As a straight male, my opinion about male attractiveness is suspect, but from the right angle, anyone can be made to look decent by a talented photographer - Lynn Goldsmith had some shots were Keith Richards looked good! I'd say Freddie was attractive for a rock star, but he never would have made it as a model or actor. Mayby as a character actor, but not a leading man.
I think he could've been an actor if he'd wanted. He's certainly acting it up here. He loved his theatrics...
As callous and shallow as this sounds, Freddie could have never been anything more than a character actor. His teeth were a fright and he just did not have the great looks that translated to the screen. He was charismatic and interesting, but he wasn’t good looking; not by Hollywood’s definition anyway.
The thing is I don't see it 'glossing over' that if it doesn't focus on that very much. Why we remember people like Freddie is for their incredible talent and what they produced, for me who they may have been sleeping with is kind of irrelevant (unless of course that is the story, like in a film like Carol). From the reviews I have seen it's not a warts and all exploration of his sexual activities, which I am glad of. Why bog down a film about an amazing story of triumph with needless details like that. It's obvious now of course ('queen') but at the time no-one really knew or cared who rock stars were sleeping with and he never made his sexuality an issue. To me Freddie was a great rock star who just happened to be bisexual. He was not a campaigning bisexual man who happened to be a rock star.
I would tend to agree with that but it is far too simple an analogy. No one saw the Hendrix film as it wasn't very good and got hardly any buzz or advertising. Many people don't know it exists. It's how you make a film. Backbeat didn't contain any Beatles music (as it focussed on the early years) but it was a good film that many people saw. Not a great example perhaps but it can be done, although it is difficult. The Hendrix film used other music of the time and cover versions Hendrix would have played at the time so if they were clever that could have worked.
I have no idea if it was a good film or not, as I haven't seen it. I do know it only played and a couple of theaters in Chicago for one week, so I never had a chance. If they'd had Hendrix's music, they could have launched an effective advertisement campaign. Chicken and the egg. Robert Zemeckis's first film was called I Wanna Hold Your Hand, it was filled with Beatles music, it was hilarious, and it bombed. They didn't have that option with a film about Queen, because as far as I know they didn't have any period where they were playing covers.
Well, only a handful of Rock'n'Roll classics like 'Jailhouse Rock' (throughout the 1970s and early 80s) and 'Tutti Frutti' (as on Wembley '86).
That would be even harder sell then one of Jimi Hendrix only playing old blues songs. By the way I just read the Rotten Tomatoes listing for Jimi: All Is By My Side. It's 66% and half of the negative reviews are complaining that they didn't have Hendrix's music, which wasn't the fault of the filmmakers. The guy who directed 12 Years a Slave was just not willing to make the film that Hendrix's sister wanted him to make.
They could have recreated Monterey by having the actor play Like A Rolling Stone and Wild Thing, no-one would realise the difference, and have a later scene where he plays All Along The Watchtower.
But this film concentrated on the period where he went to England as Jimmy James and came back as Jimi Hendrix. And apparently, unless he wanted to make a film where Jimi owed everything he accomplished to his sister...
I only want to see my rock stars in documentaries. After Crossfire Hurricane I felt I had really been treated to an inside look. These biopics are always terrible. Even the ones I thought were good as a kid, I went back and revisited and they're really not so good. I'd rather watch Elvis in a bad b-movies, than a bad b-movie about him.
I agree with what you say here, but his sexuality very much informed his art. No straight male could have come up with something as outre and as wonderfully giddy as "Bohemian Rhapsody". That drive, that will to show 'em all how big he could be, certainly some of that had roots in his being gay. I don't expect the film to show his every trip to a gay club or bar, but I do hope it's not completely fluffed over, as that would harm a part of the legacy he left behind to all his fans, but especially the gay ones.
There are definitely a few bio-pics I've enjoyed but generally I agree with you. A bio-pic is too often more about the spectacle of the real-life actor imitating a musician through a series of somewhat fictionalized events, than it is about the real musician itself. That being said, I'm a big fan of Rami Malek from Mr. Robot so I hope this helps his career.
I’m not gay, but I do agree. To understand Freddie we need more than just a glimpse into his lifestyle. His lifestyle helped create his art. It’s far too important for it to be put into the background. That’s essentially what I was saying above. If you’re going to give us the Freddie Mercury story, let’s see it: warts and all.
I've read 3 reviews of this movie so far and each one brings up Walk Hard (the fictional Dewey Cox movie). haha. I love biopics and I will see this for sure. But it would be kind of a bummer if they present his gay life as a villain. I hope they show some Roy Thomas Baker and David Bowie too.
From what I have read Freddie's sexuality is not ignored.... the personal side of the movie mainly focuses on his relationship with Mary Austin, but of course his sexuality affected that relationship significantly. So it's in there... however, in a movie for a general audience there's only so far they're going to go depicting his sex life with other men.
Just got in from seeing the film. I got frustrated by the rearranged timeline and horrendous inaccuracies which detracted from my enjoyment. but if you don’t care about that, it’s watchable. My non-Queen loving partner loved it.
Yeah but they could get into what it was like for him to be a world famous rock star and yet he seemed to want to keep that part of his life hidden.
I don’t want to spoil this for you too much, but they do convey this aspect reasonably well (particularly the negative press interest and speculation around his sexuality and lifestyle).
