You could say the same about the Doors movie from decades ago - Jim Morrison dominated it, and the other three guys were more like bit players or caricatures. I think that gets back to the issue of a movie’s running time: two or two and a half hours isn’t enough time to do justice to the life of someone as talented and complicated as Freddie Mercury, and it really isn’t enough time to flesh out the stories of “the other guys.” You get one or two lines for Brian May such as “you studied astrophysics, mate!” and that’s it.
Yeah, there were definitely some clunkers that the interns were tasked with writing... No offense meant to hard-working interns the world over, but some were so on the nose that they felt like place-holders and it's only the cast that redeem them. However, that the cast can (mostly) redeem the writing is saying quite a bit.
Just found this clip which I think is pretty well done and has a positive vibe from some of the main actors involved with the film. You can tell they cared about what they were doing.
Then you should probably avoid the genre altogether. It seems like you’d probably be doomed to a lot of disappointment otherwise.
I just finished rewatching the Days of our Lives documentary that the wife wanted to see. (I hadn’t seen in a few years but remembered it was good.) Interesting to note that there does seem to have been a bit of tension and estrangement between the band before Live Aid. (The solo album isn’t mentioned at all in the film so who knows if that was the cause. It is also mentioned at the same time that tensions, fights, walkouts and threats to quit were not uncommon for the band). That Geldof had to talk them into doing it because they were worried they were too much of an “old” band to be received well. That they rehearsed extensively before it. And that Freddie’s doctor told him to not do the show because he was fighting a throat infection at the time. So perhaps a bit more truth to most of that part of the movie than otherwise thought?
Just because Freddie hadn't been diagnosed before Live Aid in real life didn't mean he didn't have HIV before that. And the it was told that way in order to fit their story - which had to cover a lot of time and was fast paced as it is - into a two-hour and fifteen-minute movie.
The doc - and books in the past - also mentioned how Freddie was contemplating "living on his own" at the time, in the sense of leaving the group, and how the advance for Mr Bad Guy was more than what they'd get for a Queen album. For everyone else who hasn't seen it: At 24:48 onwards:
I don't think they did amp it up for the most part. They just moved the timeline around in order for it to fit into a two hour, fifteen-minute movie. I've never seen the second decade as any less interesting than the first either (in some ways, it was more interesting).
He did a good job of playing Mercury, but I do think Mercury was portrayed as being a little too sentimental, serious, and lacked that "I don't give a ****" and flippant attitude that Freddie often had. And as Peter Freestone (Freddie's assistant) said, he would've liked to have seen more free laughter (that was his only minor complaint). But I think if anyone deserves an Oscar, it's Rami Malek. He clearly put his all into the role.
I saw the film today Rami Malek really deserves an Oscar for his performance ! just a question where does Marc Martel voice come into it and does it appear on the cd or is that freddies?
Rami getting the Oscar. No real competition then. Not just the Queen band, but Freddie Mercury's life story, true drama( basically). Has to get some acknowledgement at least.
Moving the timeline around qualifies as amping it up. They made it look like Freddie woke up, found Jim Hutton, made amends with his father, and then went over to a stadium to play his final and greatest concert. Quite a day's work by any standard. I don't mind. That is what they do to make subjects even more interesting. They amp them up a bit. As for Queen's second decade, that is simply a preference. I like the long-haired, Arena Rock period better.
No mention of any other gigs. Freddie coughing. Making up with Dad. I'd say the implication is there. Why don't they show anything from 1986 to 1991? Again, I do not mind. Such things are inevitable.
Freddie and Jim did get together right before Live Aid, and, and it was the first concert that Jim ever went to. It's really not that far off the truth of what happened. Freddie's family really did watch Live Aid on TV as well, apparently. The only part that didn't happen - as far as I know - is Jim and Freddie going to Freddie's parents on that day. But Jim did go to Freddie's parents house. And as Rontoon pointed out above, it wasn't implied that was Freddie's last concert. So for a biopic, I don't see as it's really amping it up, or not to any major degree. Like I say, the timeline was shifted, but it had to be in order for it to fit the movie length. I don't know of any biopics that are accurate.
Because they only had just over a couple of hours to tell the story. Plus, do we really want to see Freddie deteriorating any more than coughing on screen? It ended on a high note with Live Aid. It makes sense.
Obviously because the film's timeline ends in 1985 at Live Aid. The pre-credits title cards explain that Freddie continued on with the band until he died in 1991. One is more likely to assume that they continued to play live shows to promote the albums they released than otherwise.
Well that is what I am saying. They tweaked history and rearranged things (i.e. amped it up) to end it on a high note. I am not criticizing. As for Freddie deteriorating, well, that is what happened and if you really wanted to tell his story, you might include that. Other films have done so. But, I enjoyed the movie, so that is that.
They took a bunch of events and condensed them into a one day period. Once again, that is what Hollywood does. Biopics are not exempt from this treatment. We are mostly in agreement. I like Queen, although not as much as you. I liked the movie, maybe more than you.
I thought the movie was alright. I didn't have any major issues with it. I've noticed their monthly listeners jump up by four million on Spotify over the last week, so it's getting more people into their music. That can't be a bad thing.
Not a bad thing at all. For me it was a somewhat sentimental experience. Aspects of my youth recreated. Plus I had Jack Jr with me and it's cool to encourage the next generation to dig cool music.
As Rami has answered in interviews about that exact question ; they wanted to celebrate his life. Not shy away from the intense private crazy sexual party side that led to him getting aids and then dying , but not have that the focus of this film. It was about Freddie and Queen.
