Radioactive

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

I was really excited to see this movie as it was supposed to portray one of the most well know woman scientist in the world. However, there was almost nothing about her achievements in this movie. The achivements of her kept almost at the background of her relationships, some pointless characters (dancer etc) and historical events happened in that period of time. While her status as a poor immigrant, all the hard work she have done to be a successful and respected women scientist in a male-led and racist environment, her bravery and humbleness, all the support and donations she made was cast aside and she just represented as a cold and smart woman with a critisizing tone (which looks a bit of sexist portray). I don't know if she was like that as a person however, I think even that was the case, it should have been shown what she has been through and how did she come to that point. I understand that she had a complex and very hard life and it may not be possible to portray all of this in 2 hours but 2 hours about a most influential women in the history should have not be focused on her sex life, unrelated characters and all the drawbacks of her invention.

I think, they should have created a more inspirational movie about her story such as how her curiosity led to these great achivements and acceptance and respect in a male-dominant society to inspire the future of young scientist. Applications and the results of her invention should have been in a separate movie which includes all the scientists whom inventions brought certain costs when they fall into wrong hands.