I thought the same during the movie. I still think the same now. I don't think he looks and acts like Freddie Mercury. It's an entertaining movie, but it's not a good movie. I can see why it got bad reviews. It looks like a made for TV drama. Queen deserves better. YouTube would sound pretty poor compared to a cinema set up. Watch a Star Wars clip on YouTube and it's not going to sound as good either. But listen to Queen's music nice and loud on a decent hi end stereo and that would blow the cinema sound system out of the water.
Personally, I think the Live Aid show was boring, 'Queen Rock Montreal' or 'Live at The Rainbow '74' are better choices I think. Also 'Days of Our Lives' documentary was better as well.
He might have had an idea of what lied ahead as early as 1985, but current sources agree official diagnosis was in 1987.
Also, why did the story omit the fact that Brian and Roger released albums before FM. The point of contention wasn't the "Mr.Bad Guy" album, it was Freddie's CBS deal was considerably more than the group's EMI contract at the time. They mention the later but not the former?
What was that Queen TV movie from around the last 5 years or so that was really bad? I just remember that it at least showed Freddie being sick!
Stevie Riks has been flying the flag for years now. His Freddie is brilliant, I like ..his window cleaning..clip, hilarious.
Sure thing. I think some of the fans that have complained about the many inaccuracies and liberties BoRhap took; they're probably wanting a higher production value of that that video. That kind of film would've never been green lighted by the studio and certainly not by the band or mgmt.
One of the problems I have with bio-pics is that it is either bad history or bad drama. Like the uncertainty principle, you can't have both be good. From what I gather, the best part of the movie is Malek's performance. Esp. the concert scenes. If that is the case, surely there is plenty of real Queen concert footage? Does the movie flow well as entertainment?
It’s flows wonderfully as entertainment. That’s why timelines were somewhat changed for dramatic effect.
If it was a full fledged time-line accurate bio-pic it would've most likely been titled "Queen, the Life, the Times and the Legend" or something similar. I think the title "Bohemian Rhapsody" suggests and celebrates the idea and concept behind the band, their music and the song that started it all. I'm glad the movie didn't get mired in all the details of the band member's life and problems. It's about the music. That's why I went to see it. I didn't know much about Queen's back story and personal squabbles among band members anyway. That kind of movie has been done to death for other music groups and just drags and distracts from hearing the music played in a theater with a decent sound system. I know I will never be able to hear Queen on an expensive home hi-fi system so the theater experience was as good as it's going to get for me. At least the mp3 earbud listening Millennials will hear this band the same way I did in the theater.
The movie made me want to start a band and definitely stoked my enthusiasm for the band (who suffer, for me, from that "favorite band" curse of being overplayed in my own house here and there). From that perspective, it's a success. That said, the inaccuracies stand out and I do think they glossed over the more interesting relationships between and personalities of the band members to serve the need for drama. In objective terms, those earn idiot demerits. Kind of like junk food. Not really good for you, but damned if you don't enjoy it in the moment.
I'm a sucker for music biopics. I can empathize with some of the detractor's opinions concerning skewed timelines and perhaps Malek not being a dead ringer for Mercury. However, it is a film and not a biopic, so I can take it as a rags-to-riches story of climbing the ladder in the music business and making it big—tropes and all—put into the context of a three-act story. Basically I've been a Queen fan since 1976 or so (when I was an aspiring drummer at 8-to-9 years old between the time of A Night at the Opera and News of the World) and thus this hits my sweet spot. I think Malek is brilliant as Mercury with his speaking voice and mannerisms while the two actors playing May and Deacon are spot-on as well (however, I do feel the actor playing Taylor is bit off and perhaps a bit miscast though). I also find Lucy Boynton exceptional as Mary as I recently loved her in the Netflix series Gypsy with Naomi Watts. I've always found rock biopics a mixed bag since putting actors who are not musicians into the situation of a rock concert is difficult to pull-off realistically without it coming off as fake and this film achieves the realism of those scenes quite well (not unlike The Doors, Almost Famous, and Ray). I am also one of those (who have also admitted) that surprisingly by the end was experiencing some waterwork moments as my love of Queen and the film's dramatization of certain events played upon my sentimentality. It's not a perfect film, but overall it captures the essence of Queen and tells their story adequately with fervor and inspiration. I mean, really, how much can you compress nearly 20 years into 2¼ hours? I saw it in IMAX last week and tomorrow am going to catch it a second time at a Dolby Cinema because the sound mix is spectacular. If you love rock and roll and are a Queen fan, I don't understand how you couldn't let go and simply enjoy this film. It isn't a documentary, it's a rock and roll biopic about overcoming adversity from obscurity and becoming one of the most revered bands in rock history. Tropes and all, what's not to like? If you're hung up on the particulars and not the overall arc of the film then that's too bad because you're missing out on a celebration of music and Queen as one of the greatest rock bands of all time.
You actually brought up something else that really checked the box for me: at no point am I going, "Why is this supposed guitarist putting their hand *there* for that note?" While I don't know how to play these songs note-for-note, I know the guitar and bass enough to know when someone's hand is in the wrong register placement for the sounds I'm hearing. Some of it was achieved by strategic cut-away, but the actors make for convincing instrumentalists. A small point on some level, but really imperative for a music-based film.
Exactly. The attention to detail for the actors playing experienced musicians is exemplary. Even though I find Ben Hardy playing Taylor is a bit miscast there is never a moment where I don't think he is actually playing the drums.
"Bohemian Rhapsody rallied a little over the weekend, earning $30 million in its second Fri-Sun frame to get over the $100m domestic milestone. That’s a 40% drop from its larger-than-expected $51m launch, and a superb 3.52x weekend multiplier. The film played around 3% better among those under 25 and 3% better than those 18-34 on this weekend than it did last weekend, which may slightly explain the Saturday upturn. Anyway, the film has now earned $100m in ten days of domestic release and has earned a whopping $185m overseas thus far on a $55m budget. That 40% drop is a better hold than Straight Outta Compton (-56% from a $60 million launch) and not much bigger of a drop than A Star Is Born (-33% from a $43m launch). If it plays like Straight Outta Compton from this point onward (unlikely, but humor me), we’re still looking at a $145m domestic total. But since folks like this one and it’ll be a consensus choice for large groups (and a film that adults catch up with on date night), I’m guessing a domestic finish of around $165m-$170m. That would make Bohemian Rhapsody the biggest musical biopic ever in unadjusted domestic grosses. The $55 million-budgeted Bryan Singer-directed (with a little help from Dexter Fletcher) Freddie Mercury flick has also earned a whopping $225m worldwide. Once it gets past $124m domestic, it’ll be the biggest LGBTQIA-themed movie of all time. If it gets past $170m (like if Rami Malek may end up in the Oscar race), it’ll be the third-biggest even when adjusted for inflation, behind Interview with the Vampire ($106m in 1994/$230m adjusted) and The Birdcage ($124m in 1996/$256m adjusted). Speaking of overseas, the film earned another $63 million in 35 markets outside of North America to bring its global cume to a jaw-dropping $285m worldwide. So, yes, this one is coasting over $300m and may crack $400m by the end. Of note, it went up 44% in South Korea ($7m) on its second weekend and dropped just 16% in the UK for a $6.3m third weekend-gross. The overall hold was -15% worldwide, with five territories going up from last weekend. The film opens in India on Nov. 16, Italy on Nov. 28 and South Africa on Nov. 30. As for why this is happening, it would appear that the film has (checks notes)… everything you ever want and everything you ever need, right in front of you. Considering the blow-out successes of Bohemian Rhapsody and The Greatest Showman, maybe Deadpool 3 should be a musical. Once again, live-action musicals are a big deal even in our Netflix-and-chill era." 'Bohemian Rhapsody' Remains Box Office Queen With Supersonic $285M Cume
Thanks for the details. I think the easy explanation ( ldespite the critical timeline and changes in history) is that this movie just is fun, touching at times, but makes you smile and feel good. Lots of crap going on in the USA right now and I think young audiences are loving learning more about a band’s music that they’ve heard for years but may not have known much about the creators. The band members themselves.
The amount of QUEEN that I’ve seen on my timeline these days..... This biopic was meant to gain new fans, so good job, Brian & Roger!
Out of all the legacy acts, Queen were already above The Beatles, Zeppelin, The Stones, Pink Floyd etc for listeners on Spotfiy, but now they've topped Michael Jackson too... Monthly listeners on Spotify... Queen: 27,000, 719 Michael Jackson: 26, 097, 751 The Beatles: 15, 474, 488 Led Zeppelin: 10,537, 354
The worldwide audience figures are impressive. It's no surprise that it's done well in the UK so far, and it should be doing good across Europe. It's a shame that Forbes doesn't look at those areas. It'd be interesting to see how it's doing in individual countries across Europe. It should do alright in Japan too, and Australia.
Since as you said it opens in India Nov. 16th I'm guessing their's going to be an increased upsurge attending this movie considering India's population size and the fact the movie goes into some detail of Freddie Mercury's India heritage and his relationship to his father and his religious beliefs. Acceptance of differences between these two are quite emotional and don't come across too overly sappy. That's what I like about this movie is that it covers almost everything about this band without over doing it.
86 to 91 is quite a big chunk missed out on, but there's only so much it could cover in a couple of hours. I saw photos of Rami Malek in Freddie's Budapest Magic Tour outfit, but that happened a year after the movie ends, so perhaps there'll be more on the Bluray.