Radioactive

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

Regardless of their understandable reputation of not always doing a good job sticking to the truth and instead taking liberties, there are a lot of very good and more biopic films out there. 'Amadeus', 'The Elephant Man', 'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Ed Wood' and 'Shadowlands' are favourites of mine. My other reasons for seeing 2019's 'Radioactive' was Marie Curie herself, a fascinating complex person with a fascinating complex life. And for Rosamund Pike, have always liked her but her unforgettable performance in 'Gone Girl' and her performances since has seen significant growth as an actress. It pains me to say it, but to me 'Radioactive' sadly was a real disappointment in most respects. A case of a truly fine lead performance that deserved a much better film. Appreciated its ambition and good intentions, but Curie as a person, her life and her ahead of the time achievements that faced many obstacles were so much more interesting than depicted in 'Radioactive' and would have fared a lot better as a mini-series. Despite not being perfect, 1943's 'Madame Curie' treated her and her life with a lot more respect and taste. Am going to start with the good things. As they are there, despite the strong overall disappointment. The best thing about 'Radioactive' is Pike, who is terrific and powerfully succeeds at making Curie a real character, rather than just an icon or stock caricature, with both strengths and flaws and showing steel in how she overcomes significant adversity. In fact, the acting overall is good considering what they had to work with. Enough of the costuming and settings are handsome enough and evocative and there are moments of nice atmosphere in the photography. Curie and Pierre's relationship early on is quite sweet. Unfortunately, there are many big drawbacks and significantly major. The script is weak, being very melodramatically soapy, awkward-sounding and far too exposition heavy (exposition that rambles and doesn't go very far). The editing jumps about all over the place visually and in the story, and the story is similarly disorganised. Curie is the only interesting character here, the rest are little more than underdeveloped walking cliches. Actually grew to really dislike Pierre by the end and the chemistry between Pike and Sam Riley (on admirable form) dissipates as the film goes on rather than gets stronger. The story is very erratically paced, structurally it is very rushed and choppy but dramatically 'Radioactive' felt very dull because almost everything is underdeveloped and severely lacking in substance. The overuse of flashbacks and flash-forwards are too heavy in exposition and slow the film down a lot. Would go as far to say too that the flash-forwards are irrelevant, confused the drama at times and were not in good taste, seeming to undermine Curie's progressive findings and implying she contributed to future historical disasters. While a good enough job is done with making Curie more than a caricature and her adversity, too little is done with the findings themselves, mentioned but treated in almost a throwaway way, their importance and what made her mind work. The conflict lacks tension and there is too much time spent on her personal life, handled in a bland and melodramatic manner. Very disappointing film overall. Curie, her life and her achievements deserved better, as did Pike (giving one of her best performances in one of her worst films). See 'Madame Curie' instead. 4/10.

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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