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.
"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.