They don't make movies for the people who hang out on this forum. Does the average music fan have the faintest idea what Bernie Taupin looks like?
The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are FAR FAR better than they were for Bohemian Rhapsody, which on open weekend was mostly panned. One review mentioned that John Reid is portrayed as "evil". I guess that's the payoff when you break up with your client in the later years.
I saw this last night and thought it was excellent. As biopics go, it's quite unconventional, and has clearly been created with one eye on an inevitable stage version, but I was impressed. I've avoided any real spoilers here, but there are a handful of vague references to specific scenes, just to let you know. If you've seen the trailer, you know this is a far from straightforward biopic. Even the tagline on the poster declares it's "Based on a True Fantasy." As such, characters intermittently take you out of the narrative to sing (and occasionally dance to) Elton songs, not dissimilar to Pennies from Heaven or The Singing Detective, albeit that they're not miming to old records. Once you accept this at the outset, it's fine. If you don't like this approach, you may be frustrated, not least because you end up with people singing material that hadn't been written at the time the scene is set. Even brief hints of songs can be anachronistic (e.g., Elton's Dick James audition features bursts of songs that wouldn't be recorded for another fifteen years). Anyone who was irritated by Bohemian Rhapsody using 1978's Fat Bottomed Girls for a 1974 tour montage will have much to complain about here. But the films cannot be judged in the same way, even though it's inevitable that comparisons will be drawn (I'm guilty of it myself, as you will read). Using a discussion group in AA as a framing device, Elton goes through his life in chronological order. This is very effective, as it allows leaps in space and time without appearing jarring, but the fantasy elements also mean that anachronisms and inaccuracies can be more easily excused. It's not trying for po-faced historical biography. The cast are solid. Taron Egerton is superb and, at times, looks extremely like Elton. While he doesn't aim to be an accurate soundalike, the vocals work perfectly well within the context of the film, and his speaking voice is impressive. Jamie Bell, while less of a likeness of Bernie, does a reasonable job with his accent, and their onscreen dynamic is great. The production design is excellent. The film also looks very warm, especially some of the 1970s sequences. As a piece of filmmaking, it's much more accomplished and ambitious than Bohemian Rhapsody, which - full disclosure - I liked, and one wonders what the earlier film may have been like if Dexter Fletcher had directed it from the outset. The shortfalls of that script may have been improved by a more imaginative director. Even the montage sequences in Rocketman - where reproduced newspaper cuttings flash across the screen - are executed with more aplomb than similar transitions in the Queen film (the very rudimentary animated list of cities that appeared during live montages), and the epilogue and credit sequence make Bohemian Rhapsody's equivalent seem even more bargain basement than I thought before. If I was being very fussy and pedantic, I'd point out that the only albums he ever seems to sign (in scenes where he's being mobbed by fans) are the second one, even when his career has moved on, and there is some distracting CGI where they've edited Egerton into existing Elton footage (you'll know the scene when you see it), which is not entirely successful, but these are minor issues. Where Rocketman really triumphs is the warts and all approach, for which Elton himself should be commended; this is not a family-friendly, cuddly Muppet Show Elton. One sequence is even redolent of the Comfortably Numb section in Pink Floyd The Wall, where he is effectively bundled from a comatose state into paramedic care and straight onto the stage. The pacing arguably falters with Elton's own slump, but accusations of the film being overlong are, in my opinion, unwarranted, and the inevitable resurrection (again, not entirely accurate, timewise, in terms of his sobriety), means the film ends on a high. And even if you don't subscribe to the approach they've taken, you still get the songs.
Just as a suggestion, a few lines between paragraphs like this might help the readability. If you've seen the trailer, you know this is a far from straightforward biopic. Even the tagline on the poster declares it's "Based on a True Fantasy." As such, characters intermittently take you out of the narrative to sing (and occasionally dance to) Elton songs, not dissimilar to Pennies from Heaven or The Singing Detective, albeit that they're not miming to old records. Once you accept this at the outset, it's fine. If you don't like this approach, you may be frustrated, not least because you end up with people singing material that hadn't been written at the time the scene is set. Even brief hints of songs can be anachronistic (e.g., Elton's Dick James audition features bursts of songs that wouldn't be recorded for another fifteen years). Anyone who was irritated by Bohemian Rhapsody using 1978's Fat Bottomed Girls for a 1974 tour montage will have much to complain about here. But the films cannot be judged in the same way, even though it's inevitable that comparisons will be drawn (I'm guilty of it myself, as you will read). Using a discussion group in AA as a framing device, Elton goes through his life in chronological order. This is very effective, as it allows leaps in space and time without appearing jarring, but the fantasy elements also mean that anachronisms and inaccuracies can be more easily excused. It's not trying for po-faced historical biography. The cast are solid. Taron Egerton is superb and, at times, looks extremely like Elton. While he doesn't aim to be an accurate soundalike, the vocals work perfectly well within the context of the film, and his speaking voice is impressive. Jamie Bell, while less of a likeness of Bernie, does a reasonable job with his accent, and their onscreen dynamic is great. The production design is excellent. The film also looks very warm, especially some of the 1970s sequences. As a piece of filmmaking, it's much more accomplished and ambitious than Bohemian Rhapsody, which - full disclosure - I liked, and one wonders what the earlier film may have been like if Dexter Fletcher had directed it from the outset. The shortfalls of that script may have been improved by a more imaginative director. Even the montage sequences in Rocketman - where reproduced newspaper cuttings flash across the screen - are executed with more aplomb than similar transitions in the Queen film (the very rudimentary animated list of cities that appeared during live montages), and the epilogue and credit sequence make Bohemian Rhapsody's equivalent seem even more bargain basement than I thought before. If I was being very fussy and pedantic, I'd point out that the only albums he ever seems to sign (in scenes where he's being mobbed by fans) are the second one, even when his career has moved on, and there is some distracting CGI where they've edited Egerton into existing Elton footage (you'll know the scene when you see it), which is not entirely successful, but these are minor issues. Where Rocketman really triumphs is the warts and all approach, for which Elton himself should be commended; this is not a family-friendly, cuddly Muppet Show Elton. One sequence is even redolent of the Comfortably Numb section in Pink Floyd The Wall, where he is effectively bundled from a comatose state into paramedic care and straight onto the stage. The pacing arguably falters with Elton's own slump, but accusations of the film being overlong are, in my opinion, unwarranted, and the inevitable resurrection (again, not entirely accurate, timewise, in terms of his sobriety), means the film ends on a high. And even if you don't subscribe to the approach they've taken, you still get the songs.
I can't edit it now, but because you copied and pasted it (and added the paragraphs), it now looks like you wrote my review. Anyone following your posts could likely interpret it as such.
Well, that might be all of 20-members. But, I would think that most anyone who might follow my posts would also see that I was quoting you and your review, which directly precedes it. I was not trying to correct you. Only to illustrate to you that people read posts that are easy to read. I didn't read your review, because the way that it was formatted, without lines between paragraphs, made it look appear like one large contiguous black of text, which I and possibly some others might have a tendency to ignore. Disclaimer: With this post, I will further clarify that the "Rocketman" review that I reposted is an original review by PCM7027, and nothing contained therein belongs to or originated with me. If any find my reposting of it easier to read and read my reposted version and like it, please go up to the original post by PCM7027 and "like" it there. So sorry for any confusion. I only was intending to point out, that since you took a lot of time and effort to produce your original post, it would be nice if more people were to read through it. My apologies, S&G
Just got in from ‘Rocketman’. Marvellous cinema experience. It’s not a clean film. Quite raw and embarrassing at times. There’s very little in the way of a redemptive ‘feel-good’ factor. However, it’s astonishing how much the lead looks like Elt, and the costumes are striking. All three of us agreed we will see it again. Tasha (daughter) made Jan (wife) laugh as we were walking out. “Awwww, it’s nice that he found a friend at the end……”. The musical pieces feel more like theatre than a cinematic experience, and is very reminiscent of (Dylan’s) ‘Girl From The North Country’ West End production. Songs are out of order (so what?) and are cut & carved to fit the scene. Mattered not a jot. I’ll pick up the soundtrack too...
It’s really not a biopic even though it was pushed that way initially and reviewers keep calling it that. It plays fast and loose with facts deliberately portraying events out of order and inaccurately to tell a story. There are blatant falsehoods and what I would call outright lies all for the benefit of the fantasy aspect. For hardcore fans it will be frustrating but this movie seems to be geared toward a wider audience. It’s getting great reviews and the soundtrack is quite good especially on the full length cover tunes like Amoreena, Hercules, Rock and Roll Madonna, Border Song, Thank You For All Your Loving and Take Me To The Pilot. These are the best covers of Elton I’ve heard. Excellent job.
Well apparently he fares about the same in Bohemian Rhapsody. (I've not seen that one yet). From what ive read about Reid,it may not be that far from the truth.
And at the time of that video he (Reid) was still Elton's manager! It's not a flattering portrayle even there. Physically Paul Ruebens was a closer match to the real Reid compared to either of the guys that played him in Rhapsody or Rocketman. Even in old 70s footage he came off to be a bit weasel-ish. The Paul Ruebens version got that perfectly.
Yeah, when I saw that video, I thought to myself "wow, they cast Reid brilliantly!" I guess Pee Wee is too old now for the documentaries, though.
If this movie really was made as a 'Musical' then as far as me seeing it: 'I think it's going to be a long long time'. Too bad as I was looking forward to this movie, until I heard the 'Musical' references, and I would have been ok with playing loose with a few facts and inaccurate timelines, but from what I am reading on reviews, this movie is full of them. I guess I was more interested in a Biopic with some good music mixed in with it, as wanted to learn more about Elton John's Rise and Fall in his early years with a Movie that would have been factually accurate. I will pass and await the Scorsese and Tarrantino Directed Movies this Summer.
I'm guessing the plot is that it starts off with Elton in rehab recounting his life through his drug/alcohol induced memories which would be the reason (excuse) for the inaccuracies. At least that's my guess.
I have no problem with a biographical film with an "unreliable narrator" especially if the subject has been doing loads of drugs and drinking like a fish.
And said narrator (Elton) is releasing his actual autography later this year, so those wanting a factual biography will get that then. It would be pointless if Rocketman were a historical reinactment of his life. It shouldn't be any surprise Rocketman was going to be a loose biography. This project has been talked about for almost a decade and even back then Elton made it clear it was not going to be a conventional "just the facts,Maim'" look at his life. It was and always has been conceived as a musical fantasy based on his life. That's what it was sold as and that's what we're getting.
Well it’s about music. Sorry I don’t get when folks prejudge a film based on a vague description.. You might be surprised and entertained. To each his own
