For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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.
Quote
crholmstromQuote
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.
The other issue with the Hendrix film is that they weren't able to afford the rights to ANY of his music.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.
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!
Quote
MarmaladeQuote
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.
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.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
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
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.
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.