Menu
by John Finbarr McGarr Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) is directed by Brian Singer and Dexter Fletcher, allegedly. It is a biopic of legendary singer, Freddie Mercury. Or it could be a biopic of the band Queen -- it is not clear which. Mercury is on all of the promotional material and is the lead character, but the film never really delves into his life beyond what can be found on Wikipedia. The majority of the film is dedicated to the rise of popularity of Queen, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does it in the most bizarre way: by showing how each individual song was written and how the public reacted to it. It all felt like filler, as if the writers realised they were lacking half a movie’s worth of story, so instead opted to show off Queen songs in the hopes that the audiences would get excited by seeing something they recognise. The most frustrating part is that there was a genuinely interesting story to be told about Freddie Mercury, but the remaining band members of Queen apparently refused to allow it to be shown because it focused too much on Mercury. So, instead, the story is just the writers ticking off a checklist of Queen songs. The only song that had an interesting creation was the titular song Bohemian Rhapsody. The debate with the producer over the song’s length was potentially interesting, but it ends before it gets the chance to take off. The audience’s general reaction to Bohemian Rhapsody was another source of potential interest, but it was conveyed in such a strange way: The film shows the cast re-enacting the iconic music video as quotes from critics begin to surface across the screen. It even highlights the bigger news outlets, like the Wall Street Journal, making the film come across as arrogant and egotistical. While modern audiences may disagree with the initial reaction to Bohemian Rhapsody, the movie essentially villainizes any negative opinion toward the song. Another aspect of the scene is that it feels so lazy. It would not be surprising to hear that showing off all the negative critiques was added as a last minute decision. Speaking of lazy, the plot is generic and uninspired--the writers probably didn’t know that they had to have an idea of what the movie was going to be before they start writing. In the beginning, there is an actual scene that goes something like (paraphrasing): “Oh no, our lead singer just abandoned us and tonight’s the night we perform, we need a new singer right now!” Then Freddy Mercury introduces himself to them. Apparently, that is not how Queen formed, so instead of showing the real way the band came together, someone thought it would be a good idea to go with the most clichéd approach possible. This would be acceptable for a children’s movie but not for a movie that is aimed at audiences aged 15+. All of the people who grew up with Queen in the 70s and 80s would be in their forties or fifties now, so why is it written for children to understand? Every single story beat is so predictable that you can see it coming from a mile away: Everything from the aforementioned cliché of Queen coming together, to the band learning that their latest song is a huge hit, to when the band members fall out with each before regrouping before the big performance. When Queen (in real life) first found out one of their songs was a success was when all four of them were in an elevator together and heard it over the radio; they nearly crashed the elevator because of how excited they got when they heard the news. In the movie, instead of showing that, someone walks into the room and tells them the news-- the most basic, barebones, forgettable, lazy and uninteresting way of conveying that information. The plot is so clichéd that you could time it so that you can go to the toilet and not miss anything important.
The whole movie probably felt so directionless because it did not have a director. According to rumours, Brian Singer was fired after he continually failed to show up on set, forcing the cinematographer to direct some scenes, and then Dexter Fletcher stepped in to finish off the post production. Therefore, many scenes lack any sort of creativity or vision behind them. It felt so mechanical that you could easily imagine the process of filming this movie; set up scene, press record, act out scene, cut. The finale of this movie, the legendary Live Aid performance, was so underwhelming that it deflated the whole scene. The CGI of the crowd and stadium stood out like a sore thumb, forcing me to think of the small handful of extras that were actually on set. To make it worse, the camera kept cutting back to the same few excited faces of the Live Aid audience, making it seem so small-scale and minimal. Live Aid was a famous event because of how huge it was, but the movie does it a disservice by reminding the audience that they couldn’t even assemble a crowd larger than twelve people. To the movie’s credit, all of the performances were fine, Rami Malek was decent as Freddy Mercury, although it was incredibly obvious whenever he was lip syncing. The set design was good and there were a few moments that were funny. However, I am genuinely struggling to think of anything else of quality. Why does this movie even exist? The non-existent director clearly had no interest in the project, the band members of Queen limited the movie’s depth by restricting what could be shown, and anything of note that happened in real life was replaced with a less exciting version. The irony of Bohemian Rhapsody is that it depicts Queen as a unique band that broke trends and used their talent and creativity to propel themselves to the music legends that they are today, while the movie is the most cookie-cutter, by the books and conformist series of events imaginable. Rating: 4/10
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
UCC Film WritersEditorials and reviews by students at University College Cork. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|