Radioactive (2019) User Reviews (230)

The wikipedia page about Dr. Curie is way more exciting

[stanimiradeleva · 5/10 · 13 June 2020]

This movie is a pale and shallow effort to represent an extraordinary person with a remarkable life. Marie Curie is an absolute icon one of the most important scientists that ever existed and for sure the most important female scientist. Madamme Curie had a life full of challenges and she fought bravely to overcome barriers in the name of science. Her passion, her brilliance and her character changed the world in more than one way. She opened the way for women in science. She was the first female professor in the University of Paris. She was a poor immigrant, who had to work her way to the top. She was open about love, she was brave and humble and honest. She donated most of her Nobel money. Did we get that in the movie? Maybe 1% of it. The vision of the director about one of the greatest minds of all time is "Sheldon Cooper in a dress". There was some effort to suggest how her discoveries changed the world, but it did not succeed to present the scope and the greatest importance of her work.

This is not a bad movie, actually it is perfectly watchable. Actors are great and the love story between Marie and Pier is adorable. But given the fact that they had such an amazing life, I think the movie is a missed chance.

Still better love story than Twilight though

References to Hiroshima and Chernobyl spoiled it for me

[trevorrg-68806 · 5/10 · 20 June 2020]

Although the movie title is 'Radioactive' I though it was the story about Marie Curie and I'm disappointed that so much included was not related to the research / achievements of Pierre and Marie Curie e.g. the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and the Chernobyl disaster - neither of which are related to Polonium or Radium (which were discoveries of Marie Curie) The only thing they have in common is that they are 'Radioactive'.

Poorly written, badly directed and underwhelming

[Snootz · 5/10 · 15 August 2020]

The most accurate thing I can say about this movie is that I watched it... then went searching for the real story. This excessive dramatization I am sure does little to present the true story.

Unlike many here I did not mind the reference to Hiroshima and Chernobyl. Although these happened long after Curie died and had no effect on her career, they were reminders of an important fact: science can be used in a beneficial manner, or in a questionable and disastrous manner. These things had nothing to do with Curie herself, but were cautionary references that I found pertinent to the concept that discovery always bears consequence.

As for Curie herself, at the end of this flick I felt I knew no more about her than when I started watching. The story dramatizes her personal life and excessively focuses on personal relationships while leaving out far too much of her science and actual career accomplishments. That is certainly no credit to the production and earns it a "mediocre" 5 stars.

A Distinct Lack of PPE...

[Xstal · 6/10 · 20 June 2020]

... but it still wouldn't shield you from some pretty poor editing and a story condensed into 100 minutes about a great woman who deserves so much more but seems to get the blame for Hiroshima, Chernobyl as well as errant husbands.

Good bit misdirected.

[lukemoody1 · 7/10 · 7 May 2020]

The movie is ok. Actors are great and the science part of the story, though they don't show much. BUT for some reason it cuts to the future (multiple times) to the a bomb drop and Chernobyl but it fails to show the governments and companies involved, so sort of implies Madame Curie is reasonable for those events. Which is ridiculous. It's like saying Newton is responsible for all plane crashes because he discovered Gravity!

A bizarrely drab and amateurish retelling of an incredible story

[themadmovieman · 6/10 · 18 May 2020]

For a historical figure with an impact as significant as Marie Curie, this is a really underwhelming biopic. Stale, rushed and lacking any insightful emotional depth, Radioactive is a dull watch throughout, failing in its attempt to capture both the significance of Curie's discoveries and her own personal struggles.

It's so strange how poor this film is, given the immense talent behind it. On screen, Rosamund Pike and Sam Riley star, while Persepolis director Marjane Satrapi helms the film. Yet despite that talent, Radioactive feels almost amateurish at its worst.

Its screenplay is poor throughout, from its lack of dramatic insight to its consistently terrible dialogue. The early moments of the film are insufferable, chronicling Marie's meeting with future husband Pierre through scenes of awkward and forced scientific flirting.

Later on, Radioactive tries to grab your attention with its assessment of the standing of women in the scientific community, but does little to make that theme really get under your skin. In fact, the most memorable part of that theme is Curie's repeated assertions that it was not her gender that stood most in her way as a scientist at the time, but her background and funds.

And with relatively little focus on her background, there isn't much of an inspiring, uplifting arc for Curie here. Instead, there are a few eureka moments interspersed by long, dry and dull periods with barely any memorable drama to show.

Even stranger is the way in which the film tries to represent the long-term, controversial effects of Curie's discovery of radioactivity. Almost randomly, the film throws in bizarre vignettes from the future showing the uses of the discovery for good and bad, including the bombing of Hiroshima and the development of nuclear weapons.

That all but ruins any narrative flow in the film, only reinforcing the fact that Radioactive really is a bit of an amateurish work. Marjane Satrapi's generally unappealing style and drab direction do little to keep you engaged, while even leads like Sam Riley and to an extent Rosamund Pike are below their best.

It's a real shame, because it's clear that Marie Curie's is a great story, and with so much talent working in this film, you would expect a whole lot more from Radioactive. But, as a painfully dull, stale and even amateurish biopic, there's little positive to say about it.

Dull Script & Direction Great performance by Rosamund Pike

[tm-sheehan · 6/10 · 31 March 2021]

My Review- Radioactive (Prime Amazon) My rating 6/10

My 6/10 rating is for the film itself Rosamund Pike gets an 8:10 for her performance as Marie Curie the famous Nobel Winning Scientist who discovered the elements of Polinium and Radium.

She marries and forms a partnership with her husband Pierre (Sam Riley ) who also gives a fine performance in a very flawed script apparently filled with inaccuracies to add to the drama but in my view only adds to the dullness of this movie.

"Rotten Tomatoes " though similar to me "Radioactive's flawed script and counterproductive storytelling choices are offset by Rosamund Pike's central performance in a sincere tribute to a brilliant scientific mind.

The film is based on the graphic novel ''Radioactive: Marie & Pierre Curie: A Tale of Love and Fallout'' by Lauren Redniss. This is director Marjane Satrapi's first film based on a graphic novel that was not written by her. I think that is very obvious and shows her inexperience . The Screenplay by Jack Thorne is just dull and uninteresting I'm sure the book it's based on must be better.

There are intrusive and unnecessary and distracting references to the future effects of Marie Curie's contributions to Science depicting the future impact of her discoveries, including external beam radiotherapy at a hospital in Cleveland in 1956, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a nuclear bomb test in Nevada in 1961, and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 it gives the impression or perhaps message that perhaps humanity may have been better off without her great discoveries?

Both the Curies experienced radium burns, both accidentally and voluntarily, and were exposed to extensive doses of radiation while conducting their research. They experienced radiation sickness and Marie Curie died of aplastic anemia in 1934. Even now, all their papers from the 1890s, even her cookbooks, are too dangerous to touch. Their laboratory books are kept in special lead boxes and people who want to see them have to wear protective clothing. Had Pierre Curie not been killed as he was, it is likely that he would have eventually died of the effects of radiation, as did his wife, their daughter Irène, and her husband Frédéric Joliot.

I'm a great fan of Rosamund Pike and enjoyed her performance in this very dull average film I suggest read the book or watch the far superior 1943 film with Greer Garson "Madam Curie." and Walter Pidgeon as Pierre.

It was nominated for 7 Oscars and a much better film directed by Mervyn LeRoy and based on Ève Curie the daughter of Madam Curie.

A bit of a letdown

[pietclausen · 6/10 · 2 May 2020]

Marie Curie became more prominent after her death especially around the early years this century, so a film about her life and achievements was a welcome view. There are a few changes in the facts, probably to make this move more dramatic, but perhaps the book from which this film derives, was written like that. The tough days in Marie Curie's life when she arrived in Paris is hardly touched, which undoubtedly lead to her stubborn attitude which is over characterized in this film. In real life she was not such a hard and difficult person.

Fascinating but a little sad/slow

[mycannonball · 7/10 · 7 April 2021]

It's amazing what we don't know until we truly know it.... In this case, that happens within the true of story of Marie Curie and her husband discovering the radioactive properties of Radium. The fact that they didn't see the dangers of handling radioactive elements for so long is mind boggling in retrospect and makes you wonder how many dangerous materials do we handle and ingest today? Probably a lot. Overall, the movie is fascinating, but it's also a bit bleak and slow as it chronicles the health problems that the Curie family develop and both the good and truly evil ways in which radioactivity goes on to be used for.

Just weird

[RockyMtnVideo · 4/10 · 25 July 2020]

It's not clear what message they are attempting to send in this film. Are they trying to convey that Marie Curie was a genius, or an idiot? At one point in the film, people are already making claims that radiation is causing health issues. Long after that concern is expressed, Marie is still sleeping with, and apparently (at least sometimes) carrying around, a bottle full of radium (almost like it is a talisman). And yet she then tells her daughter that should doesn't won't her working in any radioactivity-related research, because radioactivity could endanger her health. Having not read any biographies about Marie, I just can't help but wonder if any of this is based upon factual evidence, or is it all just embellishment for dramatic effect?

And then, the film is interleaved with numerous future events, in the midst of telling Marie's story. Each of these segments depicts mostly horrific events related to future uses of radioactive-based inventions, e.g. nuclear weapons, a nuclear reactor meltdown, etc. What does any of that have to do with Marie Curie? She didn't INVENT radiation. Radioactive material simply exists, and she just happened to discover some of its elements. Showing all of those future events sure seems to send a mixed message, seeming to imply Marie Curie's culpability in those events (which is, of course, ridiculous). Each of those future insertions just seemed completely unrelated to telling her life story, and they were (in my opinion) simply a waste of time, and a useless distraction.

The film has some excellent actors in its cast, but I just felt like they were misused, giving you only a shallow and confusing look at the life of this important scientific pioneer. I don't mean to imply that it is unwatchable, but as someone else has already said, it seems more like a soap opera than a legitimate biographical account.

A movie for grownups

[Pongo000 · 8/10 · 27 November 2020]

I'm not too sure what the critics were expecting, but yes, this film requires careful attention to detail (the cinematography and set designs are stellar) and yes, it does require a bit of science because, well, this is a movie about *science*! I no longer pay much attention to what critics have to say, and simply assume an inverse relationship between critics' ratings and quality.

If you're looking for a movie that explains science at a kid's level, this movie isn't for you. If you have trouble with movies that aren't completely linear (and require little thought), this movie isn't for you.

If you want a thoughtful biopic about one of the greatest scientific minds to have graced our existence, by all means enjoy!

PIKE AS CURIE...!

[masonfisk · 6/10 · 28 April 2021]

An Amazon Prime original from last year & directed by Marjane Satrapi (Persepolis/Chicken w/Plums). A late life biopic on Marie Curie, played by Rosemund Pike (Oscar nominated for Gone Girl), as she came to Paris to study from Poland, met the man who would become her husband, played by Sam Riley (Control), & how they join forces to discover the elements radium & polonium. Throughout their experiments (which garnered a pair of Nobel prizes) Curie pushed the envelope in a world where men dominated science but through her sheer will & her own health from radiation exposure (the scenes where we see the happy couple crushing piles upon piles of coal rocks kind of made me cringe a bit) she revolutionized her field. Ah alas if only the film could make the same claim as it stumbles between checking off the important deets of her life & using artistic flights of fancy (w/animation) to bring the audience into her realm. Pike is professional & stalwart in her performance but she does also come off as standoffish, only letting those near & dear to her to get close & even then one would say she was far from lovable. Co-starring Anya Taylor-Joy as Pike's oldest daughter.

Disappointing

[pegaoneal · 4/10 · 26 July 2020]

This attempt to tell the complex story of Marie Curie was nothing more than a directorial vanity piece. Worse yet, its combined focused on her sex life and the terrors-to-come of radiation made it feel as if she was/is solely responsible for millions of deaths from nuclear bombs, disasters and accidents.

I did not like this story line. We needed to see far more about HER life, e.g. the circumstances that brought her to France from Poland, or more insight into her struggles, as a woman, to actually conduct her science.

The film itself was atmospheric but so much of it was wasted on NOT advancing her story.

Sad effort. Just sad.

Although it incurs the schematics of so many other biopics, the film is a good gateway to discover less well-known aspects of the life of the famous scientist

[danybur · 7/10 · 21 April 2021]

Summary

On the one hand, let's say that it is one of those typical biopics that tries to cover almost a whole life in less than two hours (with all its schematics and didacticisms), so it fails a bit to give depth to its protagonist and It is a bit short in the development of the scientific aspects of history, so that we also take note of the revolutionary nature of its discovery and its approach.

But the film is also a good gateway to know and appreciate not-so-known aspects of Madame Curie's life and place ourselves in the historical context and understand what it meant to be a lucid, brilliant, independent, defiant and foreign woman in Paris. Of the early twentieth century and the prejudices and even hatred that it mobilized.

Madame Curie is a necessary reminder of how hatred and prejudice are blind and unrewarding. Then and now.

Review

The film is a biopic that covers a fairly wide stretch of the life of the famous researcher and two-time Nobel Prize winner.

Marjane Satrapi directed that animated marvel called Persepolis about a woman and her relationship with macho Iran. This film is not up to her standards, but the feminist imprint, naturally, is once again present in the figure of this scientist who challenged the scientific environment of her time with a revolutionary discovery: that chemical elements could be transmuted (transformed) into other merits. To the emission of radiation.

The film brings together several of the vices and schematics of many biopics: an accelerated pace at the beginning to capture the viewer, the will to condense almost an entire life in less than two hours (in a sort of parade of topics), a protagonist more or less well delineated but does not get to be deepened and a certain didacticism that unfortunately does not place too much emphasis on the scientific aspects of the story (and thus understand the revolutionary nature of its discovery) and that also resorts to a formal resource that shows us the obvious derivations of Curie's discoveries. Her clashes with the French academic and scientific establishment will appear, the struggle to continue with her experiments, the none at the time of the awards.

Among the successes, we have the good performances of Rosamund Pike and Sam Riley as her husband Pierre Curie, certain dreamlike scenes, the reconstruction of the time and the staging of not-so-known aspects of his life such as the challenges to social conventions of the time and others that I prefer not to spoil.

Madame Curie is perhaps, above all, a necessary reminder of what it meant to be a lucid, brilliant, independent, defiant and foreign woman in early 20th century Paris and how hatred and prejudice do not recognize merits and reasons, in that time and no other.

Historically lackadaisical, borderline camp futurisms. But Pike is terrific.

[dennismorgan-95735 · 7/10 · 17 November 2020]

To be seen despite its faults. She was a great woman who should be more than a snapshot in our cultural memory.

Some liberties taken with fact were just unnecessary and unwanted. For example, It was a male Swedish mathematician that ensured her inclusion in the 1903 Nobel Prize, not husband Pierre. And her husband did NOT go to the ceremony and leave her behind. Neither went.

The melodramatic cutaways to future events depicting the legacy of radioactivity seem shoe-horned in.

But at least Marie is not made to sing a pop tune in the finale - as Almereyda makes Tesla do in Tesla (2020).

Pike's Peak in Uneven Biopic

[markmelsh · 7/10 · 14 March 2020]

Rosamund Pike has a penchant for playing determined women navigating oppressive male-dominated environments, from the femme fatale of "Gone Girl" to war photographer Marie Colvin in last year's "A Private War." In the latest example, "Radioactive," Pike delivers a powerful embodiment of another tragic hero named Marie. As pioneering physicist and chemist Marie Curie, Pike delivers a dazzling performance rich with the struggles of a life defined by perilous discoveries and great personal loss. As directed by Marjane Satrapi, this discursive biopic struggles whenever it cuts away from her drama to explore the bigger picture - with peculiar flash-forwards to a nuclear future - but Pike helps fuse it together. Unfortunately, the movie's unorthodox structure stumbles when it veers off on heavy-handed tangents to explain the reverberations of the Curies' research. Pike remains a compelling figure into old age. Anyone unfamiliar with the Curie family legacy will certainly find much to appreciate about their various accomplishments under incredible personal duress and tremendous social upheaval. So overall, this is a gud moovie.

Kind of blah

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 7 October 2020]

I had a tough time with this film - it didn't really hold my attention.

"Radioactive" purports to tell the story of Marie Curie and her husband Pierre, and their scientific work which resulted in their pioneering work in radioactivity.

"Madam Curie" from 1943 was so much better, in spite of the fact that they drenched Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon in flour to make them look old at the end. Since Eve Curie chose Greer Garson for the role (and the film was based on her book), it seems logical that Rosalind Pike saw Madam Curie.

Pike reminded me very much of Greer Garson except that the way Marie is portrayed in the film is as an arrogant, willful, somewhat unpleasant woman. It's not Pike's fault. I don't think the direction is very good.

I also don't know why Hiroshima and Chernobyl were shown. Marie Curie invented polonium and radium, which have nothing to do with these bombs. It just indicates that the research for this script wasn't very good.

I won't go through all the other inaccuracies. The importance of a biopic is that people will become interested and read up on the subject, not to accept everything in the film as fact.

The performances are good. Marie Curie was an amazing woman who broke through a lot of barriers and worked tirelessly, believing in the importance of science.

Somehow I was more swept away by the 1943 version. Radioactive left me feeling kind of blah. Also it was too long.

Amazing woman so so movie

[Ranbl · 7/10 · 27 December 2020]

As with many biopics real life is uneven and often convoluted. Parts of the movie are brilliant and parts are boring. Curie was amazing and she overcame tremendous odds to achieve greatness. Rosamund pike plays her superbly. If this was just about the science it could have been a masterpiece. If this was just about a brilliant woman overcoming sexism and a men's science community that could work too. The mix left me wanting on both ends. Still worth the watch for pike's performance alone.

Lost opportunity.

[jccrissey · 1 January 2021]

Despite amazing performances and cinematography, this film is saddled with some serious storytelling flaws. This flash forwards are totally ridiculous and inconsistent with more important focus on the life of the protagonist. A perfect illustration of a film that should have stayed focused on the basics of narrative delivery... the story of the protagonist.

doesn't quite capture the impact

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 22 July 2020]

Greetings again from the darkness. There can never be enough movies made or books written about remarkable people with incredible accomplishments. Marie Curie was certainly a remarkable woman and her accomplishments were such scientific break-throughs that we are still using them today. Director Marjane Satrapi's (Oscar nominated for PERSEPOLIS, 2007) film is based on the 2010 book "Radioactive: Marie & Pierre Curie: A Tale of Love and Fallout" by Lauren Redniss, and the screenplay was adapted by Jack Thorne (THE AERONAUTS, 2019).

The film opens in 1934 Paris, and we see an enfeebled Marie Curie (Rosamund Pike) collapse and get rushed to hospital - a sequence used by director Satrapi as a framing device. The film quickly flashes back to 1893 when a headstrong and brilliant twenty-something Marie Salomea Sklodowska gets kicked out of her laboratory for being ... well ... a bit too headstrong for the times. Soon she meets an equally headstrong and also brilliant scientist named Pierre Curie (Sam Riley). Pierre recognizes the potential if they combine forces, while Marie initially demands her independence, having never found another scientist worthy of the efforts required for collaboration.

The initial flirtations between brainy scientists is as clumsy and awkward as one might expect. In general, the film struggles with how to best address Curie's personal life with her professional life and the challenges she faced as a brilliant woman in an era when male scientists didn't much appreciate a woman scientist telling them they have "misunderstood the atom", as she and her husband announce the discovery of not one, but two new elements: radium and polonium. Romance and science and equality are a lot for one film to tackle, and this one flounders a bit.

As the film and science progress, director Satrapi intersperses flash-forward vignettes to show how Curie's discovery of radioactivity is used in the future for both good and not so good. These dropped-in segments include cancer treatment for a little boy in 1957, the Enola Gay bombing Hiroshima in 1945, the Atomic Bomb test in 1961 Nevada, and of course, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The segments aren't always a smooth transition from Curie's story, but they make the point of how scientists don't always have control over how their discoveries are applied. There is even a scene where Pierre shows Marie some comical uses entrepreneurs found of trying to capitalize on their discovery, and how their work might factor in to everyday life.

As a biography or profile of Marie Curie's life and accomplishments, the film hits the high notes, though we do wish it dug a bit deeper. The gender prejudices of the times are somewhat underplayed, and even Marie herself claims lack of funds and the fact that she wasn't a natural born Parisian held her back more than the roadblocks she faced as a female scientist. It would seem reasonable that those issues were likely tied together and should not be separated. She lashes out at Pierre regarding the Nobel committee initially keeping her name off the submission, but of course this anger is misplaced, as Pierre demanded she be included.

The historical aspect of her winning two Nobel Prizes is not treated as the astonishing accomplishment it is, but time is spent on a personal scandal that occurred after Pierre's death. We do see Marie sleeping with a sample of her radioactive uranium, and watch her slow physical deterioration, including an incessant cough and damaged skin. Late in the film, Anya Taylor-Joy plays her daughter Irene, and we see the two of them head onto the battlefield to provide mobile x-ray devices for injured soldiers. The Curie family tree is filled with renowned scientists (Irene and her husband Frederick jointly won the Nobel Prize in 1935 for artificial radioactivity), and some of these discoveries literally changed the world - including cancer treatments. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect any movie to capture the historical importance of Marie Curie, but we are somehow left feeling she deserved better.

Misleading and lack of content

[vddo · 2/10 · 24 August 2020]

Firstly, it is not accurate to depict Chernobyl and bombing in Hiroshima in parallel to the movie of her life. Her and Pierre's work should be separated from such misconceptions. Although, they found the elements, they did not have the formula/mathematical proof to create the necessary conditions for war or nuclear plants. The formula came from Einstein years later. So the movie tags their work with a misconception. Secondly, there is a huge hole about how she raised Irene. The movie should have focused on that instead of her connection with Paul Langevin. Marie never let Irene fall short of her potential by raising her alone and so ultimately the message doesn't come across as positive like it is actually. This movie screws the reality and skips through a lot.

Remarkable movie regarding women that running the world

[khimin1719 · 9/10 · 3 March 2021]

Rosamund Pikes performance was phenomenal!

Kudos to the production house for making this movie in spite of knowing that the target audience will be limited to those having science background. Full marks for a great effort towards bringing the life of a scientist onscreen. Highly recommended watch.

Great summary Of Marie Curie's life and achievement

Too much sex

[theartdiz · 6/10 · 23 April 2021]

Yep I'm one of "those people" that actually prefers a great biographical cinematic production that I can enjoy or even share with my kids to further their love of education. This movie was good and didn't need naked scenes, or sex scenes. I mean, it would have been more tasteful to imply that the newlyweds had intercourse - your audience is people interested in science, so they know how babies are made!!!. Not just for my kids' sake but for my own too! I'm no prude but it's really annoying.

Could have been so much better

[boney2000 · 5/10 · 8 August 2020]

Fine to watch once but for some reason skips to future (hiroshima and chernobyl)? Why it does this is just plain ignorance or just weird.Not sure what message the writers are trying to send here but seems to be a mixed message.

Poignant and well done

[Clairepcb · 7/10 · 5 January 2021]

I am not really sure what the negativity about this movie is. Although I admit I do not know all the details Curie's contributions to science I thought the film did a great job of laying out the obstacles women in science have faced. She surely broke many barriers as did her daughter who followed. Pike will surely get nominated for her performance as she did an outstanding job portraying a strong willed fiercely intelligent and driven woman that stayed the course, albeit against a solely man dominated academia. Like nearly all women that broke through barriers like this she refused to bow to man in order to move forward. The music was great as well. Although at first the interjections of future negative consequences of Curie's discoveries were oddly included, I believe it gave the story a depth of understanding how much the world was impacted by her science both in positive and negative ways. She ultimately gave her life for her discoveries which I was unaware of. Well done. Definitely worth the watch. Everyone should see if only to recognize the obstacles women in science have had to overcome. I want women in film to keep doing more of this quality so lets give them our support and stop being so nit picky.