Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

Saw Bohemian Rhapsody at the Washighton DC Uptown theatre yesterday. It's one of the few remaining Cinerama theatres that still shows movies on a deeply curved screen. The presentation was not as good as what you would see at the LA Cinerama Dome. The image did not fill the screen, was off center, had side masking on the left but not on the right. and part of the image was cut off in the buttom right and left corners.

 

[Sam Posten]

Incredible to revisit this:

 

[Tino]

The more I think about it the more I like it. I liked it more than A Star Is Born.

 

[JQuintana]

Saw Bohemian Rhapsody at the Washighton DC Uptown theatre yesterday. It's one of the few remaining Cinerama theatres that still shows movies on a deeply curved screen. The presentation was not as good as what you would see at the LA Cinerama Dome. The image did not fill the screen, was off center, had side masking on the left but not on the right. and part of the image was cut off in the buttom right and left corners.

But did you like the movie?

 

[TravisR]

Incredible to revisit this:

Queen is somewhat before my time but that is an undeniably amazing performance. The first time that I heard it, I was bowled over.

 

[TJPC]

Saw Bohemian Rhapsody at the Washighton DC Uptown theatre yesterday. It's one of the few remaining Cinerama theatres that still shows movies on a deeply curved screen. The presentation was not as good as what you would see at the LA Cinerama Dome. The image did not fill the screen, was off center, had side masking on the left but not on the right. and part of the image was cut off in the buttom right and left corners.

My god! How did you stand it?

 

[questrider]

I'm a sucker for music biopics. I can empathize with some of the detractor's opinions concerning skewed timelines and perhaps Malek not being a dead ringer for Mercury. However, it is a film and not a documentary, so I can take it as a rags-to-riches story of climbing the ladder in the music business and making it big—tropes and all—put into the context of a three-act story. Basically I've been a Queen fan since 1976 or so (when I was an aspiring drummer at 8-to-9 years old between the time of A Night at the Opera and News of the World) and thus this hits my sweet spot. I think Malek is brilliant as Mercury with his speaking voice and mannerisms while the two actors playing May and Deacon are spot-on as well (however, I do feel the actor playing Taylor is bit off and perhaps a bit miscast though). I also find Lucy Boynton exceptional as Mary as I recently loved her in the Netflix series Gypsy with Naomi Watts. I've always found rock biopics a mixed bag since putting actors who are not musicians into the situation of a rock concert is difficult to pull-off realistically without it coming off as fake and this film achieves the realism of those scenes quite well (not unlike The Doors, Almost Famous, and Ray). I am also one of those (who have also admitted) that surprisingly by the end was experiencing some waterwork moments as my love of Queen and the film's dramatization of certain events played upon my sentimentality. It's not a perfect film, but overall it captures the essence of Queen and tells their story adequately with fervor and inspiration. I mean, really, how much can you compress nearly 20 years into 2¼ hours? I saw it in IMAX last week and tomorrow am going to catch it a second time at a Dolby Cinema because the sound mix is spectacular.

If you love rock and roll and are a Queen fan, I don't understand how you couldn't let go and simply enjoy this film. It isn't a documentary, it's a rock and roll biopic about overcoming adversity from obscurity and becoming one of the most revered bands in rock history. Tropes and all, what's not to like? If you're hung up on the particulars and not the overall arc of the film then that's too bad because you're missing out on a celebration of music and Queen as one of the greatest rock bands of all time.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The more I think about it the more I like it. I liked it more than A Star Is Born.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but this opinion is wrong.

However, it is a film and not a biopic, so I can take it as a rags-to-riches story of climbing the ladder in the music business and making it big—tropes and all—put into the context of a three-act story.

It isn't a documentary, it's a rock and roll biopic about overcoming adversity from obscurity and becoming one of the most revered bands in rock history.

So, are you saying it is a biopic, or it isn't?

Tropes and all, what's not to like?

To me, if you're setting out to tell the true story of Queen, you should make some effort to get the story right. I did like the musical sequences, artful as they were at blending between actual recordings of the real band and what was recorded on set.

There are two approaches you can take and be successful: You can tell a fictional folk story with real famous people as your protagonists, like The Greatest Showman, or you can tell a fact-based retelling of the real famous people's real lives. This tried to split the difference between the two approaches, and it just didn't work for me.

 

[questrider]

However, it is a film and not a biopic, so I can take it as a rags-to-riches story of climbing the ladder in the music business and making it big—tropes and all—put into the context of a three-act story.

It isn't a documentary, it's a rock and roll biopic about overcoming adversity from obscurity and becoming one of the most revered bands in rock history.

So, are you saying it is a biopic, or it isn't?

You caught me as I mis-spoke/typed. I did indeed mean "it is a film and not a documentary" and have corrected my post as such.

 

[Clinton McClure]

Saw it last night. The concert performance recreations (especially the Live Aid performance) were good and the sound mixing was awesome but the story was just way too factually incorrect to make it enjoyable. 2 out of 5 stars.

 

[TJPC]

We loved it, especially my wife who is a huge queen fan. How many of us know the facts about Queen to be disturbed by the errors? We certainly don’t. We didn’t even know Freddie Mercury’s ethnic background before this.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

We loved it, especially my wife who is a huge queen fan. How many of us know the facts about Queen to be disturbed by the errors? We certainly don’t. We didn’t even know Freddie Mercury’s ethnic background before this.

So your wife is a huge Queen fan and she didn't know they didn't break up and then reunite for Live Aid?

 

[TJPC]

No, her fandom only extends to their music. We tend to avoid following anything about the personal lives of the entertainment people we like. We especially avoid talk show appearances.

How many stars are on these shows and demonstrate what “flakes” they are by the way they act? I remember my wife, who was a big Burton Cummings fan donating her records when he had a particularly misogynistic TV interview.

I also remember a very early Barbra Streisand appearance on a talk show where the delightful person I only knew from records and TV specials also turned out to be a twit.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I can empathize with some of the detractor's opinions concerning skewed timelines and perhaps Malek not being a dead ringer for Mercury.

The skewed timelines are minor compared to presenting a story that is largely false.

However, it is a film and not a documentary,

Yes, and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate, but it still should have some truth to it.

so I can take it as a rags-to-riches story of climbing the ladder in the music business and making it big—tropes and all—put into the context of a three-act story.

It's a three-act story, but not the Queen story.

It's not a perfect film, but overall it captures the essence of Queen and tells their story adequately with fervor and inspiration.

I don't think it tells their story at all. Nearly everything in the film is fiction.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Incredible to revisit this:

Talk about "owning the room"!

Saw the movie last week and enjoyed it very much. Know almost nothing about the band's history and am only familiar with their hits, which probably helped. Lead performance is striking.

That said, I can certainly understand people being upset at the inaccuracies in the true story.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No, her fandom only extends to their music. We tend to avoid following anything about the personal lives of the entertainment people we like. We especially avoid talk show appearances.

How many stars are on these shows and demonstrate what “flakes” they are by the way they act? I remember my wife, who was a big Burton Cummings fan donating her records when he had a particularly misogynistic TV interview.

I also remember a very early Barbra Streisand appearance on a talk show where the delightful person I only knew from records and TV specials also turned out to be a twit.

I don't think knowing a band never broke up is the same as digging into their personal lives.

Knowing Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs doesn't mean you have to be aware of his personal life.

I really find it shocking that a "huge fan" would have no idea that the band never split up!

 

[TonyD]

Are you saying that the movie informs us that the band broke up then reformed for Live Aide?

 

[JQuintana]

From what's I've read, that is correct.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Are you saying that the movie informs us that the band broke up then reformed for Live Aide?

That is what the film suggests, yes.

The film suggests that Freddie Mercury left Queen and broke up the band to pursue a solo career, and that while making his solo album, that Mercury got AIDS. In the film, it's Mercury's realization that his life will soon be coming to an end that is the motivation for him reuniting with Queen and accepting the offer to play at Live Aid.

In real life, the band did not break up before Live Aid, and Mercury did not have AIDS when he performed at Live Aid. He wasn't diagnosed with AIDS until years after Live Aid.

The entire film is structured around the Live Aid performance, with everything in the story leading up to that one moment - and that just wasn't anywhere close to the reality of the situation.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That is what the film suggests, yes.

The film suggests that Freddie Mercury left Queen and broke up the band to pursue a solo career, and that while making his solo album, that Mercury got AIDS. In the film, it's Mercury's realization that his life will soon be coming to an end that is the motivation for him reuniting with Queen and accepting the offer to play at Live Aid.

In real life, the band did not break up before Live Aid, and Mercury did not have AIDS when he performed at Live Aid. He wasn't diagnosed with AIDS until years after Live Aid.

The entire film is structured around the Live Aid performance, with everything in the story leading up to that one moment - and that just wasn't anywhere close to the reality of the situation.

I still loved the film!