|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 18:00:02 GMT
So glad this film has found the success it has, now verging on a worldwide gross of $800 million, the seventh highest grossing film of 2018. Considering the reviews it got, I didn't expect it to do this well at all!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 13:08:46 GMT
It's astonishing but the reviews were fair though, it's a pretty rotten film (Rami and little Peter Beale aside). But then again, bad reviews didn't do 'Les Mis' any harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 13:16:35 GMT
It's astonishing but the reviews were fair though, it's a pretty rotten film (Rami and little Peter Beale aside). But then again, bad reviews didn't do 'Les Mis' any harm. $800 million and two Golden Globes says different. And who is Peter Beale ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 13:29:14 GMT
$800 million and two Golden Globes says different. Being successful doesn't mean that the film isn't great though. And winning a Golden Globe isn't necessarily a quality barometer either. I mean, Madonna has got one for 'Evita' and seriously. The only time she was anywhere near convincing was when she was in the coffin. She's a movie killer.  |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 21, 2019 14:25:28 GMT
$800 million and two Golden Globes says different. And winning a Golden Globe isn't necessarily a quality barometer either. Anyone remember that film The Tourist? Set in Venice - starred Angelia Jolie and Johnny Depp. It got 3 Golden Globe nods. It was nominated for Best movie - Comedy or Musical (it was meant to be a romantic thriller), and both Jolie and Depp were nominated for their lead acting performances. No? Didn't see it? Lucky you - that's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back! Being popular is not the same as being good, and the Globes are absolutely notorious for making bizarre choices. The charitable interpretation is that they get all excited at the prospect of certain celebs turning up to their dinner. The uncharitable interpretation - since it's actually a very small group of voters - is that the promotional jollies that producers put on sway their decisions. In the case of The Tourist, they were flown out to Venice for a screening of the film. They made a nice weekend of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 15:33:02 GMT
Anyone remember that film The Tourist? Set in Venice - starred Angelia Jolie and Johnny Depp. It got 3 Golden Globe nods. It was nominated for Best movie - Comedy or Musical (it was meant to be a romantic thriller), and both Jolie and Depp were nominated for their lead acting performances. No? Didn't see it? Lucky you - that's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back! Being popular is not the same as being good, and the Globes are absolutely notorious for making bizarre choices. The charitable interpretation is that they get all excited at the prospect of certain celebs turning up to their dinner. The uncharitable interpretation - since it's actually a very small group of voters - is that the promotional jollies that producers put on sway their decisions. In the case of The Tourist, they were flown out to Venice for a screening of the film. They made a nice weekend of it. The Tourist did not win any Golden Globes or anything else. Make your minds up. What do you discredit, the paying audience or the critics ? Or are they both wrong ? And what has Madonna got to do with anything ? |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 21, 2019 16:00:17 GMT
We're just explaining why Golden Globes nominations/wins are not generally considered an indication of quality by some film enthusiasts.
Box Office not being an indication of quality is well-known. There are any number of badly-reviewed films that made oodles of money - some films are critic-proof. I fully expected this film to make all the money - the same way We Will Rock You did. The music is just that good and Queen have never stopped being popular and Freddie being beloved - at least outside America.
I'm actually really pleased that the film has led to a Queen renaissance, and that America has belatedly caught on. But it's still not a good piece of film-making.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 16:02:45 GMT
What do you discredit, the paying audience or the critics ? Or are they both wrong ? Oh yes, I discredit them both really. The only opinion that matters quite frankly is mine. |
|
7,191 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 21, 2019 19:46:04 GMT
We're just explaining why Golden Globes nominations/wins are not generally considered an indication of quality by some film enthusiasts. Box Office not being an indication of quality is well-known. There are any number of badly-reviewed films that made oodles of money - some films are critic-proof. I fully expected this film to make all the money - the same way We Will Rock You did. The music is just that good and Queen have never stopped being popular and Freddie being beloved - at least outside America. I'm actually really pleased that the film has led to a Queen renaissance, and that America has belatedly caught on. But it's still not a good piece of film-making. I like the film but I agree, box office does not indicate quality, Venom did $800m WW and had even worse reviews than BR, |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 16:37:32 GMT
It's now about to become the 6th highest grossing film of 2018 by the looks of things. Venom grossed $855,013,954 and Bohemian is now at $854,299,090 and still showing in some cinemas.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2019 8:48:05 GMT
It’s still showing once a day at my local Odeon. It has been a remarkable success.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 20, 2019 13:20:06 GMT
I have learned that success has nothing to do with quality.
I found it a very weak film. Aside from the fact that it was basically made up, because the film pretends that the group came back together right before the live Aid concert, with only a quick rehearsal while actually in real life they just came back from a huge world tour before the live Aid concert. No drama there. They also pretend he is sick there, manipulating the storyline and essence of that show, because he became ill 4 years later. There also was no drama about Freddie going solo, because Brian and another band member just released a solo album right before that, so no drama there either, made up. And to top it all off, that "manager" did not exist, they had a very good supporting manager, so no drama there either.
The pacing also annoyed me, his lady partner only has 2 scenes which makes it very weird for the audience to care for her. The way to success was only 1 pub-performance. At the end of the film they seem flabbergasted that they can join the live aid concert while critics and audiences hated "bohemian rhapsody" right before. One of the band members literally has 1 line in the film. We can only guess what his relationship with his wife, band members or family was like. They are all merely props. And yet, we do not get to see what Freddie was like either, yes, flamboyant, but Rami's acting is never really believable. This film is just a bunch of separated scenes to me, which doesn't make sense as a whole.
Edit: The recognition factor of the music plays the biggest part in its success I think, and it shows how little high profile movies are created nowadays, and that the whole world is longing for new projects. Now it's this, in 3 months it's The Lion King that the whole world speaks about.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on Feb 20, 2019 13:42:46 GMT
Good movie. Not entirely based on reality and a bit too much feel good but really enjoyed it....
Although I think I would have enjoyed a Sacha Baron Cohen Queen movie much more.
Rami Malek was amazing. Completely believable. Completely Freddie. So good.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Feb 20, 2019 14:37:42 GMT
I’m one of those who hasn’t seen this yet, despite having loved Queen music since the 80’s. I will at some point, the other half wants to see it as well so it’s more lack of babysitter that’s stopped us so far.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2019 18:05:53 GMT
This article is the best explanation I’ve seen of why Rami Malek’s performance does not seem ‘completely Freddie’ to me now: uproxx.com/movies/rami-malek-bohemian-rhapsody-best-oscar-actor-race/When I first saw the film I thought he was good - the performance is the best thing about the film. I was only 9 when Freddie died, and he never did a lot of interviews anyway: my image of who he was off-stage was pretty hazy. But then I went on my Queen kick - read a few books, watched a few documentaries, watched/listened to all the actual interviews I could find. Now when I watch clips of the film I properly cringe - it looks to me like a bad, exaggerated SNL impression. And the storyline they constructed really is appalling. It just doesn’t at all reflect the man’s life. Edit: a good example of how badly written it is - I keep seeing people describe Mary as his ‘wife’. She wasn’t! They never married. The film makes such a big deal over the her wearing/not wearing the ring that people come away thinking it was a wedding ring. And in real life Freddie didn’t pine for her at all, anyway - he was actually in a relationship with David Minns already when he finally broke it off with her. David moved in to Stafford Terrace with him - they definitely weren’t spending their nights flashing lights in the window at her! |
|
