Poorly executed movie, let us be honest - Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It was quite gripping actually.

And it got the balance right between his sordid personal life and his music career.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 6 years ago

It was fine, and entertaining,but generic and formulaic like most biopics.

reply

[–] MrMovie (897) 6 years ago

Agree 100 percent. Honestly it’s not a good biography, Walk the Line and Ray were much better musical biographies. It’s also a joke Rami Malek it’s going to win over Bradley Cooper, Bale, and Ethan Hawke.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Biopics are normally better received when they choose one story within their life and tell that story, with one or two flashbacks.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 4 years ago

What a cowardly take. You assess what allows a biopic to gain general acclaim but refuse to insert any personal opinion on what you look for or desire in a biopic. The softest and most worthless form of film criticism: generalities w/o hard citational support, and no personal assertions at all

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

I have seen some bios done on Freddie Mercury and how wild he could be because one of the people who worked with QUEEN came in to talk to Freddie Mercury while he was having a orgy with both men and women. Freddie invited him to join in, but the guy stated that he would talk with him later and then left. The guy chuckled about the incident.

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

I have seen some bios done on Freddie Mercury and how wild he could be because one of the people who worked with QUEEN came in to talk to Freddie Mercury while he was having a orgy with both men and women. Freddie invited him to join in, but the guy stated that he would talk with him later and then left. The guy chuckled about the incident.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Good summary, good points. I agree with everything you wrote except "best movie" category material.
Are you talkin about the oscars? If so, you should look at what's been nominated there since they expanded it to 10 movies.
This movie, being flawed and poorly executed, legitimately belongs there in the company of even poorer ones.
I'm surprised (and offended) every year that my holiday videos are not nominated...

reply

[–] Mydarkstar (108) 6 years ago

Yes, there are worse movies being nominated, but that doesn't give this one a pass. Once you start accepting a lower standard you'll eventually start accepting a Marvel comic book movie as a nominee and.......oh, never mind.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 6 years ago

Ha, god point

reply

[–] TheLittleHavana (105) 6 years ago

I watched this movie the other night, and I really enjoyed it. Thought it was great. Though I do fully understand some of the criticisms that have been thrown it’s way. Some of the embellishment of the facts, not being as gritty (for lack of a better term) in regards to the darker days of Freddie’s life. But overall I think it was tremendously done

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

It was a good film and I had a co-worker who asked me if it would be alright for his wife and him to go see it. I told him because I am a straight guy that it did not push the envelope too far. I know that the LGBTQ were hoping that it would have shown a lot more in the film. I was pleased that it showed a little bit of the darker side to Freddie Mercury. I have seen a BBC bio done on Freddie Mercury and a person who worked with Freddie stated that Freddie was having a orgy with both men and women and invited this guy to join them in the fun. The guy told Freddie that he would talk with him later.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

In a category where they nominated Black Panther it deserves to be included... IF we were talking about the old days when the only nominated movies based on the actual movie and not some snowflake diversity quota then I would agree it wouldn't have deserved it back in the old school Oscars.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 6 years ago

To be fair, the Oscars was never a list of excellence. It is a representation of the best of the last 12 month. Have a year of shite, and we will have a year of shite nominees. Fair enough, that is the Oscars. The list today sure seems like it was a shite year. Black Panther, Bohemian are sadly not the odd ones out in this years list. And so, one may ask: Are those candidates the best 2018 had to offer? Really? Hell no, I cry.

* that being said, it was not a particularly strong year either.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I tend to think that in the early days before the studios started spending millions on marketing campaigns aimed directly at Academy voters to try and get movies nominated that the awards were more representative of what was really good. But it all started to change when they started televising the Oscars, then when studios realized that they would magically sell more tickets if a movie got nominated things changed a little more for the worse... but when we got VHS and DVD and the studios realize how many more tapes and disks they could sell if they got a movie nominated well it didn't take long before you had the awards shanghaied by marketing departments which completely destroyed what integrity the awards originally had.

But I agree the year was not that good which means an even better chance of getting crap movies nominated.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 6 years ago

Absolutely. But could it be otherwise, when the jury is old nominees and winners... all family? You scratch my back, kind of thing. Perhaps the jury should be a combination of critics, industry members (high and low) and perhaps some form of an audience voice as well. Not sure how, but there must be a more optimal and frankly fruitful way?

The fact that something like Black Panther is on the list, is a cry for change, imo. It is absurd.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

But people voting remotely seems to invite abuse, that is to say, if computers and random people are involved.. On IMDb people would accuse fanboys of repeatedly voting high ratings for their faves and killing movies that were in the way, (The Dark Knight gambit). And that's just at a manual level. What if someone floods the vote with automated algorithms? We need to find a group of people we trust and have them do the voting. Doesn't have to be thousands of people.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Respect all your opinions...
Love the actors but I hated this movie...
To be fair though if you are a new fan or just being introduced to queen it is probably much better.
But I got absolutely nothing new or unique from it...
Came off as great actors involved in a high school production
A good high school production though.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

Fair enough. I'm not a Queen fan and haven't seem the movie, but I could see it being mildly entertaining. Bio-pics are hard. We at least think we know the history, and this ain't exactly Mission: Impossible when it comes to Plot. Mostly we were commenting on how to get the Academy to nominate the proper films each year. But thanks for getting involved and contributing.

reply

[–] Freddy (1325) 6 years ago

watched a PBS special last year with the real band it was real surprising how good a singer
Fred really was

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

When you want to get the audience involved you end up with the people's choice awards which are usually going to be a showcase for the movies with the biggest box office gross regardless of the film's quality. Want the critics and you get the Golden Globes type winners where it is well known who the voters are and the marketing departments just become even more revolting and bribery becomes so over the top you end up with a laughable actress like Pia Zadora winning for a film that anyone being even halfway honest was a stinking pile of crap.

Frankly the Oscars also suffer from another flaw that has always bugged me even before the marketing aimed at getting votes happened, and that is the fact that the only voters are people that make the movies... Which makes me think why do people that are responsible for making stinking piles of craps like Ishtar allowed to vote? Clearly when people make or take parts in movies that anyone with half a brain can see are destined to be shit they have shown that they aren't fit to judge anything related to a movies... and yet they get to be part of that small group that votes for the supposed best each year.

In the end all these awards should just be viewed as a way to see your favorite actors/actresses in a different light and nothing more.... I would say see them when they aren't acting but lets be honest they often come off as so fake and rehearsed when they win and give their supposed impromptu speech that it is ridiculous.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 6 years ago

Any single group is inherently corrupt, either by in-the-box thinking like those from the industry, by friendships and polite votes or by mere vandalism, like what you mention audiences seem to be dominated by. And so, I wonder if a sort of mix and a higher degree of control would be a step up. And indeed, outsiders should be invited - for how else would the awards ever learn.

How about a bix averaged from industry members, but all members, not just the high-rollers. Critics - national and international. And then perhaps an audience weight too, somehow.... however, corruption on some level, there undoubtedly will always be. Though, as it is now only a select group of industry insiders makes it a bit idiotic to me, and the Statue loses its value. We need some change there...

PS: I like Ishtar, schyyyyy.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 6 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tihITlPAn4

I fell over this clip by chance. Interesting insight into how Miramax plays dirty when influencing the Oscars.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Interesting video, thanks.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1843) 6 years ago

It's a list of excellence when they are a bunch of genuinely great films that year.

Look at 2014 and 2015 films. Look at 2018.

2018 was weak. They missed a few out like Hereditary but still that would be a last pick compared to other years.

2014 films or 87th Oscars brimming apart from those obligatory Oscar bait biographies. They left out Nightcrawler, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Gone Girl, X-Men: Days of Future Past which craps on Black Panther. etc etc etc

2015 films or the 88th Oscars were brimming with quality and films like Ex Machina, Embrace of the Serpent etc got snubbed. Game of Spies got in

2018 you think of a weak main line up and a couple pretty good films that were snubbed.

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

I used to enjoy watching some of the award shows including the Oscars before it became too political due to President Trump in office and every person is screaming how they hate Trump being in office. I sat and watched the Oscars. Some of the movies today I would not consider Oscar material, but you have to remember writing is not like what it used to be either. I enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody it touched a little bit about Freddie Mercurys life without going too far into the darkside that possibly would turn off some people including myself since I am a straight man who is into women.

reply

[–] bek (740) 6 years ago

I agree. This movie could have been so much more. I wanted to see more of the story behind the songs, not just Bohemian Rhapsody. And much of their story was just skirted over. And of course, lots of stuff was inaccurate, such as Freddy finding out he had AIDS before Live Aid.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

But Freddie in the movie said that it was a secret between them only. So maybe they knew it before the public does.

reply

[–] bek (740) 6 years ago

It's possible, but not according to any of the band members.

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

I would have liked to have seen more detail about Flash Gordon and Highlander because QUEEN did the soundtrack for both films. All I saw was Malek wearing a T-shirt with the symbol or wording of Flash Gordon on it and that was it. The part where gay men having fun with each other would have pushed it a little bit too far I think. I would not have had a issue with two men holding hands or slight kiss on the lips, but too much sex with two men would have pushed it too far in my opinion.

reply

[–] Mydarkstar (108) 6 years ago

I totally agree with everything you wrote. One of the things that also really bothered me was that the songs were out of order in their release dates. When they went on their first tour they were automatically singing "Killer Queen", which didn't come until their 3rd album. I'm not sure if that was because they didn't go on their first US tour until their 3rd album or if we were supposed to be accepting that they wrote that song 10min after Freddie joined the band.

And then they performed songs such as "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" and "Fat Bottomed Girls" before they wrote "We Will Rock You". He had also already cut his hair before recording "We Will Rock You" in the movie which is incorrect.

I don't know why that bothered me so much, but it did. I'm guessing 90% of this movie's audience didn't know the difference.

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

Some of the information on how Freddie Mercury joined the bad was not quite accurate because Freddie was already friends with the lead singer and met while they both attended college. I believe that is how Freddie got to know the rest of his band mates.

reply

[–] Mydarkstar (108) 6 years ago

Probably the inaccuracy which bothered me the most was that they showed him being diagnosed with AIDS before Live Aid, which was not true. He was diagnosed after Live Aid.

But by having him diagnosed before Live Aid the movie portrayed his great Live Aid performance as if he felt it was his swan song, giving the impression that he was inspired knowing he would not be around too much longer.

I felt that was manipulative of the audience.

reply

[–] RobBase086 (44) 6 years ago

You might be correct on what you are stating about that Mydarkstar. They always try to make something so good at the end of a biopic for some reason.

reply

[–] Mydarkstar (108) 6 years ago

They did it to give more "meaning" to his Live Aid performance, no doubt. Pure cinema.

reply

[–] Mydarkstar (108) 6 years ago

Another inaccuracy is that he was diagnosed with HIV before Live Aid. He was actually diagnosed in 1987. The only reason I point that out is because it makes the Live Aid performance look as though it was inspired by that diagnosis.

reply

[–] kumarihpx (59) 6 years ago

I agree. I can't imagine why it's up for Best Pic Oscar.... The actor notable but film isnt best.

reply