I agree Malek's eyes are completely different. Freddie had rather unusual eyes. You know, I was thinking that as well while watching it. I was going to mention it, but I figured you would take exception and yell at me.
I honestly think the people that did the casting of the film felt Malek was as good as they were going to do for portraying Freddie. When I heard he had been chosen it made sense to me. Cohen aside, who would you have picked? Can you think of anyone better? No actor is going to have the exact features (eyes, build etc).
Exactly. I'm guessing that some would prefer an exact clone or CGI image without any acting ability? Perfectly detailed looks should come second (or third) to being able to portray the character and the emotional responses to issues during his career. And compressing 30 or so years down into a 2 hour movie to convincingly play that character to two different audiences - those that are familiar with the story, and those that are not.
I don't know why you'd think that. It's fine to disagree over stuff. I just don't like it when people get personal or make snide remarks for no justified reason (not that you've done that). When it comes to the movie, I don't think it was perfect. It was an entertaining movie and it did work - though not always - but it could've been a lot better, especially given that it took 10 years for them to pull it together. Now, this might sound a tad controversial, but I don't think Rami Malek was the ideal choice to play Freddie Mercury. I'm not only talking about what I've already said about his looks. I mean, he did a good job, but not an exceptional job IMO. But I don't think the movie portrayed Freddie right. Like I said before, he was too sentimental, too serious. I didn't see any of that flippancy that we see in footage of him. I thought he was written / played as a bit of a sad case, when in real life, by all accounts, he was a fun person to be around and often saw the funny side of things. I recall a video recently, with Peter Freestone - Freddie's assistant from the late 70s and 80s - saying that he would've preferred to have seen more free laughter in the movie. Even the party footage in the movie was a downer. It didn't feel fun and carefree (and I get that they didn't have time in 2 hours and fifteen minutes to show enough of that side of the Freddie / the group). Even there you had the other band members and Freddie arguing. Yes, they did have disagreements, but they also had more in common than what we got in the movie. Roger's relationship with Freddie seemed the most off to me. Roger, in real life, loved the rock star lifestyle. Those two were good friends, but you didn't really feel that in the movie. I could go on... It was an entertaining movie, but a flawed one. I don't think it really captured the spirit of Freddie and Queen. In some ways it did I guess, but... also not. But then, it's not a documentary. It's a movie as I've said before. I'm sure someone will probably get wound up with something I've said here...
I don't know. Sometimes unknowns turn out to be the best actors for the job. Christopher Reeve was an unknown once upon a time, then nailed the role he's best known for, and Harrison Ford wasn't a big well-known name before Star Wars.
Yes, see, I think that too. It was entertaining. And if we want accuracy, there's the (official) documentaries and books...
Who are these people who would "prefer an exact clone or CGI image without any acting ability"? I don't see anyone who has even implied that. I don't see why it seems to be so offensive to some folks here to say that Malek (who is bug-eyed, there's no other way to describe it) doesn't really look like Mercury. No one has said it's a dealbreaker.
Maybe they did not want to be seen promoting decadence. We live in quasi-Puritan times in some ways. In other scenes, he was depicted as carefree. When he "auditioned" for them or when he was giving the lawyer a nickname. As for Malek, I do not know. I never heard of him before this and although I know of Cohen, I have never seen any of his work. I cannot think of anyone else, but that does not mean there was not someone else.
A free-spirited guy who goes overboard indulging himself while cranking out great music might be a more accurate storyline, but it just doesn't fit the tenor of our times. Making Freddie more anguished about his lifestyle/introducing more animus between the band members creates drama and conflict. Then, in one magical day, Freddie discovers the joys of monogamy, finds peace with his parents, and lasting success/solidarity with his bandmates at Live Aid. Voila, resolution, roll credits.
One of the most Freddie-like lines in the movie was when Freddie said "I'll consider your offer", after that audition you're speaking of. It was the sort of cheeky/confident thing you can imagine him coming out with.
It didn't happen in one day if you had paid attention to the story within the film. Of course it was fast within the movie, but his downward spiral with Paul went on for a long time and he was basically ignoring everyone else for awhile. It made sense in the film. But yes, a tightened timeline for the cinema.
Who gives a crap if an actor portraying a real life person in a biopic doesn't exactly look like that person. Joaquin Phoenix = Johnny Cash (I thought he portrayed him well even though didn't look anything like him.) Jamie Foxx = Ray Charles (Outstanding portrayal and didn't look like him) Rami Malek = Freddie Mercury (Ditto) and many other examples.