There is no positive character description for the heroine's husband throughout the film. Personally, I don't think the male protagonist's desire to control is strong. If you insist on the structure of the house and the control of the dog, most of them are the oral narrative of the female protagonist and the subjective psychological performance of the female protagonist. The description of the invisible person is even more ambiguous. In most cases, it is the heroine's subjective lens and consciousness to express the invisible person, and the objective description of the invisible person is also difficult to see the invisible person's ability to control the situation. At the end of the meal, the husband and the woman showed a very anxious mood. If this was what he expected, for a man with a strong desire to control, he should show a proud expression rather than inexplicable tension. And his expression was very sincere when he explained to the heroine that what he said was the truth, and the expression of the heroine when he finally killed her husband was more like the expression of control. Like the joy of a victor. So will the heroine be the one who really controls everything? The title of The Invisible Man itself has a special meaning. How can you know who the real invisible man is? But this is also the drawback of the plot, regardless of whether the director has carefully arranged such an ending that there is no real truth. As far as the viewing experience is concerned, it can be felt that the Invisible Man itself may be expressing the resistance of women, but it should not be too contradictory in the open-ended plot, and it should be able to successfully straighten out the plot from any angle, not mutual. refute. Personal opinion only.
View more about The Invisible Man reviews
