them particularly effective by themselves". Wanda Hale of The New York Daily News echoed this statement, finding that "the frightening creature [...] is no novelty" and that the film was "not the stimulating thriller that The Invisible Man was". A reviewer in The New York World-Telegram declared that "some of the earlier variations of H.G. Wells' invisible man idea were filmed with an idea that the story should make good sense. That policy has been abandoned this time" while still noting that Jon Hall was being "a much more effective actor than he has been in some of his recent adventures in gaudy Technicolor". Conversely, a reviewer from The Hollywood Reporter declared it as one "of the best and most entertaining of the series". From retrospective reviews, the authors of the book Universal Horrors declared the film to be "the least ambitious but hardly the least entertaining of Universal's widely varying series" noting its "no frills approach to its subject matter", declaring it better than The Invisible Woman and Invisible Agent but not as strong as The Invisible Man or The Invisible Man Returns. Special effects in the film were described as "have a slapdash quality" with only a few pulling of "startlingly effective tricks". Actor John Carradine, who loathed the horror films he worked in, was asked in the British fanzine House of Hammer if he liked any of the horror films he was in, and he responded he enjoyed The Invisible Man's Revenge. See also List of American films of 1944 References Footnotes Sources External links 1944 films 1944 horror films American black-and-white films American science fiction horror films Films about criminals Films about invisibility Films based on The Invisible Man Films directed by Ford Beebe Films scored by Hans J. Salter Universal Pictures films 1940s American films