Urd's Return Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 15 hours ago, rocknroll41 said: I used to want a GN'R biopic but now Id think it would just be a disaster. I agree. A biopic would require many efforts that, in my opinion, Guns N' Roses original members wouldn't be slightly interested to make. Even if somehow they did, their story is too hardcore for these politically correct times we are living in, and a watered-down version of their story would be an utter disappointment. So better to leave things the way they are. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Well I did go see it Inaccurate, but a really fun watch. You could tell Brian and Roger had a lot of input lol. For a PG13 novie covering their whole career (sort of) it was about as good as it could have been I enjoyed It for what it was. The dude that played Freddie was amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axeli Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 It was good. Queen have always been in top 10 for me. Perhaps it could have been a bit longer and "deeper". But then again, there is so much to tell in one movie. Great movie and good reminder how important band that was. Axl's story would be great too. For book maybe.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll41 Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 53 minutes ago, Axeli said: It was good. Queen have always been in top 10 for me. Perhaps it could have been a bit longer and "deeper". But then again, there is so much to tell in one movie. Great movie and good reminder how important band that was. Axl's story would be great too. For book maybe.. There already are non-fiction books about axl and gnr. Are you saying that someone should write a fictionalized version of Axl's story? Like written as a prose narrative and stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 It could have been a lot more raw or artsy like The Doors or Control, but it's an enjoyable movie. Hearing Queen's music and Freddie's voice so loud in a cinema was epic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 I've seen it twice now - saw it a few weeks ago down in Australia with my girlfriend, and saw it again with family last night. I have to say, I enjoyed it a lot more the second time after I already knew what I found frustrating - I could focus more on what I liked. - Lots of the timeline inaccuracies got to me; the biggest being that in the film Rock In Rio happens in about 1976. Not to mentions songs being written out of order, etc. - The whole Paul Prenter breaking up the band thing was a bit excessive. I suppose they feel like they needed to add some drama to the film, but that was a bit much. I honestly didn't know anything about Paul going into this film, and researching him now I'm seeing a lot of conflicting info on him. Was he as influential over Freddie as the film suggests? Regardless, Queen never really broke up even if there was tension at times in the early 80's. - It was funny at times but the "John Deacon is nobody" jokes got old as the film went on. Can't imagine he was too happy with his portrayal in the film. - I didn't catch it the first time but I liked Mike Myers' reference to kids not being able to headbang to Bohemian Rhapsody in their cars. Nice little subtle connection to Wayne's World - All of the concert sequences were exceptional. Some of the best I've seen in a music biopic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, Powerage5 said: I've seen it twice now - saw it a few weeks ago down in Australia with my girlfriend, and saw it again with family last night. I have to say, I enjoyed it a lot more the second time after I already knew what I found frustrating - I could focus more on what I liked. Hide contents - Lots of the timeline inaccuracies got to me; the biggest being that in the film Rock In Rio happens in about 1976. Not to mentions songs being written out of order, etc. - The whole Paul Prenter breaking up the band thing was a bit excessive. I suppose they feel like they needed to add some drama to the film, but that was a bit much. I honestly didn't know anything about Paul going into this film, and researching him now I'm seeing a lot of conflicting info on him. Was he as influential over Freddie as the film suggests? Regardless, Queen never really broke up even if there was tension at times in the early 80's. - It was funny at times but the "John Deacon is nobody" jokes got old as the film went on. Can't imagine he was too happy with his portrayal in the film. - I didn't catch it the first time but I liked Mike Myers' reference to kids not being able to headbang to Bohemian Rhapsody in their cars. Nice little subtle connection to Wayne's World - All of the concert sequences were exceptional. Some of the best I've seen in a music biopic. I agree with everything you said. As an entertainment piece, its a solid movie. The music scenes and sound design with the instruments are the best in Hollywood imo, and the actor's portrayals were great. As an actual "film" or as a serious look into the history of Freddie and the band, it falls flat. If I were to go into it wanting a real character piece of art, I would have walked out very disappointed. I tempered my expectations after the reviews came out, and I went in expecting a PG13 assembly line "checklist" of Queen and that is what I got. It was very assembly line, like the Han Solo movie, where they lay out the important milestones one after another and they sort of play out a little unnaturally and easy. But, they wanted to hit all of those points instead of focusing on a smaller period of time or a more serious look into Freddie and the band. It was still very entertaining (like the Han Solo movie), so I am glad the movie exists. It has become a worldwide phenomenon which is great for the band. I was hoping it'd bring Deacon out of hiding, but it appears he is still a hermit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31illusions Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Watched this today. It was very dry and unsensational. Nothing shocking or provocative about it. Seen it once, no need to see it again. I would give it a "C-". The only thing cool about it was how close the actors resemble the original musicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 I watched this just now. It is basically what I expected: a fun enough film, weak on chronological/historical exactitude but capturing something of the spirit of Mercury. 3/5. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) I have been thinking about the chronology, - Freddie found out he had HIV in 1987, or possibly 1986 if we believe some of the press mutterings. Here he finds out well in advance of Live Aid, so before July 1985. - Live Aid (July 1985) is put across as this big comeback concert, after the band had been on hiatus for years (Roger says that they haven't played in ages). In realty the band had just completely the highly successful 48-date Works tour in May 1985! - And related to the above, the whole band splitting up thing. They seem to have amalgamated the whole Hot Space era when the band were quarreling, with the 1983 hiatus and Freddie's solo career (he put out his solo album in 1985, and Roger Taylor had been putting solo stuff out for years whilst May was farting around with Van Halen in 1983) and created this neat narrative of the band being in disarray, Fred wanting to go solo against the band's wishes, band effectively disbanding, Fred comes to his senses and use Live Aid to reform and get their mojo back. - Roger Taylor has his long ''1970s'' hair throughout Queen's history in the film whereas in reality he had long since adopted various mullety/shorter hair cuts. Spoiler It is strange as they go to such great extents to keep Deacon updated and exact. This discusses some of what I mentioned (and more), Still like the film mind but naturally nerds will discuss this. Brian May looks more like Brian May than Brian May. Mary Austin was real stunning - more attractive than the actress who plays her. How the fuck did Fred grow so fond of men? Oh well! Jim Hutton's casting was very good, although Hutton was in reality a hairdresser and they met in a gay club. Edited March 13, 2019 by DieselDaisy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I bought the DVD and watched it in all quitness at home. It was more my wife who insisted on buying the movie, I wasn't all that interested in the movie. I expected modern cliché hollywood nonsense but I have to say, the movie pleasantly surprised me, in tone. especially the beginning, was really quality like. it then evolved in the typical "rocky trains for his biggest fight, then beats the big bad russian fighter" kind of formula. Even for all it's accuracies leading up to the moment, the live aid segment was a lot of thrills. the movie does a lot of things right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natelivliv Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) Ideally, a film like this would attempt to add to, or to contextualize, a legacy. Instead, "Bohemian Rhapsody" tries to sanctify it, pack it in bubble wrap to protect it from causing, or being caught in, any friction. Tutuapp 9Apps Showbox Edited April 10, 2019 by natelivliv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 On 4/7/2019 at 7:32 AM, natelivliv said: Ideally, a film like this would attempt to add to, or to contextualize, a legacy. Instead, "Bohemian Rhapsody" tries to sanctify it, pack it in bubble wrap to protect it from causing, or being caught in, any friction. That happens when you let the subject have approval over content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 I enjoyed it. It was cliche and got a lot of facts wrong, but the cast was great. Rami Malek deserved the Oscar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 5 pages in and not one mention of Peter Beale being in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.