In a word, the movie just failed!
The content does not respect the facts, all kinds of assumptions are taken for granted, and the expressions and imitations are too superficial, naive and superficial.
What age is still talking about art being persecuted by business, you must know that rock and roll was the mainstream in that era, not to mention that Queens made their fortunes and fame based on the commercial scene in the 1980s. What standpoint is there to pretend to be victims? pitful? Does the director know why the queen is not seen in music critics because it is too commercial and the artistry and rock style of the works are not enough. Does this description of the film want to whiten it?
What's ridiculous is that I am still annoyed by the negative news about cross-dressing, and I still feel that the six-minute song is too long, as if the queen has created a cross-dressing and rock long song. This kind of unclear and inconsistent praise is really disgusting. If it is said that cross-dressing will be the target of the public’s criticism, then David Bowie must be the first to bear the brunt, but what is the fact, Baoye did not frustrate this, but created a gorgeous rock and roll, and formed a trend at the time. Now tell me about Mercury. So being troubled by negative news is simply unreasonable. Let’s talk about the timing of music. Long rock music was a common occurrence at the time. Zeppelin’s albums were pulled out. Almost every capital was seven or eight minutes long. Isn’t it a big hit? Pink's dark side of the moon, where Money is a hit track for six and a half minutes. Therefore, the film tried to use the way of insisting on the long song to render the queen's art and rock spirit, which in my opinion is really ridiculous.
Let's talk about the movie itself. The creation of characters is simply a disaster. All kinds of facial makeup, taking it for granted, and setting up people, none of the characters have been erected, including Mercury. It’s been repeatedly emphasized that President May is a physicist and Roger is a dentist. What is the difference between this and today’s fashion in the entertainment industry? I know someone wants to say that they have real talents, but this kind of deliberate emphasis is not abrupt and Don't have any intentions? I can't see the place to serve the movie at all, but it arouses disgust. Roger in the movie keeps beating people. John comes to reason from time to time. Paul splits the feelings of band members like a male favorite. Mercury is a victim from the beginning, a genius that is not understood by the world. The personality and even the role of the individual in the movie are too flat, single, and facial makeup. Do you say this is a biography? Sorry, I feel like it is the level of elementary school students' composition.
The overall structure of the film is loose. From the beginning to the end, I just wanted to tell the story of a musical genius who was not understood by the public and stood on the stage, frustrated, and then re-brilliant under the terminal illness. Everything is around this kind of obscenity. As for The director seems to have never cared about the facts and the characters. Moreover, the editing is messy and naive, whoever talks cuts whoever speaks, every feature is quite deliberate and embarrassing, just like this, you can get the best Oscar editing, and you can just look at the audience as blind people.
The movie is basically read according to Wikipedia. It is too high for the status of the queen, and there are all kinds of natural and obscene elements in it. It is estimated that it is difficult to qualify as an adapted movie, let alone a biography! At the most basic level, please respect the facts!
View more about Bohemian Rhapsody reviews
