'Bohemian Rhapsody' movie reviews & impressions

[QUOTE] [b]MisterCosmicc wrote:[/b]

What's up with them having Freddie pinching everyone's ass in the film? Is that something Bryan Singer likes doing to other guys?[/QUOTE]

Haha maybe thats why he was fired

Simple flick. I quite enjoyed it. They took the history aspect *very* loosely, but since it's not a documentary but rather a fictional story based on vaguely true events, I don't mind. Live Aid climax was really well done. Made me appreciate Freddie's actual performance more than I already did. Granted, they made the context lots more dramatic than it was but it's Hollywood, they gotta sell. I don't know why would anyone hate the film, it can't undo Freddie's or band's legacy. It serves as entertainment and it did its job well nevermind the flaws it's bound to have. That being said, it's extremely easy to make a film suck far more than this one ever did.

Can anyone tell me if Freddie smoked regularly in the 1970's?

In the film, he's smoking all the time in the early days.

[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]

Can anyone tell me if Freddie smoked regularly in the 1970's?

In the film, he's smoking all the time in the early days.[/QUOTE]

Didn't everyone smoke in the 70s?

Considering things like Live Aid were facts, they shouldn't have fooled around to make other events not factual. That's just poor work. The film tells the story which isn't factual, well, Trump told his supporters things that weren't completely factual, either. It might be that people who see this film will be telling their children and grandchildren these things they learned from the movie later on, and then people will be telling things they think are factual but aren't.

[QUOTE] [b]MisterCosmicc wrote:[/b]

It might be that people who see this film will be telling their children and grandchildren these things they learned from the movie later on, and then people will be telling things they think are factual but aren't.[/QUOTE]
YOu nailed it! SOme say "People, might look up on wiki about how things REALLY were". But I doubt it! A LOT will take this film for a fact and that is obviously what Maylor want. Big themselves up at the expense of Freddie

I've never seen any hint of resentment from Roger, who was seemingly good friends with Freddie. Brian has definitely shown insecurity though. I can understand it, to be honest - throughout their history he was at least equally as prolific a songwriter as Freddie, contributing many of their iconic songs, yet the mainstream perception of the band still revolves squarely around Freddie, with few non-fans having any awareness of the other members. Still, writing a revisionist history is not the way to combat that... It's a shame

At least people who watch the movie won't think that BoRhap is about AIDS. I would count that as win.

[QUOTE] [b]oligneisti wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]

Can anyone tell me if Freddie smoked regularly in the 1970's?

In the film, he's smoking all the time in the early days.[/QUOTE]

Didn't everyone smoke in the 70s?[/QUOTE]

I think I never saw a picture of Brian smoking, but I might be wrong.

I haven't seen anyone complaining yet that it shows Freddie moving into Garden Lodge right after the "1980" title card. Freddie bought it in 1980 but didn't move into Garden Lodge until Fall 1985. So I'm going to complain about it.

It's tragic misrepresentation that Freddie's true entourage isn't represented in the film.

I liked that to solve the he-said-she-said of Mary and Jim butting heads, they just decided that they didn't meet before Live Aid and were basically oblivious to each other. Did Mary even attend Live Aid?

It's an interesting movie. If you're not a fan or know anything about the band other than Live Aid or the AIDS thing. I know they had to use the so called "poetic license" and it's not easy to condense a 40 year story (ok, 15 years...) in 2 hours, but the inconsistence of the whole thing is very annoying. I don't mean things like seeing John singing or something, but many other things like... Rio, in the 70's? Ok, they had to use LOML as a hook for the scene where Freddie tells Mary he's bisexual... WWRY in 1980? Come on... they knew the movie would be seen by the hardcore fans, so doing such things would make it laughable for that audience. People say that the characters are spot on... not really. John for example looks like he's 50 years old in the 70s scenes. The wigs are awful, look cheap. It seems they have used several different fake teeth during the movie. Oh well, at least it's not as bad as Flash Gordon.
I saw some people saying that they should have made it more condensed to a certain period to allow for a sequel... don't give QPL ideas.

Most reviews say the thing about it not easy to condense it into 2 hours.

It is though. It really is! Film making is the easiest form to show that time has past and how people change.

(and they failed on that massively)

Ok i watched it...
It looks gorgeous and the way they handled the costumes and the sheer detail and care they put into the production is a 10/10, especially the Live Aid sequence.
But overall Gwylim Lee steals the show. Rami really plays a sexless Freddie. The guy that plays Jim and the lady that plays Mary also are a high point.

Storywise, it's flawed af:
>The obvious timeline problems.
>Cringeworthy dialogue and delivery.
>Freddie meeting B and R after the Smile gig....so R and F never had the Kensington stall and Freddie didn't know Tim? This shit is well documented ffs!
>The first gig they had as Queen Freddie and John the played together for the first time with R and B? And Freddie discovers the micstand thing?
>Rogers hair never changes?
>Paul Prenter the villain, comes across as a jealous and sad guy with a huge crush on Freddie...
>Roger is a womanizing Neanderthal.
>Two-dimensional acting from Rami. He's clearly overshadowed by the actress that plays Mary. Must say i enjoyed their scenes as the hopeless Will & Grace-esque love-story. But you could make a whole movie out of their thing together.
>Freddie's parents are(or were) stereotypical Indian people? The dad-doesn't-approve-of-my-life-choice-cliché wasn't necessary.
>The begging (albeit not that extreme) to get back in the band and playing Live Aid was cringe af. They didn't play together for years? wtf?
>John Reid is there from the beginning till around 1982? And then gets in a huge fight with Freddie? Bullocks!
>They fight over Bites The Dust, while it should be around the Hot Space sessions.
>Record Exec(Mike Myers) never seems to leave his office? XD
>Freddie meets Jim at some party where he is a waiter?
>That Hot space press conference was a trainwreck?
>The Philadelphia-scene with the AIDS patient in the hall was really of bad taste.
>Rami almost never opened his mouth and became really annoying after a while. Freddie used to laugh out loud and show his pearly whites more often than portrayed here. Also plays a really wooden Freddie, his movements never really feel authentic.

I could go on and on and on...

Isn’t Rami now dating that actress who played Mary? I think I read that.