Reviews

This is an interesting loose adaptation of H.G. Wells's "The Invisible Man" with the feel of a theatrical play - actually the script could be adapted for a play with little work. Apparently filmed mostly on location at or around Stanford University, with a minimalist cast of 4 actors. Also very obviously done on a minimal budget; nevertheless the look is "modest" rather than "cheap" in my view. The cinematography is very good.

Besides the overall theme of a scientist named Griffin researching invisibility and testing it on himself, the script has little in common with the original book. Rather - and again like a play - it focuses on the interactions between the main characters, in particular Griffin himself and his assistant, Faith, This is a film focused on actors and dialogue rather than action or special effects, which I see as a positive but obviously many will disagree.

The two main actors - Jonathan Le Billon and Sarah Navratil - are not exactly household names but they are experienced actors, and I thought they were pretty good. In particular, Le Billion plays Griffin as a sort of stereotypical awkward and tormented scientist in a way that is convincing. Sometimes I think he stepped slightly into a caricature of the stereotype but I think that was what the script was asking for. Sarah Navratil, a very attractive actress, did manage to persuade me that her character, Faith, was actually attracted to Griffin (which seemed unlikely at first) and there was real chemistry between the actors. Far less convincing was the notion that she was having a serious relationship with the university professor Steven, played by T J Sloan. His role is "the girl's current douche boyfriend", a guy who you are supposed to dislike, but it never became convincing to me that Faith would seriously date him in the first place. However, although he is an unpleasant and annoying character, he is not a true "villain" and so is a more complex character than one could have expected.

The plot and its two or three subplots are not really that interesting in my opinion. But Billion's and Navratil's acting kept me interested from start to finish,

I am older than the target audience of "Wicked Science", which is essentially teenagers or a bit younger. I got curious after a friend of mine told me about it - he was amused, and worried, that his teenage children loved the show but "they seriously root for the bad girl rather than for the good guys - what's wrong with them?!" That got me interested, so when I had the opportunity, I watched it.

"Wicked Science" is a very well conceived show for its target group. Most of the action takes place in or around school, and reflects the concerns of kids at that age - grades, social status and standing among their peers, romances (or rather crushes), and having fun. Adults are present as enforcers of rules and of the framework around them - and as obstacles to be overcome or avoided, but never as role models or sources of wisdom. They are, essentially, at best boring, and often irrelevant - again, pretty much like teenagers regard adults. And that is already a reason for the success and quality of "Wicked Science": it sees the world through the eyes of its audience, rather than try to lecture to it or give moral lessons.

Basic concept: two teenagers, Toby and Elizabeth, become scientific super-geniuses (or rather, they start to get "flashes" of geniality rather than getting constantly high IQ) after a freak accident with a magnetic field. Toby is a sort of average well-adjusted good guy, not a bad student or athlete but not particularly successful either. Upon becoming a genius, he's first scared, then starts to use his gifts for fun or for helping his friends, but not always comfortable with the implications of his new gifts. Elizabeth starts as the stereotypical smart girl who is socially awkward and who concentrates her energies on being the best student - which increases her social distance from her peers, who dislike her. This is compounded by her having a years-old non-reciprocated crush on Toby. For her, her new genius comes as the fulfillment of her dreams - she uses her gifts for the sheer pleasure of scientific discovery and inventing miracles, but also to increase her power and get back at those whom she feels (rightly or wrongly) to have attacked her in some way. Fearful of the consequences of their genius being made public, they agree to keep it a secret, except from a very small number of other students very close to them.

Basic formula: inventions by either Toby or Elizabeth get out of control and must be contained by one of them, or both. Or, Toby has to contain Elizabeth in her quests for power or revenge. Etc. Plus variations or combinations thereof.

Strengths of the show: the best thing about "Wicked Science" - and, I suspect, the main reason for its success - is the quality of the acting. All of the young actors are very good and get into their characters perfectly, but I'd single out Bridget Neval as Elizabeth. She is the official "villain" of the show, yet the writers - and Neval's acting - always make you wonder if she doesn't have a point. For instance, although vindictive, sometimes in a petty way, she never goes out of her way to attack anyone who hasn't antagonized her before somehow (usually with attempts to humiliate her). Elizabeth is not "evil" in an one-dimensional way - rather, she's suspicious, ambitious, driven, resentful and vindictive, but almost never without some justification. She's also an extremely independent person who prefers to do her own thing rather than be part of the "popular crowd", however she dislikes it when she's actively antagonized and excluded by others. That - and her one- sided crush on the more laid-back Toby, who prefers more down-to-earth girls and seems oblivious to the depth of Elizabeth's feelings for him - explain most of her "evil" actions. Bridget Nerval perfectly transmits the conflicting traits of Elizabeth's character - oscillating between triumphant independence and forlorn sadness and loneliness, which makes it easy to empathize with her. That is why, I think - possibly against the plans of the show's creators - she became so popular among many of the show's fans including my friend's children.

Weaknesses: the scripts are not consistent in their quality. In particular, the last few episodes of the first season were sort of bizarre and did not really match the mood of the others. There is also a sort of inconsistent continuity between the episodes. Each one is more or less self-contained but they are also supposed to be consistent in a longer narrative. Yet one character may do something brutal to another, or commit a serious betrayal - yet all seems to have been more or less forgotten a couple of episodes later. But perhaps this "selective continuity" is not uncommon in a kids' show.

It's also nice to see that the show actually makes scientific knowledge cool, although the plausibility of Elizabeth's and Toby's inventions - and the ease and speed with which how they put them together - varies from mildly implausible to outright absurd. Also, "Wicked Science" suggests that Australia is a wonderful place to be a teenager! I had great fun watching it.