Fun but Inaccurate Biopic

Rating: 8/10 (16 November 2018)

"Bohemian Rhapsody" is not as bad as critics say, but it is not Oscar-worthy either. Many of us are aware that this film was involved in numerous unconventional production delays. Therefore, the efforts are acknowledged given that the final product is more than acceptable. Nevertheless, the main issue with this film relies in the many inaccuracies of the story, which led to an incoherent (and even offensive) narrative for those who are truly familiarised with the always-known story of the rockstar in question.
Biopics are highly tricky, if not, risky. There are always going to be differing versions and opinions. People who knew Queen's story in detail are naturally in discomfort with a film that rather than paying tribute to the band's lead member, focuses on turning things around in favour of the "victims" (i.e. the other band members). It's no surprise that the screenplay was wrecked by a still-envious band, who portrayed Mercury not only as a middle-class bloke, but also (naively) attempted to lie to the audience by showing a weak-er, almost narcissistic Mercury, who does not relate intimately to the real persona. I have to admit that it is very interesting to see how film, as a mass media mechanism, can be used for some filthy purposes such as contentious advertising, political campaigning and false storytelling (-cough-).
For the sake of clarity, let's just review Mercury's origin. He came from a notorious, if not relatively wealthy family. He never had to work his way up as shown in the film. More importantly, Mercury never, ever had to beg for anything (as if!). In fact, others (including the less hot band members) were the ones always begging. By the way, this includes the fictitious dispute between Mercury and the other members regarding their participation in the Live Aid Concert. Given these reasons, the critics got it right.
In contrast, I think that critics overreacted with the so-called straightwashing of Mercury. I believe the film balanced very well Mercury's love and sex life, without falling into the nostalgic or bizarre. Mostly everyone knows how this character played and decayed. Therefore, the film did well by focusing on the artist rather than on the gay man. We will always love Mercury, no matter straight, bisexual or gay. In this case, the public's opinion prevails.
In a more technical note, the film does not have many cinematic qualities. It feels more like a TV-movie rather than a film aimed for the big screen. Aside from Rami Malek's exceptional characterisation, the only other highlights are sound mixing and make-up/costume design. However, for a film of this scale, editing and cinematography appeared amateurish, if not, mediocre. Screenwriting was hacked as noted above. Directing does not go too far either, hence, the reductive feel of the film.
In conclusion, "Bohemian Rhapsody" was a good attempt. It is entertaining and well-acted. More importantly, it is brave and controversial (as Queen itself). Future biopics could perhaps focus more on Mercury to try to repair the inaccuracies (or lies) set by this film. A good title for a more loyal version could just be "Freddie" or "Mercury". Anyway, we all know that Queen was all about him. I went to see the film with low expectations and had a fairly good time. It was inevitable not to spot the cracks, but the Live Aid Concert at the end redeems for most of the flaws. Malek should win almost every award as he saved this film. The rest of the discrepancies will probably be discussed until box-office closure, for which I anticipate a worldwide gross of half a billion minimum.
Score: 7.5/10
FJ Medina