Bohemian Rhapsody

THE SHOW MUST GO ON

Much like the song by the band, it very much reflects the attitude of those behind-the-scenes to get this film made.

Almost a decade this movie spent in developmental hell. With official castings (Sacha Baron Cohen was officially cast as Freddie Mercury back in 2011) and numerous directors and writers attached to the project over the years, it's a miracle they finally found the right people to get this project over the line.

Thank heavens they delivered.

The movie is pitched in its official synopsis as "a foot-stomping celebration of Queen", and it is. It truly is.

From the get-go, it quashes all the doubt and uncertainty regarding what kind of biopic it was going to be - whether it would be a very serious take on the band's story or a light-hearted and positive 'glorification' of it.

The filmmakers found a lovely balance of both with Bohemian Rhapsody, and it starts off on an almost celebratory note which immediately gets you in the mood for the next two hours.

I have to start with the absolutely impeccable casting of the four band members. My word, the likeness they share with the actual members is uncanny, especially Gwilym Lee as Queen guitarist Brian May and Joe Mazzello as bassist John Deacon.

On top of looking alike, they even sound like the real person and that was such a freaky thing to witness. I was genuinely blown away whenever Lee delivered his lines as Brian May. If you want an idea of the resemblance, just go search for an interview done by Brian online.

And of course, how can I not mention the effervescent Rami Malek as Queen's legendary lead singer Freddie Mercury. He is by far the brightest spark of the whole movie, and that's not to put down the rest of the film because it's very good.

That's how terrific Malek was. He not only does a first-class impression of Freddie, he embodies the damaged and lonely man behind all the theatrics and over-the-top antics. It's truly a performance to behold. If Malek doesn't win the Oscar for this movie, there will be massive backlash for sure.

There was also talk of how Malek's casting didn't reflect Freddie's ethnicity, but honestly, does it matter when the likeness is there? Personally, I feel that one should cast an actor based on his resemblance to the actual person. Of course it'd be a bonus to have an actor of the same ethnicity but it's not a MUST. People need to chill and just enjoy Malek's performance. He even gets the conversational voice spot-on.

Together with Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor, the four actors share terrific chemistry which is important considering how close the actual band was in real life. They worked well on screen and delivered some very memorable scenes where they brainstormed and developed their unique sound as a band.

It was also pretty surreal to see how some of their greatest hits were formulated and recorded. They include a couple of these types of scenes in the film and I wished they had included more because they provided some great humour and it was just very interesting to see what was going on in their heads to come up with such eternal hits.

On top of those scenes, the movie is also very funny - most of it coming in the interactions Freddie has with record executives and his fellow band members. The jokes cracked by the band members also really flesh out their characters and it sheds light on the type of people they were behind the scenes.

Of course, one could argue that all these stories may be over-dramatised for the movie's sake, but considering how the movie was produced by Brian May and Roger Taylor, with the duo also having the final say over the final script and casting, I'd believe most of these stories and characterisations to be historically accurate.

Having said that, the movie does take some daring twists with regards to historical accuracy of some of the band's and Freddie's personal stories, especially with the character of Freddie's personal manager, Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), which I'll delve into more detail about in a bit.

The supporting cast was great, with Lucy Boynton standing out as the love of Freddie’s life, Mary Austin. I've not seen Boynton in any roles prior to this, but after watching the film, I'm immediately a fan of hers. She's gorgeous, is very talented and much like Malek as Freddie, absolutely nails the role of her complex character.

The relationship Mary Austin shared with Freddie was nothing short of complicated, and it's nothing like anything I've seen before in movies, which makes this film even more interesting and fresh.

There's also a very nice cameo by comedian Mike Myers, who needs no introduction. Known for THAT famous scene in Wayne's World (1992), Myers goes full circle with his cameo in this movie as an EMI record executive named Ray Foster who disapproves of the title track (with a lovely nod to that scene) upon its pitch to the record label at the time.

Back to the character of Freddie's personal manager and historical inaccuracies within the story, I feel that the movie decided to villainise Prenter to a degree where he appears as the sole scapegoat for Freddie's life taking a turn for the worse as he's influenced by dark temptations.

The real Prenter isn't around today to make a claim for himself, but it is ultimately just a minor concern as the movie doesn't circle around that touchy and potentially controversial topic for too long, as, to the film's credit, the focus never strays too far from Freddie and the legacy of Queen too much.

In that light and with regards to the portrayal of Freddie's personal life, they took a not sanitised (as some reviews slam the film for), but respectful and distanced take on his not-so-good hobbies and lifestyle. I felt that was the right route to take as nobody would've known what went down in reality for sure apart from Freddie himself.

As such, the respectful approach always works best in my opinion, rather than taking the ultra-daring and controversial approach.

On to the overall story and structure of the film, and many critics have called the film "formulaic" in the sense that behind all the mega hits and glorious stories of the band, it is in essence a very typical biopic.

I would argue this point as irrelevant, as the only way to divert from being "typical" is by tweaking the truth even more and I wouldn't be happy with that at all.

So what if the movie is structured in a way that's been done before? Ultimately, it is a film about the band and their many highs as well as tragic lows, topping it all off with a glorious bit of redemption with the absolutely stunning recreation of the Live Aid concert in 1985 where Queen literally stole the show from the many other huge acts who performed that day.

Everything about that scene apart from some iffy CGI for the wide shots of the old Wembley Stadium and the tens of thousands of fans in attendance that day (can't blame the film, to be frank. The old Wembley doesn't exist anymore) were shot-for-shot and move-for-move accurate. If you don't believe me, go watch the actual concert on YouTube.

Considering how the crew shot that scene at the very start of the movie's production phase, it's truly a testament to the talent and commitment of everyone behind the movie.

From a directorial standpoint, the film did face difficulties after director Bryan Singer was fired from the production with around two weeks of principal photography left - with Dexter Fletcher stepping in to see the shooting through.

Thankfully, there's never a moment where you feel a difference or a shift in direction or feel to the film, and it maintains its lush and vivid cinematography which had this certain deliberate blurriness or soft focus to the images which really suited the movie and the time periods in which it was set in.

For negatives, the film honestly doesn't have many. There's nothing to really nitpick at apart from perhaps a desire for a more emotionally-gripping moment in the movie to truly squeeze all them feels out of the movie goer.

There's also the point where, as a Queen fan, I enjoyed the film very much whereas it may not necessarily be the case for movie goers who only know a couple of songs by the band.

I feel the movie might be a little boring for them especially in the scenes which explore the personal lives of the band members. However, the movie is paced very well and judging from some of my non-Queen-fan friends' verdicts on the film, they seemed to find the movie very interesting and enjoyed it very much as well.

All in all, Bohemian Rhapsody truly was the foot-stomping celebration of Queen that we were promised in the synopsis.

Critics don't seem to be too kind to the movie apart from their universal acclaim for Malek's performance (rightfully so), but this is a movie for the fans and for a whole new generation to be introduced to the incredible music catalogue of this extraordinary band.

The portrayal of Freddie Mercury is handled with appropriate respect and with so much passion and brilliance by Rami Malek, who has to win the Oscar for this role. He just has to. It would take a “Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant”-like performance from someone else to snatch the Oscar away from Malek. Truly something to behold.

Freddie would be proud, and I'm sure the rest of the surviving band members as well as all their loved ones would be too with this film.

Go see it on the biggest screen possible with the best sound system too. You're welcome.

8/10.