Several times per year there's a cluster of movies that audiences love and critics hate. And I want everyone to understand that I'm fully familiar with both sides of the issue. On one hand, critics have to do what they do, which is to critique a film on its moviemaking, (hopefully) without letting too many subjective preferences taint their stance. On the other, most audience members feel the need to "just be entertained," or they "don't care how good it is; [they] like [this], which is why it was good." Critics find audiences to be uncritical and mindless; audiences find critics to be high-minded with an inability to find simple enjoyment. And, usually, (almost) everyone is (kind of) right.
This year, this controversy arose through Bohemian Rhapsody. If you're like me, you were told to see it by friends and family alike, and that it's "amazing." However, if you're still like me, you notice that critics everywhere have found enjoyment in ripping it to shreds. Due to my nature, I usually tend to mostly side with the critics' consensus; because, frankly, audience scores are largely generated by idiots. Thankfully, however, there's still a part of me that is able to enjoy certain movies, even if they're not particularly great. Such is the case with Bohemian Rhapsody: a poorly constructed movie with haphazard storytelling that still managed to incorporate very enjoyable elements.
Whenever I'm approached by someone who knows nothing about movies and they tell me that I "have" to see a movie, or that it's "amazing," I take it with a pound of salt. It's nothing personal; it's just my nature. Such was the case when everyone around me uncharacteristically saw Bohemian Rhapsody before me. After seeing it, though, I was able to (somewhat) understand what they were talking about. People love Queen; so how could anyone who loves Queen not love a movie filled to the brim with performances of their music?
Mistakingly, however, Rami Malek (Freddie Mercury) is conflated with the movie itself. Whenever someone mentions how good the movie is, I can promise you that they're subconsciously speaking of Malek. He executed the most impressive and brilliant portrayal of Freddie Mercury that I could have imagined. Whether it's his singing, dancing, or especially his acting, the man stole the show. Hands down. I've rarely enjoyed a performance so much, and I hope he's nominated for multiple awards. It's just so gravely unfortunate that, outside of Malek, the movie falls flat. Indeed, a single groundbreaking performance surrounded by popular music does not a good movie make.
This is the same issue presented by The Greatest Showman. Everyone loves the music, so they're willing to look past everything else. I understand the music is the point of the movie; I also understand that an action movie with excellent action scenes can still be crummy (see literally anything directed by Zack Snyder). So let's deconstruct Bohemian Rhapsody outside of the albeit brilliantly executed music.
Outside of Rami Malek, there was strictly cardboard acting. Freddie's other band members, love interests, friends, family, producers...there was nothing special about any of them. I was excited that Littlefinger was the band's lawyer, but even that didn't surmount to anything. (You Game of Thrones fans will know what I'm talking about.) I don't care how excellent a lead character is; without interesting counterparts, the movie can't obtain any charisma. Would you have watched the Harry Potter movies if Harry were the only interesting character? I didn't think so. (Incidentally, Harry is one of the least compelling characters in that franchise. Yeah, I said it.)
The direction leaves much to be desired. There were very few interesting shots, sequences, or re-creations of performances. I wasn't impressed with the editing, which often took away from moments that could have been far more epic. To its credit, though, the Live Aid performance was spectacular. It was essentially a shot-for-shot remake of the live stream of the actual event; which means the director didn't contribute much, but it was extremely enjoyable nonetheless.
Bohemian Rhapsody's biggest blunder is its storytelling. The pacing had a jarring lack of fluidity which made for a completely unsatisfying experience. Instead of simply telling what is really a very interesting and groundbreaking story, Bohemian Rhapsody has an irritating need to accentuate and even blatantly fabricate timeline details which stop the movie dead. With as many realistic trials, tribulations, and struggles Freddie Mercury actually experienced, it's amazingly disappointing that so many of them were portrayed so unrealistically.
What's more is that they surfaced among a slew of fabricated story threads that were even less believable. None of his real-life relationships were portrayed convincingly, and the square peg that is a forced sense of "conflict" was crammed into the round hole that is the revisionistic narrative. It is appalling that even a life so interesting and monumental was not immune to Hollywood's insistent need to falsely revise everything it touches.
Indeed, what we have on our hands is an ordinary biopic centering around an extraordinary person. That said, if you don't care too much about moviemaking--and you love Queen--you, too, can be the one to tell all your friends to see Bohemian Rhapsody. And, sure, the theater experience will aid your enjoyment due to the large screen and surround-sound. But if you do go to the theater, just know that you're doing so despite it not being worthy. Because Bohemian Rhapsdy earns a 59%, meaning it is only worthy of
Comments
Post a Comment