Like Ron's approach this was made for mass appeal, on a mass appeal budget, with the mass appeal expectations that go along with that. Of course, the surviving Queen's desire is to further their brand, profit, and future relevance. Pleasing music geeks like us doesn't really make $sen$e in this context. "Ben Hur" wouldn't have been the historic movie it became had it been written for theologians. It's a drama...not a documentary. Of course, nothing can be worse than Ron's Beatles film. I'd rather drink a cup of phlegm than watch that piece of ****. I'm looking forward to this.
Well, then- enjoy your cup of phlegm. Personally I’d rather watch a subpar documentary than drink phlegm. But that’s just me.
"I'd rather" doesn't imply I have to do either of those things. Thanks for the attempt at whatever it is that you did there.
I'm sure that one of us here has mentioned it, but am I the only recording stooge that noticed the anachronistic Ampex 456 reel in the clips that are making the rounds? I'm such a sad geek.
Malek is a good actor but the characterization on this movie is awful. At times he looks like a cheap Freddie Mercury imitation. But anyways I’ll definitely watch this movie.
Anytime we know that we're not watching the real thing - in this case Freddie Mercury - there is a tendency to nitpick the piss out of it. That's understandable. Freddie was around in most of our lifetimes, so we're closer to the facts, rather than, let's say a biopic about Stephen Foster. I hope, and have the feeling, that for a couple of hours at least, this film will make me believe. I don't have to carry it with me when I'm done; I just want it to do its job in the moment. It looks like it will. The casting of Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers, and Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong, on the other hand, is just too much of a stretch to buy into.
I don't need exact look-alikes in a biopic. We have documentaries for that. There's already Oscar talk for Malik's performance. It seems he is extraordinary in the movie.
The movie was mentioned on the news tonight. It's getting a lot of coverage. I was just watching this, a clip from Australia .... there's quite a few clips of Rami talking about Freddie / Queen / The movie...
I'll be curious to see how this turns out, but I think they should have cast Orphan Black's Jordan Gavaris
I saw it this afternoon. I went in with low expectations based on some of the things I'd seen in the trailer - 1977 Freddie with a moustache - and other things I'd heard about - Fat Bottomed Girls accompanying a montage of a much earlier tour, for instance. As such, I was very pleasantly surprised. It excises a lot (the Trident debacle is nowhere to be seen, for instance), which is understandable, for time purposes. What's more questionable are some of the anachronisms, such as the two I've mentioned. The odd thing about Fat Bottomed Girls effectively appearing in 1974 is that a later tour montage uses Now I'm Here. Why not just swap them? The reason Freddie has a moustache in the We Will Rock You session is because they've inexplicably set that in 1980, so the moustache isn't wrong; the date of the recording is, which is worse! Rami Malek delivers a solid central performance that is let down occasionally by hoary old biopic clichés. There are fleeting moments when he's very like Freddie, though, and I think he does a great job. Gwilym Lee has the voice of Brian May down to a tee, just as Joseph Mazzello is spot-on as John Deacon. Mazzello may not have much to say, but what he does say is trademark Deacon and the resemblance is great for the two of them. Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor is the weak link. The poorest physical similarity and with a hairstyle that changes little between 1970 and 1985. Mike Myers' scenes are a huge misstep too. There are lots of little errors - a montage of LPs and album covers includes a Virgin logo; correct now, but not at the time - and things that are simply inaccurate, such as the assertion that they'd not played live together "for ages" prior to Live Aid (the line may be that they'd not played together "for years", but I couldn't swear to it). Even so, it was only two months since the Works tour had ended! Plus, there's a very odd trend throughout where they apparently feel obliged to incessantly reference the various degrees and qualifications the band had. Mention it once, then move on. No need to labour the point. Yet, despite all this, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The closing Live Aid sequence really is superb, and worth the admission price alone. "Why not just watch the real thing?", you may ask. Well, of course, but there is much to cherish in the cinematic interpretation of it. CGI shots that swoop into Wembley. Accurate recreations of specific moments on stage. The big cinema sound. It's not perfect, but it's no different from most biopics, in terms of fact versus the usual disclaimer that "some scenes have been created for dramatic purposes". It's crippled with factual errors, anachronisms and events inexplicably occurring out of sequence. But that Live Aid finale? All is forgiven.
Meh. This looks so underwhelming. Tell Freddie’s story or don’t bother. Some approved story from May & Taylor does not move me much. Let’s get real or scrap it.
Here's the problem - they can only get Queens music with the cooperation of the other members of the band. And they can only get that if the filmmakers tell the story the band wants to tell. And if you try to tell a story without the music... Put it this way - did anyone see that film about Jimi Hendrix starring Andre of Outkast?
