To me, it comes down to this: if you are going to tweak the actual story the point where it is only a shell of the actual events, then what is the point of making a movie about the event in the first place? All of this resulted in me feeling as though this movie was never actually made for people who even remotely know anything about Queen, and didn't have any artistic aspirations at all, other than to make money off of Queen's name. I could go on and on about the petty stuff that they missed, but you get the idea.Ĭonsidering that all of these plot points are vital and essential to the film, to me, i t makes it feel like a generic rise-and-fall band story that had already been written, but at the last second, they decided to plug Queen into it. Roy Featherstone (Mike Meyers' character) wasn't a real person, and only exists for the Wayne's World reference, and another shot that they can cut back to during the Live Aid scene. ![]() Mary and Freddy's relationship being so fractured, when in real life they were life-long friends after they met.Freddy finding out he had was HIV positive before the Live Aid performance, when in reality he found out years after, simply so that the movie could end with the Live Aid scene.Freddy's incredibly complex and secretive sexuality being reduced to him playing the "big gay queen" stereotype.The band never broke up, and they had actually just completed a tour one month before their Live Aid performance. In reality, Freddy was the last member of the band to actually release a solo effort, as the other members had done so years before he did. This is a major, major plot point in the movie, and there's a period of the movie where the only member of Queen who is seen is Freddy Mercury, who then has to reconcile with the other band members in order to perform at Live Aid. The most egregious example of this being that Freddy broke up the band in order to pursue a solo career. The writing team has rewritten the history of the band and condensed it down so much, that it may have well have been about another band entirely. However, there are some aspects of this that really bothered me. (or at least I think this is why it was done)Īs a life-long fan of Queen and their music, it was irritating to see songs being written in the wrong years and incorrect pieces of music equipment being used at concerts, but ultimately, things that don't matter too much to the overall experience. However, something that really bothered me about the movie that can't be disputed, is the rampant and abhorrent use fact-changing and history revision in order to streamline the movie. Of course, all of those things I listen are highly contentious, and are almost always up to personal preference in terms of whether or not you enjoy a particular aspect of a film. I found the cinematography to be paint-by-numbers and uninspired, it has some of the poorest editing I've ever seen in a big budget film, the soundtrack felt shoehorned in (which is pretty damning considering it's a movie about the music you hear), and the storytelling felt pathetically uninteresting. ![]() In fact, the acting was the only thing I enjoyed. ![]() Last night I watched Bryan Singer's Bohemian Rhapsody for the first time in preparation for the Oscars, and I must admit that I didn't enjoy it a whole lot.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |