Bohemian Rhapsody

Some of the reviews are less than good. Most of the negative ones say the movie is simply to tame compared to the over the top flamboyance that was actually going on at the time. Like the stories about Mercury having WILD parties... stuff like, whatever the most current politically correct version of the term for little people is, walking around in costumes, and with hats that had plates on the top that had coke on them. You'd just stop one when they walked by and take a sniff...
 
DreamTheaterRules said:
Some of the reviews are less than good. Most of the negative ones say the movie is simply to tame compared to the over the top flamboyance that was actually going on at the time. Like the stories about Mercury having WILD parties... stuff like, whatever the most current politically correct version of the term for little people is, walking around in costumes, and with hats that had plates on the top that had coke on them. You'd just stop one when they walked by and take a sniff...
Click to expand...

To me, that gets down to the critic's personal preference to what they wanted to see in the movie. They did show a fairly wild party - they didn't show the extreme excess, but it was a PG-13 movie. And I don't think some of these guys think about whether what they're suggesting would actually improve the movie. During the party scene, I'll admit I was looking to see how much they showed, but if they'd had a little person with a cocaine tray stroll through, it wouldn't have made the scene better. Same with his relationships - it wouldn't have done a better job making the point to show more explicit scenes with either the men or the women. For that matter, they didn't show any of Freddie's relationships with women other than Mary, but I haven't heard a critic mention that.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm firing back at you - not my intention.
 
alantig said:
To me, that gets down to the critic's personal preference to what they wanted to see in the movie. They did show a fairly wild party - they didn't show the extreme excess, but it was a PG-13 movie. And I don't think some of these guys think about whether what they're suggesting would actually improve the movie. During the party scene, I'll admit I was looking to see how much they showed, but if they'd had a little person with a cocaine tray stroll through, it wouldn't have made the scene better. Same with his relationships - it wouldn't have done a better job making the point to show more explicit scenes with either the men or the women. For that matter, they didn't show any of Freddie's relationships with women other than Mary, but I haven't heard a critic mention that.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm firing back at you - not my intention.
Click to expand...
No, didn’t take it that way at all. I haven’t seen it yet. I was just relaying what somereview said, and why overall they were not great. Most of the ones that were more negative, mentioned some aspect of what I said. That the movie depicted things that were actually tame compared to what actually happened. Since in the music forums, the viewers have been overwhelmingly positive, so I only mentioned it because it seemed like the negative reviewers were simply hoping for a “wilder” movie.

That said, Animal House, Caddyshack, Stripes, Groundhog Day, What About Bob and many other movies that are all time classics to me, all received lukewarm to negative reviews. That’s what turned me off to movie reviewer years ago. If it makes me laugh, over and over, it’s good! I don’t need some snooty “holier than thou” wannabe intellectual telling me it’s not good. Gunga la gunga. Gunga galunga.
 
DreamTheaterRules said:
No, didn’t take it that way at all. I haven’t seen it yet. I was just relaying what somereview said, and why overall they were not great. Most of the ones that were more negative, mentioned some aspect of what I said. That the movie depicted things that were actually tame compared to what actually happened. Since in the music forums, the viewers have been overwhelmingly positive, so I only mentioned it because it seemed like the negative reviewers were simply hoping for a “wilder” movie.

That said, Animal House, Caddyshack, Stripes, Groundhog Day, What About Bob and many other movies that are all time classics to me, all received lukewarm to negative reviews. That’s what turned me off to movie reviewer years ago. If it makes me laugh, over and over, it’s good! I don’t need some snooty “holier than thou” wannabe intellectual telling me it’s not good. Gunga la gunga. Gunga galunga.
Click to expand...

Yep - I gave up on critics' opinions on comedies a long time ago. Granted, my tastes are not exactly mainstream much of the time, but what they call funny strikes me as not funny most of the time, and what I've found hilarious almost never gets critical acclaim. I tend to rely much more on the opinions of people I respect on boards like this - we tend to have something in common to begin with, so there's usually some overlap in things like that. That said, you still get the occasion Shawn/Kiss or Sergio/Rush scenario*, so it's not always an accurate way to judge!





(* - I'm saying they're wrong!!!)
 
alantig said:
To me, that gets down to the critic's personal preference to what they wanted to see in the movie. They did show a fairly wild party - they didn't show the extreme excess, but it was a PG-13 movie. And I don't think some of these guys think about whether what they're suggesting would actually improve the movie. During the party scene, I'll admit I was looking to see how much they showed, but if they'd had a little person with a cocaine tray stroll through, it wouldn't have made the scene better. Same with his relationships - it wouldn't have done a better job making the point to show more explicit scenes with either the men or the women. For that matter, they didn't show any of Freddie's relationships with women other than Mary, but I haven't heard a critic mention that.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm firing back at you - not my intention.
Click to expand...

I think some people took offence with the "artistic license" taken, instead of making it more "documentary". For example:

- they didn't really sell their van for studio time. They got studio time for free.
- John Deacon wasn't really their first bass player. He was really their 4th, and joined in '71, not as shown in '70
- They didn't break up, and re-unite for Live-Aid
- They are shown playing Fat Bottomed Girls on their 1st American tour, but that song is off their 7th album
- he'd been into the band (Smile) for a long time, and pestered Taylor and May to let him join. Not just meeting at a bar after the bass player quit. Freddie was actually close friends with Tim (bass).

And, you know how things are these days, everyone's a critic, to my utter disgust!
 
bodia said:
I think some people took offence with the "artistic license" taken, instead of making it more "documentary". For example:

- they didn't really sell their van for studio time. They got studio time for free.
- John Deacon wasn't really their first bass player. He was really their 4th, and joined in '71, not as shown in '70
- They didn't break up, and re-unite for Live-Aid
- They are shown playing Fat Bottomed Girls on their 1st American tour, but that song is off their 7th album
- he'd been into the band (Smile) for a long time, and pestered Taylor and May to let him join. Not just meeting at a bar after the bass player quit. Freddie was actually close friends with Tim (bass).

And, you know how things are these days, everyone's a critic, to my utter disgust!
Click to expand...

I've seen some of those objections, and for some of them, there are varying degrees of how much they were altered. Most of those I'd consider minor changes, more for time compression than a major rewrite of their history. There was also the issue of Freddie's AIDS diagnosis being time-shifted to right before LiveAid, but that scene would have been flat and anticlimactic if they'd extended the movie past LiveAid. The 'Fat Bottomed Girls' thing jumped out at me, but I reminded myself it wasn't a documentary (and that's not always something I can do - my wife gets pretty tired of me pointing out some of those details).

What I have an issue with as far as the critics are concerned are the critics who gave the movie bad marks for what was essentially not adhering to their personal agenda of how a certain point should be presented. For example, a local critic pretty much ripped it for 'glossing over' Freddie's relationships with men and focusing on his relationship with Mary. She was a lifelong friend, and they didn't gloss over his interactions with men - he kissed more male partners in the movie than female. I didn't need to see Freddie in bed with a man to get the point. Another said they glossed over his ethnic background - I'm not sure what film that critic saw.

It's kind of funny that this discussion came up now. I subscribe to "The Magazine Of Fantasy And Science Fiction" - for far too long now. They used to have a film reviewer named Lucius Shepherd, who I just loved - he pretty much had no filters, no sacred cows, and no fear of calling things the way he saw them. I know - I just complained about personal agendas, but Shepherd always presented them as his views, not just that the film was bad just because he didn't like some aspect of it. What I didn't know (or remember) was that Harlan Ellison had been the reviewer before Shepherd, then was given the title Film Editor when he quit writing reviews in the hopes that he'd still write some now and again. He tried to give up the title after disagreeing with one of Shepherd's reviews.
 
I never even knew he was gay in their hay day.........but this was the 1980s remember and even elton john was married to a lady
 
bodia said:
I'd love a return to the pre-social media, and 24x7 coverage days.
Click to expand...
Brian is a social media junkie. He is constantly posting on Twitter and Instagram with stuff about the band, astrophysics, his guitars, stereo photography and wildlife preservation. He was posting throughout the filming of the movie, giving little tidbits of what was happening. It's all kind of interesting all the things he is involved with.
 
I just watched it and I enjoyed it! Child of the 70’s and remember playing my moms records as a kid. Always loved Queen and their music in Flash Gordon movie was awesome as a kid too. I don’t really care if it was exactly accurate, it is a good movie.
 
Just seeing this thread. Saw it twice. Not necessarily a huge Queen fan. But well aware of their hits, and liked what I knew. I also knew some of the personal history. Fwiw I was born in the early 80’s. So they’re a bit before my time to be fair. Anyway I think they did a great job of making a movie for the entire family. The didn’t ignore Freddie’s personal story, but as others have said, it wasn’t necessarily front and center. Could they have made a more accurate/ more “adult” version? Sure. But then many parents would have gone alone and wouldn’t have taken their kids to see this movie. Was that decision as much about money as anything? Quite possibly. But by making the movie the way they did, hopefully a younger generation will understand how good music once was. And there is still great music out there today. Just so much of mainstream music isn’t as good as it once was imo. Anyway here’s a quote that’s been attributed to Freddie. I can’t verify it’s authenticity, but do agree with the sentiment.

“We are in a golden age of music. There will be a time when technology becomes so advanced that we'll rely on it to make music rather than raw talent...and music will lose its soul.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

László
Sic Transit Gloria...
2
Replies
34
Views
748
László
László
Mark Ray
DGT SE Goodness
2
Replies
23
Views
486
LaxActium
L
Mark Ray
Yessir, Jerry Gigs His PRS Too!
Replies
18
Views
618
eddieknuckles
eddieknuckles
László
Heckuva Gig - Video Added
2
Replies
37
Views
867
László
László
davidtaus
Core Paul's Guitar Pickups: Upgrade from 408s? (and some custom wiring...)
Replies
8
Views
276
bodia
bodia
Back
Top