He's Invisible, And You're Not -- Chevy Chase Gets Into The Spirit Of This John Carpenter Film

XX 1/2 "Memoirs of an Invisible Man," with Chevy Chase and Daryl Hannah. Directed by John Carpenter, from a script by Robert Collector and Dana Olsen. Alderwood, Oak Tree, Factoria, Renton Village. "PG-13" - Parental guidance advised, due to violence, strong language. --------------------------------------------------------------- In some ways, "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" may be the perfect Chevy Chase movie for those of us who don't like Chevy Chase movies.

For one thing, it's not really a Chevy Chase movie at all - at least by traditional definition. That is, it's not just another sloppy, hodge-podge comedy in which Chase's muggings are meant to distract us from the woeful inadequacies of the sophomoric writing and direction.

And for another, Chase remains invisible for much of the picture, so we couldn't see him mugging and pratfalling a whole lot of the time, even if he were.

"Memoirs of an Invisible Man" is more of a John Carpenter movie than a Chevy Chase vehicle - a fairly clever melding of Hitchcockian chase thriller, Chevy Chase comedy and science-fiction fantasy that's fun while it lasts, even though it builds to a lame and abrupt anticlimax. (The ending itself is invisible; the movie simply plunges into a mysterious plot hole just before the end credits.)

The picture is riddled with amusing movie allusions: The pursuit of Nick Halloway (Chase) by sinister government agents is deliberately "North by Northwest" in its playfully paranoid tone. The flashback narration device recalls "Double Indemnity" - although Chase uses a video camera to recount his story, whereas Fred MacMurray used an old dictaphone.

The accident that triggers the molecular meltdown (spilled coffee on a research lab computer keyboard) which results in Nick's invisibility recalls the mysterious cloud that engulfs "The Incredible Shrinking Man," while the subatomic mumbo-jumbo explanation for Nick's transparency is reminiscent of the occult physics in Carpenter's own underrated "Prince of Darkness."

And the heat-sensitive goggles the Bad Guys use to spot invisible Nick are not unlike the special sunglasses that enabled the heroes of Carpenter's "They Live!" to spot Evil Republicans From Outer Space.

As these things indicate, there's an engaging Saturday afternoon feeling to the whole enterprise. And you can tell the screenwriters (there were several of them as the picture labored in Development Hell) had fun thinking up various cool-looking visual gags, like the sight of the laboratory building perforated with random invisible sectors.

With the help of Industrial Light and Magic special effects, the filmmakers have devoted considerable imagination to visualizing such tantalizing 12-year-old-boy notions as: What would it look like if an invisible man chewed bubble gum? Or ate Chinese food? Or brushed his teeth? Or smoked a cigarette? Or got wet in the rain?

Or what would he do if he overheard some of his friends talking about him and they weren't very nice? Or if he mislaid his only set of invisible clothes and couldn't find them? Or if he snuck into a pretty woman's boudoir as she was getting ready for bed?

Chase's Nick gets to do all these things - while simultaneously romancing Alice Monroe (Daryl Hannah) and being chased by renegade espionage agent David Jenkins (Sam Neill). That's about all you need to know about the story, since the plot is basically just an excuse to put Nick into all of the above preposterously weird/ cool/funny situations, and more.

And except for a moment early on when a hung-over Nick smacks into a pair of glass doors, Chase's performance rarely degenerates into his usual familiar shtick.

Because it bothers to posit certain Rules of Invisibility by which Nick must abide, "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" occasionally prompts the viewer to ask some bothersome questions. Like, if you can see the food in Nick's stomach while he's digesting it, why can't you see it when it slides on down into his intestines?

The answer, of course, is that the majority of the movie-going population - with the exception of people (like me) who still have a 12-year-old fascination with biology and grossness - would not care to see that particular sight.

Still, I think it's a challenge ILM should look into sometime.