But Crocodile Rock was his first number one single so it really makes sense to use it to represent his arrival.
I enjoyed it but was taken back by the music not being chronological. I'm sure I will like it more on my next viewing.
Hey Folks, don’t go see the Beatles Love in Vegas. The songs are not in the proper chronological order
I guess every fan would have a different list of songs from Elton's discography that should have made the cut in Rocketman. The UHD looks pretty nice and sounds great. Rocketman 4K UHD Review - DoBlu.com
I'm not even that big a fan of the film but I had to buy the steelbooks from Best Buy and Walmart. They book look gorgeous, using Elton's glasses as a focus. Really nice. This is the Best Buy Steelbook.
I saw it again last night. I enjoyed it more already knowing how the movie was going to roll. And with that in mind the choice of songs really do work with the storyline. I too was not happy with the songs not being the correct ones for the time the first time I saw it. But I had to let all that go to better enjoy it.
You apparently went in expecting a lot more than a musical as indicated in your post that I replied to. You complained about all the same things I did initially and those things still bug me today.
I suspect you don’t mean it this way, but the notion here is that I gave you a dishonest answer. I didn’t. I was not expecting a documentary. I had read enough about what to expect before I ever watched it. That a feature film would be a “documentary” would be absurd anyway. This is the excuse people often seem to use these days to defend ridiculous “fact choices” in films that often accomplish nothing and sometimes are even a detriment. “Dude, it’s not a documentary.” This has nothing to do with anything. If I thought, for example, that using “Crocodile Rock” as his opener at The Troubadour debut was clever for the movie’s purposes, I’d give it that credit. I don’t think that was the case. I think it was a classic case of modern movie overthink that was stupid, served no purpose and used a fake story when the real story was already perfect and needed no adjustment. That it was a musical does not make it immune from criticism. It does tell a story and I don’t think it focused nearly enough on the music. The Dodger Stadium shows alone should have been recreated for a good ten minutes. The dynamics, the showmanship, the collective vibes of 50,000 people a night all singing together. His mom, step-dad and friends singing along to “Your Song.” His mom crying at the song’s conclusion. His music brought people together. The movie captured this on some levels but not nearly enough. IMO, it was just an awful movie and arguably even worse than Bohemian Rhapsody. I expected the exact opposite. I thought it would have to be a least a little better than the hollow BR and was jazzed when I saw it for rent (it had been a purchase only for a few weeks). Unfortunately, it was worse than I could have ever imagined. Rock fans, of all people, should hold these directors accountable. Stories like these don’t really need plastic surgery. That’s the bottom line and so far they not only don’t improve things with this approach but they make already amazing stories less compelling.
I guess I should have put documentary in quotes. I simply meant you expected the story to be factual and no liberties taken at all. I know I did and that's what bothered me most about it then and still does to some extent.
I didn’t expect it to be factual and was well aware that liberties were going to be taken. It bothered me a bit, but mainly in the sense that the liberties taken never actually improved anything. They were like “make work” edits to ring up a bigger tab. My far bigger issue is that I just don’t think the film captured the essence of Elton John the musician at all. Predictably in the world in which we live, they focused on the fame, fortune, substance abuse and sexual aspects of his life. Which isn’t to say a movie on his life would ever not cover those components, but it should not outweigh the music. It’s absolutely unforgivable in this case because of how much great concert footage their is from his ‘70s prime. That should have been recreated to give a better sense of the reasons for his success. It was just an awful film, IMO.
That's because they weren't going for that angle. The angle was Elton vs his demons and his ultimate victory and.... oh yeah he was a rock star too.
Spot on. While I don't think that the film was "awful," I do think it was a mostly flaccid mediocrity, and therefore very disappointing. But this was always going to be the likely result - the film was made by a bunch of B-listers. You can't get A-list talent to make a film whereby the film's subject is allowed to hang around and do anything resembling creative contributions or editorial decisions. A-list talent generally wants nothing to do with this. So we got the compromised effort that it was - it was creative but not creative enough, took some chances but not enough of them succeeded; it went a full 2 hours but felt short on content, etc.
I'm not sure what in my comments made you think that I feel as though the film went into a different direction than that which was intended. Are there folks who have seen this movie who feel the movie portrays something unintended? Of course the movie contained the angle for which they strove. My point is that angle sucked. Just MO.
You're right I don't know why I misunderstood your post because you clearly knew going in what to expect... Moving on....
So is your argument that a film storyline is immune from criticism because said storyline is as intended? I guess I just don't get what your point is here.
Are you "above" simply explaining yourself? This is how it reads to me: Me: I didn't like the excessive focus on apples as opposed to other fruits. You: The plan was to focus only on apples.
Still haven’t seen this. Will pick up the Blu Ray which for some reason isn’t released until the end of September in the UK. I’d import it from the States but can’t find it reasonably priced.
Just saw it on demand last night and I really glad I didn't pay $30 to see it with my girlfriend in the theatre. Agree with the above poster that it wasn't a good movie. I liked BR better and I'm not really a big fan of the music of either artist but I just thought that film was done much better. Also, it was much tamer in depicting the sexual proclivities of the star, another reason I preferred BR.
Musicals are not usually my thing (i.e. Rock of Ages and Tommy), but I rather enjoyed this one. I wasn't as engaged as I was with Bohemian Rhapsody, but this type of biopic was a nice change. I think the film might have had more of an impact had they used Elton's recordings, but the actor did well otherwise.
Why should a film be tamer depicting sexuality when that a big part of the subjects story at the time ? It’s like the Sully story without the plane crash.
To be honest I thought Rocketman was fairly tame in what it portrayed. There was no nudity and beyond his relationship with Reid and the one implied sex scene,I didn't see anything that was graphic or anymore graphic than you'd see if Elton was a hetero rock star with a female manager he was with. Anyone who has even knows a little about Elton's personal life knows the movie barely scratches the surface of the extremes in that regard. As far as I'm concerned the movie shows just enough about his orientation without being too overpowering. It only aknowledges something that has been on public record for over 40 years.
If a Beatles biopic comes out and has them playing “Let It Be” on their Ed Sullivan show debut, I’m sure some folks won’t mind that either. To me it would just be stupid. There is no need to be exact on these films, but some of these moves on Rocketman and BR were just plain idiotic.
