1,849 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 18, 2018 14:56:36 GMT
Still in two minds about seeing this, have always loved Queen, one of my earliest musical memoriies is Bohemian Rhapsody on Top of the Pops and the subsequent borrowing of A Night at The Opera album from my brother, which I have still to return after 40 years.
Freddie was such a complex individual, cannot see how a film can do him justice.
Fortunate to have seen Queen on the Kind Of Magic Tour at Maine Road in 1986 and still have the T-Shirt,
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 14:59:39 GMT
Still in two minds about seeing this, have always loved Queen, one of my earliest musical memoriies is Bohemian Rhapsody on Top of the Pops and the subsequent borrowing of A Night at The Opera album from my brother, which I have still to return after 40 years. Freddie was such a complex individual, cannot see how a film can do him justice. Fortunate to have seen Queen on the Kind Of Magic Tour at Maine Road in 1986 and still have the T-Shirt, I think it does a great job of Freddie's life, but you don't see past the Live Aid concert, so you don't see the true dramatic effects of AID's and his decline of his health, which I'm kinda relieved about, as I didn't want to see that following the performance of We Are the Champions. That felt like the right time to end, for me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 22:13:42 GMT
Well, this is the best movie I've seen this year. Hands down. That final sequence, MY GOD.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 22:16:23 GMT
This and A Star Is Born are films that I need to see, but am willing to wait for the DVD due to how plastic and naff all my local cinemas are.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 22:25:15 GMT
I think it needs to be seen at least once on the big screen. Worth every penny. I'm still shaking. Brilliant brilliant brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 12:13:12 GMT
So it won't both of it's Golden Globes, and whilst it has no shot of winning Best Picture at the Oscars, it does put both Rami and Christian Bale at the forefront of the Oscars mind. I'd love to see Rami win, it would be thoroughly deserved, so I hope we see him only get stronger from here in the awards talk.
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Jan 7, 2019 12:46:34 GMT
I was surprised but pleased about this winning, very well deserved. It would be great for Rami to win the Oscar, that would be unexpected!
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 7, 2019 12:52:51 GMT
I have been on a total Queen kick since seeing this film and have become obsessed with just how wrong it got Freddie Mercury - the more I find out, the odder the whole thing seems. Even the band dynamic is wrong. I wonder how much say Brian May and Roger Taylor actually had over the project in the end, despite their enthusiasm in promoting it and producer credits. Though of course it has sold a whole lot of albums and no doubt they'll sell a load of concert tickets for the new Queen + Adam Lambert tour.
But I have come to the conclusion that the problem is it sold itself as a biopic, and used the typical rock biopic template, when it's not, really. It's a jukebox musical at heart. The Live Aid sequence is the film equivalent of a curtain-call megamix.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 7, 2019 20:33:15 GMT
I liked it but wouldn't have given it best film. I'd have liked Black Panther, it;s about time they gave the award to a film that was both well made and (shock horror!) and popular superhero film!
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 7, 2019 20:54:23 GMT
I'd favour Black Panther too, but a part of me thinks it's hilarious this film won after the initial reviews were so awful. I saw a list earlier of 'Metacritic scores' (or something) for each of the winning films of recent years, and the others were almost all high 80s into 90s with one having 100! Bohemian Rhapsody had a lowly 48, which isn't great, and less than your typical dreary blockbuster would get. Yet cinema goers loved it, and kept on going, turning it into one of the biggest hits of the year.
I'd agree with the above, and it's all a bit populist, juke-box, so maybe not worthy of best film type praise, but I think there was a lot of snobbery in those initial reviews. There's been a lot of talk of increasing diversity and representation in what we see on the screen, and that's beginning to bear fruit, but we're still stuck with a lot of film reviewers who are firmly in the middle-class, white, straight-male category. I read an article on this subject from TIFF (Canadian film festival) this year, and the theory was that films whose primary audience might be "women and gays" were being reviewed much more harshly than anything more tailored to the manly-man demographic.
A lot of the rest of the criticism appeared to be people who were upset that they weren't telling the story of the Freddie they most identified with, or that they wanted to see. Some of that seemed fair, but arguably unrealistic. Yes, there probably was one eye very firmly on the commercial consequences of being overly honest, not just for the film, but for Queen's back catalogue, but that's inevitable.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2019 10:20:02 GMT
Yes, there probably was one eye very firmly on the commercial consequences of being overly honest, not just for the film, but for Queen's back catalogue, but that's inevitable. Oh, completely! The film was designed to do well in very conservative global markets and not to scare off homophobic audience members - and it has achieved that. I mean, there's even been multiple reports of audience members making audible sounds of disgust during the gay kissing scenes. (I experienced that myself - literally a woman sat behind me in the cinema said 'oh no' out loud! Half a row turn around to look at her in surprise, because really, what was she expecting?!) There's no way those people would have gone to see a film that focused any more on Freddie's gay relationships than it did (and he really did have gay *relationships* in that time period, not just one-night stands. At least one boyfriend became a long-term friend after they broke up.). It's actually a fascinating piece of film-making, and a really good example of how meaning is created by the audience and the same text can be read in different ways by different people. Because it undoubtedly *is* sending a moralistic message about 'the gay lifestyle' being damaging to those who are primed to read it that way. I don't think it's an accident. But if you're not homophobic - or not used to reading moralistic messages about gay people in your cinema - you won't read it that way at all. You'll focus on Rami Malek's performance and on the huge affection for Freddie the film expresses, and how brilliant he was as an individual, and that nasty moralistic undertone - and even the mustache-twirling gay villain - will pass you by. Particularly if you don't know just how badly the film is twisting the truth. You'll have a fabulous time remembering how much you love Queen's music - *I* had a fabulous time remembering how much I love Queen's music - and that will be it. But setting that aside, it's still not a good film - the script is as clunky as hell, it can never quite decide whether it's about Freddie or about the band as a whole, as a Queen biopic it utterly fails to capture the band dynamic - all four of them had massive rock-star egos and all four of them argued with each other - it makes being a rockstar look positively dull, and half the jokes fall flat. . It's definitely not the best drama of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 10:29:39 GMT
It's one of the best films I saw last year, I absolutely loved it and the Live Aid sequence is nothing short of stunning. But that said, I can see why some don't like it. But it was always going to be an audience hit I think. The strength of the film lived or died on Rami's performance and what he achieved was pretty extraordinary and I think he is heading straight toward an Oscar win.
Did anyone watch the interview with Entertainment Tonight with Rami? He said after winning he had the fake teeth coated in gold and actually had it in his pocket on the night! 😂
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 10:52:31 GMT
It's like the movie version of 'Tina: The Turner Musical'. A pretty rotten film/show that's saved by a genuinely fabulous, show stopping performance (Rami Malek/Adrienne Warren) that makes one think it's better than it actually is.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 12:25:24 GMT
the script is as clunky as hell I'm always wary of bios about real bands. I worry that there'll be lines like "I know... I'll call it Bohemian Rhapsody!" Sorry jojo I know you didn't make that script remark but I can't see how to delete time and ID stamps on quotes within quotes.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 8, 2019 12:47:39 GMT
I'm always wary of bios about real bands. I worry that there'll be lines like "I know... I'll call it Bohemian Rhapsody!" Sorry jojo I know you didn't make that script remark but I can't see how to delete time and ID stamps on quotes within quotes. You have to use the BB code tab to sort the nesting quotes out - it's the "quote" and "/quote" tags in square brackets in the wrong places that messes them up. It's the "We're four misfits who don't belong together... We're playing for other misfits" line that made me roll my eyes. Bet your life no member of the band ever said that, but it was said in every pitch meeting they had with film execs to try and explain the band's appeal and why they should invest in the film, and thus became a core idea of the film. Queen were actually a mainstream pop-rock band, their audience was never just misfits - which is why Freddie kept one foot in the closet. (I ran across a post-Live Aid interview on Youtube with Roger Taylor the other day, where he was asked if Freddie is 'acting' on stage. Roger said no, and looked kinda surprised at the silliness of the question, but it's a good example of the mainstream media at the time rationalising away his very camp stage persona as 'just a performance'.) It's only in the USA that they stopped being a hugely popular mainstream band in the 1980s.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 14:55:19 GMT
I'm always wary of bios about real bands. I worry that there'll be lines like "I know... I'll call it Bohemian Rhapsody!" Sorry jojo I know you didn't make that script remark but I can't see how to delete time and ID stamps on quotes within quotes. You have to use the BB code tab to sort the nesting quotes out - it's the "quote" and "/quote" tags in square brackets in the wrong places that messes them up. It's the "We're four misfits who don't belong together... We're playing for other misfits" line that made me roll my eyes. Bet your life no member of the band ever said that, but it was said in every pitch meeting they had with film execs to try and explain the band's appeal and why they should invest in the film, and thus became a core idea of the film. Queen were actually a mainstream pop-rock band, their audience was never just misfits - which is why Freddie kept one foot in the closet. (I ran across a post-Live Aid interview on Youtube with Roger Taylor the other day, where he was asked if Freddie is 'acting' on stage. Roger said no, and looked kinda surprised at the silliness of the question, but it's a good example of the mainstream media at the time rationalising away his very camp stage persona as 'just a performance'.) It's only in the USA that they stopped being a hugely popular mainstream band in the 1980s. Thanks for the BB code explanation. I never mind dialogue being invented for fact-based films and plays but it's a question of how groan-inducing it is. The one you quoted does come across as almost a tagline. Queen were an odd one for me. I really liked them from the age of about 8 or 9, at the time of Seven Seas/Queen II and loved Sheer Heart Attack - I still think Now I'm Here is a great piece of pop-rock. At around News of the World, I drifted away from them and never returned. They were very much a pre-pubescent band for me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2019 11:54:53 GMT
Well the film just nabbed a whole bunch of nominations at the BAFTA's:
Best British Film Best Actor in a Leading Role Best Cinematography Best Sound Design Best Costume Design Best Hair and Makeup Best Editing
|
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 9, 2019 16:50:29 GMT
Everyman Cinemas are offering singalong performances now...
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on Jan 10, 2019 9:45:35 GMT
No, no, no, no. Mamma mia
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 11, 2019 17:49:32 GMT
You have to use the BB code tab to sort the nesting quotes out - it's the "quote" and "/quote" tags in square brackets in the wrong places that messes them up. It's the "We're four misfits who don't belong together... We're playing for other misfits" line that made me roll my eyes. Bet your life no member of the band ever said that, but it was said in every pitch meeting they had with film execs to try and explain the band's appeal and why they should invest in the film, and thus became a core idea of the film. Queen were actually a mainstream pop-rock band, their audience was never just misfits - which is why Freddie kept one foot in the closet. (I ran across a post-Live Aid interview on Youtube with Roger Taylor the other day, where he was asked if Freddie is 'acting' on stage. Roger said no, and looked kinda surprised at the silliness of the question, but it's a good example of the mainstream media at the time rationalising away his very camp stage persona as 'just a performance'.) It's only in the USA that they stopped being a hugely popular mainstream band in the 1980s. Thanks for the BB code explanation. I never mind dialogue being invented for fact-based films and plays but it's a question of how groan-inducing it is. The one you quoted does come across as almost a tagline. Queen were an odd one for me. I really liked them from the age of about 8 or 9, at the time of Seven Seas/Queen II and loved Sheer Heart Attack - I still think Now I'm Here is a great piece of pop-rock. At around News of the World, I drifted away from them and never returned. They were very much a pre-pubescent band for me.Wow. You got that far?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 18:00:02 GMT
So glad this film has found the success it has, now verging on a worldwide gross of $800 million, the seventh highest grossing film of 2018. Considering the reviews it got, I didn't expect it to do this well at all!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 13:08:46 GMT
It's astonishing but the reviews were fair though, it's a pretty rotten film (Rami and little Peter Beale aside). But then again, bad reviews didn't do 'Les Mis' any harm.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 13:16:35 GMT
It's astonishing but the reviews were fair though, it's a pretty rotten film (Rami and little Peter Beale aside). But then again, bad reviews didn't do 'Les Mis' any harm. $800 million and two Golden Globes says different. And who is Peter Beale ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 13:29:14 GMT
$800 million and two Golden Globes says different. Being successful doesn't mean that the film isn't great though. And winning a Golden Globe isn't necessarily a quality barometer either. I mean, Madonna has got one for 'Evita' and seriously. The only time she was anywhere near convincing was when she was in the coffin. She's a movie killer.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 21, 2019 14:25:28 GMT
$800 million and two Golden Globes says different. And winning a Golden Globe isn't necessarily a quality barometer either. Anyone remember that film The Tourist? Set in Venice - starred Angelia Jolie and Johnny Depp. It got 3 Golden Globe nods. It was nominated for Best movie - Comedy or Musical (it was meant to be a romantic thriller), and both Jolie and Depp were nominated for their lead acting performances. No? Didn't see it? Lucky you - that's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back! Being popular is not the same as being good, and the Globes are absolutely notorious for making bizarre choices. The charitable interpretation is that they get all excited at the prospect of certain celebs turning up to their dinner. The uncharitable interpretation - since it's actually a very small group of voters - is that the promotional jollies that producers put on sway their decisions. In the case of The Tourist, they were flown out to Venice for a screening of the film. They made a nice weekend of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 15:33:02 GMT
Anyone remember that film The Tourist? Set in Venice - starred Angelia Jolie and Johnny Depp. It got 3 Golden Globe nods. It was nominated for Best movie - Comedy or Musical (it was meant to be a romantic thriller), and both Jolie and Depp were nominated for their lead acting performances. No? Didn't see it? Lucky you - that's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back! Being popular is not the same as being good, and the Globes are absolutely notorious for making bizarre choices. The charitable interpretation is that they get all excited at the prospect of certain celebs turning up to their dinner. The uncharitable interpretation - since it's actually a very small group of voters - is that the promotional jollies that producers put on sway their decisions. In the case of The Tourist, they were flown out to Venice for a screening of the film. They made a nice weekend of it. The Tourist did not win any Golden Globes or anything else. Make your minds up. What do you discredit, the paying audience or the critics ? Or are they both wrong ? And what has Madonna got to do with anything ?
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 21, 2019 16:00:17 GMT
We're just explaining why Golden Globes nominations/wins are not generally considered an indication of quality by some film enthusiasts.
Box Office not being an indication of quality is well-known. There are any number of badly-reviewed films that made oodles of money - some films are critic-proof. I fully expected this film to make all the money - the same way We Will Rock You did. The music is just that good and Queen have never stopped being popular and Freddie being beloved - at least outside America.
I'm actually really pleased that the film has led to a Queen renaissance, and that America has belatedly caught on. But it's still not a good piece of film-making.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 16:02:45 GMT
What do you discredit, the paying audience or the critics ? Or are they both wrong ? Oh yes, I discredit them both really. The only opinion that matters quite frankly is mine.
|
|
6,383 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jan 21, 2019 19:46:04 GMT
We're just explaining why Golden Globes nominations/wins are not generally considered an indication of quality by some film enthusiasts. Box Office not being an indication of quality is well-known. There are any number of badly-reviewed films that made oodles of money - some films are critic-proof. I fully expected this film to make all the money - the same way We Will Rock You did. The music is just that good and Queen have never stopped being popular and Freddie being beloved - at least outside America. I'm actually really pleased that the film has led to a Queen renaissance, and that America has belatedly caught on. But it's still not a good piece of film-making. I like the film but I agree, box office does not indicate quality, Venom did $800m WW and had even worse reviews than BR,
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 16:37:32 GMT
It's now about to become the 6th highest grossing film of 2018 by the looks of things. Venom grossed $855,013,954 and Bohemian is now at $854,299,090 and still showing in some cinemas.
|
|