I watched this film at the flicks last night and thought it was ok, loved the Live Aid build up and it brought back such great memories of that day, i filmed the whole event on VHS and it turned me on to so many great bands and performers.

I thought the actor who played Freddie was terrible as Freddie but would have made a brilliant Mick Jagger.

Not a Queen fan, but there is no doubt that Freddie was a magnetic frontman.

The Mrs does like Queen so we went to see it. If we were being polite, we would describe it as somewhat lightweight. If we weren't being polite, we would describe it as s**t.

If we were being polite, we would describe it as somewhat lightweight. If we weren't being polite, we would describe it as s**t.

that's enough for me ….. I believe ya strat …. I believe ya ……



ROCKMAN

Most of the reviews agree with strat. Either they don't like it at all, or the positives are on Rami Malek as Freddie but that the story and direction is "lightweight" as you say and fairly by the numbers. Which it isn't, I wouldn't doubt. What's funny is I didn't have as much of a problem with that as I did with the band dynamics and the inaccuracies. They portray a lot of infighting with the band and I'm not sure how true that is. At least I had never heard about that. And that they were kind of at odds with Freddie's behavior (his wildness, showing up late to the studio, etc). I'm not a big Queen fan so I don't know the whole history but it seemed like he was a wild man when it came to partying but that it never affected the band and he was a professional with them, and that they all really appreciated each other's talents.

Otherwise, I thought for your typical rise to fame story they did a nice job. They keep it moving and interesting and use a lot of great music throughout, with a lot of easter egg touches that showed there was an attention to detail. Its formulaic but I'm not really sure what anyone would have expected. Aren't all the biopics basically like this? And since when is formulaic something to call out, with every superhero movie we have out nowadays yet thats not usually a problem? I don't mean to champion the film but seems strange to point that out here.

Again, 100% get why some wouldn't like it and its far from perfect in any respect. But from the reviews I've seen I'm just surprised at what they're calling out. I would point to different things as being the negatives.

Since seeing the trailers, I've been leery about the actors wearing rock star wigs and retro clothing.
The Doors movie had a similar problem...no matter how "authentic" they try to make it, it somehow comes across as contrived and artificial.
I've seen people dress as hippies and rock stars for Halloween, and most of them do a better jop than what's seen in these mega-expensively made movies.
I did see the reviewer from Variety pointed out the goofy look of "Freddie's" teeth, but sort of quickly skimmed through review.

Any thoughts on the wigs and costumes, and whether or not they're a hindrance to the story itself?
Or were they able to capture the overall vibe of the mid-'70's - '80's with the sets, extras, etc.?

Might go see it, but am a bit hesitant...probably best to wait for the dvd, or when it's aired on tv for free.
Or...maybe best to avoid all the phoniness and simply watch a proper documentary.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Wifey and I both loved it...
So there’s that.

Quote
Hairball
Since seeing the trailers, I've been leery about the actors wearing rock star wigs and retro clothing.
The Doors movie had a similar problem...no matter how "authentic" they try to make it, it somehow comes across as contrived and artificial.
I've seen people dress as hippies and rock stars for Halloween, and most of them do a better jop than what's seen in these mega-expensively made movies.
I did see the reviewer from Variety pointed out the goofy look of "Freddie's" teeth, but sort of quickly skimmed through review.

Any thoughts on the wigs and costumes, and whether or not they're a hindrance to the story itself?
Or were they able to capture the overall vibe of the mid-'70's - '80's with the sets, extras, etc.?

Might go see it, but am a bit hesitant...probably best to wait for the dvd, or when it's aired on tv for free.
Or...maybe best to avoid all the phoniness and simply watch a proper documentary.

Thats interesting. See, the Doors to me is a movie I would never want to see. I have, and it was as bad as I expected. Maybe I'm too close to the Doors whereas I'm not as much with Queen. Maybe they've just figured out a way to make it better these days. There's something about trying to do Jim Morrison that would never sit with me. I could kinda see someone try to be Hendrix and make it believable. But Jim Morrison? There's something about that that would always seem too ridiculous to me.

But its a good comparison. There's something that seemed less hokey about this and the wigs and costumes didn't distract me or anything. But I could see how potentially its just something you couldn't get past.

There was a Jimi Hendrix movie not long ago starring André Benjamin, and he could vaguely pass for Jimi visually a little bit, but his acting was so poor that the movie was universally panned.
While I never went to see it, there was some clips on youtube that showed how bad it was. And the Brian Jones movie Stoned...another bad one.
My wife and I went to see the James Brown movie Get On Up when it was released (co-produced by Mick), and we both liked it, but still there was a bit of hokiness with it all.
Can't really think of any of these types of movies that are truly worthy of the star they're based around, but it's all just entertainment I suppose.
And based on the reviews in this thread of this movie, some people seem to like it, while others not so much...don't know if it will stand the test of time.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I saw this one as similar to Get On Up, the Bobby Darin one Beyond The Sea, and the Ray Charles one, all of which I thought were pretty good and avoided the hokiness. I'm not sure what makes them avoid that mark. But those I could take pretty seriously, even though I know a decent amount about all of them. But depending on the figure I'm not sure I could ever not see it as laughable. Not sure why.

I saw Bohemian Rhapsody, and thought it was a bit poor. The thing that got me, having several gay friends, was that the film descended into stereotypes, what with the tight t-shirt, jeans, and image that was so prevalent in the 80s.

While Freddie did adopt this image, there was a clear demarcation between his 70s rock image, as quasi-hetero, but the short hair and moustache was the gay image. People's lives, however, do not fall into demarcations like this.

Saw it yesterday, very cool movie...

Interestingly, before the film started there was an advert for the Elton John biopic coming out next year...guess I'll have to go see that one too!

Quote
Hairball
There was a Jimi Hendrix movie not long ago starring André Benjamin, and he could vaguely pass for Jimi visually a little bit, but his acting was so poor that the movie was universally panned.
While I never went to see it, there was some clips on youtube that showed how bad it was. And the Brian Jones movie Stoned...another bad one.
My wife and I went to see the James Brown movie Get On Up when it was released (co-produced by Mick), and we both liked it, but still there was a bit of hokiness with it all.
Can't really think of any of these types of movies that are truly worthy of the star they're based around, but it's all just entertainment I suppose.
And based on the reviews in this thread of this movie, some people seem to like it, while others not so much...don't know if it will stand the test of time.

The documentary "Mr Dynamite" about James Brown is excellent. Mick produced that too & is in some interview segments. Available on Netflix.

"Mr Dynamite" about James Brown is excellent.


Yes Yes .… great doco ….



ROCKMAN

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
Hairball
There was a Jimi Hendrix movie not long ago starring André Benjamin, and he could vaguely pass for Jimi visually a little bit, but his acting was so poor that the movie was universally panned.
While I never went to see it, there was some clips on youtube that showed how bad it was. And the Brian Jones movie Stoned...another bad one.
My wife and I went to see the James Brown movie Get On Up when it was released (co-produced by Mick), and we both liked it, but still there was a bit of hokiness with it all.
Can't really think of any of these types of movies that are truly worthy of the star they're based around, but it's all just entertainment I suppose.
And based on the reviews in this thread of this movie, some people seem to like it, while others not so much...don't know if it will stand the test of time.

The documentary "Mr Dynamite" about James Brown is excellent. Mick produced that too & is in some interview segments. Available on Netflix.

Yes, I've seen it.

Back to Queen...

There was a docudrama on Freddie Mercury I saw on tv a couple of years ago called "The Freddie Mercury Story: Who Wants to Live Forever" which was pretty good as far as these types of films go, though there's a bit of a tabloid vibe to it all. Starring John Blunt who looks very much Freddie, the film is based solely on the latter years of Freddie's life, so it's all rather sad.

The Freddie Mercury Story Who Wants To Live Forever

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Loved the movie. Sure, it was a sanitized, My-Little-Pony style version of their story, but the music and performances were great!

Quote
Hairball
There was a Jimi Hendrix movie not long ago starring André Benjamin, and he could vaguely pass for Jimi visually a little bit, but his acting was so poor that the movie was universally panned.
While I never went to see it, there was some clips on youtube that showed how bad it was. And the Brian Jones movie Stoned...another bad one.
My wife and I went to see the James Brown movie Get On Up when it was released (co-produced by Mick), and we both liked it, but still there was a bit of hokiness with it all.
Can't really think of any of these types of movies that are truly worthy of the star they're based around, but it's all just entertainment I suppose.
And based on the reviews in this thread of this movie, some people seem to like it, while others not so much...don't know if it will stand the test of time.

The other issue with the Hendrix film is that they weren't able to afford the rights to ANY of his music.

A Hendrix movie with none of his music??

Just back from seeing 'the Queen movie', Bohemian Rhapsody. Yeah - pretty much loved it. While it may play with facts (or ignore some) and accurate timelines, it's hard not get swept up by the music, the performances, and the emotion of it all. So real quick - my Queen story (not told for the 1st time). My brother John and I were lucky to see Queen on their earliest US dates, as they maDE their way from Boston's small Orpheum, up to the Music Hall, and eventually the GarDEn. To me, those 1st 4 or 5 albums will always be much better than the We Will Rock You latter stuff. Anyway...when A Night at the Opera album came out, they did a pre-show signing at the old Strawberry Records near the Pru in Boston. I got the album signed - and still remember Freddie Mercury - wearing a white fur collar, and 'black finger nail polish!' I mean, this was pretty exotic stuff for a 16 year old kid in 1975, right?
And that signed album hung proudly on my dorm rooms all through college and years after. Until at some point, when Queen had gone out of style for a short while, and probably DEsperate for cash (likely to buy a Bowie ticket as I recall) - I sold it. For $35! Arrghh. To this day, I still get a small pain every time I hear that magnificent song - truly the unlikeliest of anthems -Bohemian Rhapsody. Moral of the story - don't sell that stuff. Anyway, I thought the movie was terrific. Go see it. Then listen to those 1st few albums - Killer Queen for sure.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
Loved the movie. Sure, it was a sanitized, My-Little-Pony style version of their story, but the music and performances were great!

What STG said.

I thought so too!

Saw this last night.

I LOVED Queen up to and including A Day at the Races, then they became too vaudeville for me, too 'entertainment' not enough ROCK. But that's another matter.

As a movie though, I thoroughly enjoyed this, almost FANTASTIC in fact. The last 15 minutes just riveting.

I GET the timeline mistakes, I get the in-house 'jokes' (Mike Meyers for example) and I get it's NOT a 'biography' - ITS a movie. and a good one. NOT GREAT - but really, REALLY good.

Rod

Quote
Marmalade

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
Loved the movie. Sure, it was a sanitized, My-Little-Pony style version of their story, but the music and performances were great!

What STG said.

Hi Marmalade, nice to see you around again!

I will not be able to watch it. What almost changed my mind was that a) Rami Malek is a pretty good guy/actor and does a good job, and b) May and Taylor were involved. But May and Taylor have turned into nitwits, and one decent performance isn't enough. My girl is a major Freddie fan, and has shut it down already.
I have learned the story is once again the same old over-hashed rockn roll taLE. Isn't anyone tired of that crap yet?
In the trailers hey have John Deacon writhing and jumping around, which is ludicrous.
The studio footage is the usual - the band members shaking their heads and looking at each other with mournful eyes while they are waiting for the lead singer to appear.
But more than anything it is the subtleties, or even the not so subtle mannerisms, movements, and speech patterns that bother me so badly I can not watch. I do not watch "Deuce" because of it either.
First off - not everyone in 70's walked around in feather boas. People did not use expression of today like "Duude" for 'Hello'. Girls moved totally different.
And the main thing: the smoking. EVERYONE smoked back then. The rooms were full of smoke. And it wasn't an actual job; you did while you were doing whatever you were really doing. In the remakes today the either do not smoke, or they smoke in the most unnatural way. Where you can tell this person has never held a Marlboro, and is not inhaling.
This is not a pro=smoke clip. But if you want to make a 70's film look authentic you MUST look to the guys who know how to do it.
PS I thought Val Kilmer and Oliver Stone did okay in the Doors film because it focused on a human tale; not the stereotypical rock movie thing.

So good! Loved it! Was never a fan of Queen, so had no preconceived ideas. Loved the guy who played Freddie. Reminded me of Mick before the short hair part of the film. His character is so sweet. Could be different than the real Freddie?? His wife reminded me of Marianne. Realized they did have some great music. I would see it again.

I understand why people who followed them might not like it, but it’s just a movie with artistic license to not be exact.

<3

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I will not be able to watch it. What almost changed my mind was that a) Rami Malek is a pretty good guy/actor and does a good job, and b) May and Taylor were involved. But May and Taylor have turned into nitwits, and one decent performance isn't enough. My girl is a major Freddie fan, and has shut it down already.
I have learned the story is once again the same old over-hashed rockn roll taLE. Isn't anyone tired of that crap yet?
In the trailers hey have John Deacon writhing and jumping around, which is ludicrous.
The studio footage is the usual - the band members shaking their heads and looking at each other with mournful eyes while they are waiting for the lead singer to appear.
But more than anything it is the subtleties, or even the not so subtle mannerisms, movements, and speech patterns that bother me so badly I can not watch. I do not watch "Deuce" because of it either.
First off - not everyone in 70's walked around in feather boas. People did not use expression of today like "Duude" for 'Hello'. Girls moved totally different.
And the main thing: the smoking. EVERYONE smoked back then. The rooms were full of smoke. And it wasn't an actual job; you did while you were doing whatever you were really doing. In the remakes today the either do not smoke, or they smoke in the most unnatural way. Where you can tell this person has never held a Marlboro, and is not inhaling.
This is not a pro=smoke clip. But if you want to make a 70's film look authentic you MUST look to the guys who know how to do it.
PS I thought Val Kilmer and Oliver Stone did okay in the Doors film because it focused on a human tale; not the stereotypical rock movie thing.

I think thats a perfectly fair criticism. My friend and I aren't see it tonight (I've seen it, he hasn't) for that exact reason. I said I really didn't think he'd like it. He's a big hard rock and metal fan, so Queen has never been one of his favorites but he obviously respects them and gets why they're important. But I said I think its gonna be too much "like a movie" for you to get into it. Its gonna be "the 70s" and they're gonna hammer you over the head with a lot of "in" references, to the time and the band. Its not watered down to the point that it bothers me, but its watered down to the point that most biopics would be and I think its gonna throw him. He'll walk away saying what most reviews did: "haven't I seen this movie a million times before?" Which isn't wrong, but I just don't know what someone would expect from the movie. Its hard to tell the story differently without overly trying to be graphic and intense, which honestly I think would bother me more than this film was.

Its a hard thing to do. Vinyl had Scorsese and Jagger and to me that came off completely laughable. Its a stellar cast and crew and you got a show that looked like it was trying SO hard to be authentic when it so clearly wasn't. That show bothered me more than this movie, which if anything just comes off pedestrian. I'd love to see it again, but going with the person I am I just know its not their kind of thing. They're too close to the subject and know too much about the time (as we all would) that I don't think he'd be able to be objective and not be distracted by all of it. Its definitely not for everyone.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I will not be able to watch it. What almost changed my mind was that a) Rami Malek is a pretty good guy/actor and does a good job, and b) May and Taylor were involved. But May and Taylor have turned into nitwits, and one decent performance isn't enough. My girl is a major Freddie fan, and has shut it down already.
I have learned the story is once again the same old over-hashed rockn roll taLE. Isn't anyone tired of that crap yet?
In the trailers hey have John Deacon writhing and jumping around, which is ludicrous.
The studio footage is the usual - the band members shaking their heads and looking at each other with mournful eyes while they are waiting for the lead singer to appear.
But more than anything it is the subtleties, or even the not so subtle mannerisms, movements, and speech patterns that bother me so badly I can not watch. I do not watch "Deuce" because of it either.
First off - not everyone in 70's walked around in feather boas. People did not use expression of today like "Duude" for 'Hello'. Girls moved totally different.
And the main thing: the smoking. EVERYONE smoked back then. The rooms were full of smoke. And it wasn't an actual job; you did while you were doing whatever you were really doing. In the remakes today the either do not smoke, or they smoke in the most unnatural way. Where you can tell this person has never held a Marlboro, and is not inhaling.
This is not a pro=smoke clip. But if you want to make a 70's film look authentic you MUST look to the guys who know how to do it.
PS I thought Val Kilmer and Oliver Stone did okay in the Doors film because it focused on a human tale; not the stereotypical rock movie thing.

I think thats a perfectly fair criticism. My friend and I aren't see it tonight (I've seen it, he hasn't) for that exact reason. I said I really didn't think he'd like it. He's a big hard rock and metal fan, so Queen has never been one of his favorites but he obviously respects them and gets why they're important. But I said I think its gonna be too much "like a movie" for you to get into it. Its gonna be "the 70s" and they're gonna hammer you over the head with a lot of "in" references, to the time and the band. Its not watered down to the point that it bothers me, but its watered down to the point that most biopics would be and I think its gonna throw him. He'll walk away saying what most reviews did: "haven't I seen this movie a million times before?" Which isn't wrong, but I just don't know what someone would expect from the movie. Its hard to tell the story differently without overly trying to be graphic and intense, which honestly I think would bother me more than this film was.

Its a hard thing to do. Vinyl had Scorsese and Jagger and to me that came off completely laughable. Its a stellar cast and crew and you got a show that looked like it was trying SO hard to be authentic when it so clearly wasn't. That show bothered me more than this movie, which if anything just comes off pedestrian. I'd love to see it again, but going with the person I am I just know its not their kind of thing. They're too close to the subject and know too much about the time (as we all would) that I don't think he'd be able to be objective and not be distracted by all of it. Its definitely not for everyone.

It's true - I don't know why 'Vinyl" was so bad.

I took my youngest daughter to see Bohemian Rhaosody on its opening weekend. Personally I thought they tried too hard for authenticity to get the "feel" while at the same time they took a few artistic liberties with timeline and the Mike Myers character as an example.
My daughter (14) loved the movie: she was in tears by the end.
You can't please all of the people all of the time but I think the film makers made a valiant attempt to entertain a large audience and for the most part they succeeded.

my understanding is that it isn't a true depiction of his personal life and that its sugarcoated. Dude was special. Doubt he'd go for the whitewashing.

Quote
Rip This
my understanding is that it isn't a true depiction of his personal life and that its sugarcoated. Dude was special. Doubt he'd go for the whitewashing.

I think they touched on everything, while also not wanting to glorify it. Its a hard line to draw. They didn't mention every single facet of his underground life but also, the original "warts and all" movie Sasha Baron Cohen wanted to make I feel like it could have suffered from being TOO revelatory. Or revelatory just to be provocative. I could have easily seen that not working too because it could be trying too hard to be real.

I can't watch this

Quote
Rip This
my understanding is that it isn't a true depiction of his personal life and that its sugarcoated. Dude was special. Doubt he'd go for the whitewashing.

He was private about his private life when he was alive. What would be the point, or the source of the material? "Behind the Candelabra" was very frank about Liberace, and it felt like exploitation. Liberace was a bit creepy, to me, but I felt he didn't deserve that(and the filmmakers had a source for it, at least). I may see this movie, eventually, through a rental. I'm not a big Queen fan to begin with, but it looks like an interesting try.