Biopics' disease: more entertainment than real drama

Rating: 6/10 (11 November 2018)

Biopics are always tricky: fans are outraged by the inevitable historical inaccuracies and omissions, or mindlessly blown-away by seeing (again) their idol. But those issues are not the point: the first one can be addressed only in a lengthy documentary or in a research book, while the second is as subjective as one can be (my friend who watched the film with me was thrilled simply because she is a Queen fan).
From a strictly cinematic perspective, the critics are right, this film is almost a flop because it has no strong, central idea besides recreating Freddie on screen (which is very well done). Most acting is fine, lookalikes are amazing ("Brian May", "Freddie"), the concert scenes are great, cinematography is very good, but the film is full of the clichÃ©s common in biopics about artistic characters. It also offers an almost bowdlerized image of Freddie and the band's entourage, creative aspects are dealt with incredible superficiality, and generally speaking the movie is marred by the simplistic approach of a tribute. The twisting of reality, which in "Amadeus" served a strong, fictional central idea (what's the difference between genius and talent), is useless and embarrassing in this film.
As usual, real life drama is more impressive and touching than the concoction served by most biopics, as is the case here. To avoid disappointing, the better biopics focus only on one main event in the life of their character, instead of trying in vain to tell hastily a story which took years or decades to unfold and develop.
So, is this film good? It's worth watching for the acting and the re-creating of the atmosphere, but when recent, easily verifiable facts are distorted with no artistic benefit as in this movie, what should we expect from a movie with a historical subject? Ultimately, watching the original concerts and videos of the band is more rewarding, and that will remain.