy. Also, said fan base is realistically just not as big as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" in the frist place. Some circles are predicting "Mulan" to open in the $40-60 million range and finish with a domestic total of $120-150 million. That just won't cut it. Without China, Disney is heading straight for disaster at the moment. Disney is claiming that they are moving forward, but honestly they might be better off by pulling a James Bond and putting "Mulan" on the shelf for now until the coronavirus pandemic dies down.

The Invisible Man Review

We’re just beginning the third month of the year and there have already been… wait for it… eight horror movies released in theaters. And of the eight, “The Invisible Man” is the first one I have saw. Of the other seven, we’ve had “The Grudge,” “Underwater,” “The Turning,” “Gretel & Hansel,” “Fantasy Island,” “The Lodge” and “Brahms: The Boy II.” I saw “The Lodge” a day after seeing “The Invisible Man” and that review is coming soon. It was a Sundance horror film from 2019 that had been waiting over a year for and was finally released. I enjoyed “The Boy,” so I am curious about what the heck they’re doing with “The Boy II.” And “Underwater” I hear was fairly decent, so I might check that one out eventually when it hits streaming. The other four I have little interest in. But “The Invisible Man” is the first major horror film that made a significant impact at the box office last weekend. It’s also based on source material that is well over 100 years old as H.G. Wells’ original novel was published in 1897. The title character was then brought in as one of Universal’s classic monsters in 1933 and has been a staple in monster lore and cinema ever since, right alongside the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein. The number of movies he’s appeared in is quite the long list.

This current adaptation of “The Invisible Man” has been in production as early as 2007. Production kicked into gear in the mid 2010s when Universal had the idea to reboot their classic monsters in a shared universe they called the Dark Universe. Said Dark Universe lasted approximately one movie following the financial and critical disaster that was the 2017 Tom Cruise remake of “The Mummy,” which is a movie that I personally didn’t hate. There were some interesting pieces in place and I liked Sofia Boutella’s Mummy portrayal. The problem is that the movie spent so much time setting of the Dark Universe that they forgot to stop and make a good individual movie. Every studio is trying so hard to copy “The Avengers” that they forget that Marvel began by simply making “Iron Man,” “Thor” and “Captain America” as individual movies before later bringing them together in 2012. The process shouldn’t be rushed. In order to make people care about a cinematic universe, people first need to be emotionally invested in the individual players. Hence is why the Dark Universe crashed and burned. However, during this aftermath, Jasom Blum decided he wanted to still make “The Invisible Man” as an individual movie not connected to any sort of cinematic universe.

And thus we have this current Leigh Whannell directed remake of the popular story, produced by Blumhouse and distributed by Universal, with a production budget of just $7 million, which is why its $28 million opening was a huge success. Compare that to 2017’s “The Mummy,” which opened a tad bit higher at $31 million, yet was a disaster because it had a production budget in the range of $125-195 million. It did make up ground overseas with a worldwide total of $410 million, but the $80.2 million domestic total was just not enough for Universal to move forward with the Dark Universe. Quite frankly, if Universal wanted to create a new cinematic monsterverse, focusing first on individual movies that don’t have gigantic budgets is exactly how they should’ve gone. Because I like the idea of doing modern takes on old monster movies. The execution just needs to be there, which is why I really enjoyed this remake of “The Invisible Man.” Leigh Whannell was definitely the right man for the job. Not only did he have plenty of experience with the horror genre as he helped write movies like “Saw” and “Insidious,” but he also showed off his directing prowess with the 2018 film “Upgrade,” a movie that I never reviewed on this blog, but one that I really enjoyed.

What makes "The Invisible Man" so effective is that it manages to get under your skin and becomes quite unsettling in a very unique way. The movie follows a girl with a psychotic and abusive boyfriend who does not take kindly to her finally running away. He tries to chase her down, but she just barely escapes his grasp and hides with a friend of her's. She becomes paranoid and basically lives like a hermit for an extended period of time, only to finally start gaining peace and comfort when news comes out that he has committed suicide. But given that everyone should've seen the title of the movie when they walked into the theaters, and most likely also watched trailers, we all know that he didn't actually commit suicide. He simply faked his death and found a way to become invisible. Not via a failed science experiment, but some sort of optic technology that he was working on. And because the world thinks he committed suicide, he becomes invisible both literally and in terms of his status in the world. And now when he finds his former girlfriend and starts slowly ruining her life, she's the one who everyone thinks is going crazy. And it's actually pretty tragic because the second she starts to get better is when he shows up and ruins everything.

In terms of the horror elements, this movie is quite genius. It doesn't rely on jump scares and loud noises to try to scare people. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This movie is slow and quiet, but it's those quiet moments that become extremely uncomfortable because the guy shows himself fairly early, then disappears. Thus we as an audience know something is up even before the girl does. Because of that, we spend every scene trying to figure out where exactly he's standing and when he's going to strike. Or is he going to awkwardly watch her sleep or disturbingly watch her take a shower? Thus very normal scenes that would otherwise be quite boring become super intense as the audience is dying in anticipation of something terrible on the horizon. It's also quite genius in terms of the budget. They didn't have to spend anything on fancy visual effects, scary monsters, or elaborate makeup work. The monster literally doesn't exist. Most of the craft involves fancy camerawork as the camera pans around or focuses in on a certain spot, thus cluing in the audience that he is probably standing right there. Then the camera plays mind tricks on the audience as it zooms out, making the audience guess where he is. We often don't know if she's about to get attacked.

Not only is this extremely intense and wildly entertaining if you are a horror fan, but as I eluded to before, this movie has a surprising amount of emotion. Despite this girl going through a horribly traumatic experience with an abusive relationship, she has a good support group and several great relationships. The acting across the board with the movie's visible characters is excellent and you're rooting for this girl to succeed. But then the invisible man shows up. We see him. She sees him. But no one else does. Thus when she tries to go to her friends and explain what's going on, they all think she is crazy because this is not some sort of fantasy world. It's a modern, realistic portrayal of a guy who created the technology to become invisible without anyone knowing. Because of this, these solid relationships start to slowly deteriorate due to what's going on. Things that the guy is actually doing get blamed on the girl because that's the only logical explanation. The domino effect here becomes the most damaging to the girl, who is slowly starting to lose her grasp of her mental state and spiral psychologically out of control. You can tell based on the chain of events happening that she is about to completely break down.

As I referred to in the opening of this review, there is a large amount of horror films thrown our way, mostly because they are so cheap to make and easy for studios to make a quick buck. Because of that, a large majority of them are lazily put together, generic pieces of trash. I know I haven't seen a whole lot of the ones that have already come out this year, but based on reviews from critics and audiences alike, the majority of them are horror films that fall into these lazy tropes, which makes it refreshing when a horror movie comes around in "The Invisible Man" that, not only is out to do something unique and different, but a lot of care is put into the craft to truly make it something that stands out. In many ways this reminds me of "A Quiet Place" from the other year in that both movies are unique horror experiences (yes, I consider both as horror films, not thrillers) that use a lot of technical craft to present the movie's scares while also making sure to have a solid foundation of solid acting, character progression, and human emotion rather than relying on cheap scares and gory images. This is also a great example of a remake that justifies it's existence as something unique and different than it's predecessor. Instead of retreading old ground, they made something new.

If you're a horror fan and you're looking for something good to satisfy your needs, "The Invisible Man" is definitely a movie that you need to see. But also, if you are one that claims you hate horror, this is the type of horror film that you actually might enjoy as I believe this will be a movie that will do a good job of expanding beyond the typical horror crowd. I can see a lot of people that will claim that this is a thriller, not a horror, and say they enjoyed it because of that despite them usually not liking horror. That's a comment that usually bugs me because there's a lot of people out there, in my opinion, who probably like the horror genre a lot more than they will allow themselves to internally accept. But it's whatever. Regardless of what you decide to call it, if you like horror and/or thriller, this is a must see. No, it's not on the same level of some of the independent horror films that I love, but it didn't need to be. Again, like "A Quiet Place," this is an excellent horror film made for mainstream audiences. It didn't need to be super deep and thought-provoking. It's just an excellently done, well-crafted, mainstream horror film. If Universal or Blumhouse decide to do more classic monster films this way, I'm 100 percent on board. MY grade for "The Invisible Man" is a 9/10.