Rami Malek

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

(On Cable TV, July 2019) As someone of the generation who count Bohemian Rhapsody as one of the greatest songs of all time (Wayne’s World is to blame, but doesn’t entirely explain why I insist the song has to play at my funeral), I was very favourable predisposed toward Bohemian Rhapsody, the movie adaptation of Freddie Mercury’s years with Queen. It does get going with a roar, as exuberant editing, terrific music and many directorial flourishes introduce Mercury on the cusp of his Live Aid set, then flashes back to the early 1970s for a look at how the band got together. It doesn’t take much of a knowledge of Queen’s history to realize early on that the film lies frequently and blatantly—from inventing a band’s breakup to rearranging events by years for maximal dramatic impact, Bohemian Rhapsody is also guilty of more fundamental issues—being written by the winners of the events described here, it presents the surviving member’s perspective on events: Only Mercury and his outcast partner do bad things (Mercury’s arc is one of apology and redemption), while the rest of the band argues and occasionally fights, but otherwise stand as far more reasonable bystanders to Mercury’s excesses. The hypocrisy here is staggering, but let’s not expect anything even close to an honest Queen biography unless the project is taken away from the band itself. It’s also often, especially early on, superficial to the point of being meaningless as a portrait of the characters. (It gets better later.)  Still, despite the blatant manipulation (riiight, Live Aid wasn’t getting any donations before Queen started playing), I actually had a really good time watching Bohemian Rhapsody—the music being predictably great, it doesn’t take much for the pacing of the film to attach itself to the beat. There are also showpiece sequences that give us a very dramatized but enjoyable recreation of how some of Queen’s biggest hits (may) have been created. The ten-minute sequence in which “Bohemian Rhapsody” is recorded, then discussed, then released to bad reviews and popular success, is a joy to watch. (The film gets a big meta-laugh from Mike Myers’s character claiming that teenagers will never bang their heads to the song.)  It’s all fanciful and often scattered and deliberately chooses to dilute its climax by recreating nearly the entire Live Aid performance in real time, dropping an expensively recreated concert movie in the middle of its biopic. Narratively, Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t have a lot of freshness to it: It’s the same old tropes used in the same old ways, and the liberties taken with the band’s history only reinforce its familiarity. On the other hand, there’s quite a bit to appreciate here about how the possibilities of CGI and autotune now allow for a convincing recreation of an arena concert in full daylight with the actors recreating familiar tunes. It’s quite a ride, and it’s rarely boring. There’s a lot more to say about director Bryan Singer and the tumultuous making of the film (Singer was replaced from the film about three-quarter in its production when damaging allegations against him became public) but it’s not nearly as interesting as seeing the result, as loud and flashy as any movie about Queen should be. Rami Malek’s performance is mesmerizing, the look at the inner working of a band is frequently hilarious and it’s a pretty good time for anyone even remotely familiar with Queen’s iconic tunes. It’s a shame that Bohemian Rhapsody has to lie so much in making its point, especially when the real story is readily available at our fingertips and everyone will take delight in pointing out the film’s inaccuracies … but what can I say—Hollywood’s been like that for more than a hundred years by now, and it’s not going to stop messing with the facts anytime soon.

Papillon (2017)

Papillon (2017)

(On Cable TV, May 2019) I’m not a fan of remakes and I’m not a fan of Charlie Hunnam, so the chances were really good that I would dislike this remake of the classic escape drama Papillon. But to my surprise, it’s not that bad a take. It doesn’t measure up to the original, and Hunnam is certainly no Steve McQueen, but the more assured visual aspect of the film, combined with a mercifully short running time, do lend a few additional qualities not necessarily found in the earlier film. The high concept remains the same, though, as an intellectual Parisian safecracker (Hunnam) is condemned to life in perpetuity in a tropical French Guyana penal colony renowned for its cruelty. On his way over there, he meets a frail counterfeiter (Rami Malek) and create an alliance out of desperation, each of them realizing they need help in order to simply survive. Over the next few years, their enduring friendship and harsh living conditions lead them to plan escapes. A series of escapes, considering how often they’re caught and brought back. As an adventure story, this Papillon holds up rather well on its own—the problems begin once you start comparing it to the first film, which may admittedly not be a problem for the younger audiences targeted by the remake. Perhaps what stick most in my craw about the remake is that by virtue of having been shot in Europe, its landscapes are no match for the lush tropical surroundings of French Guiana and that’s like removing an integral character from the remake. I can accept that Hunnam is boring and that the remake is useless, but not accurately portraying the environment is harder to forgive. At least the rest of the film isn’t all that bad.