Movie Review

Mercury doesn’t rise in Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody

Gwilym Lee (Brian May), Rami Malek (Freddie Mercury), and Joe Mazzello (John Deacon) star in Twentieth Century Fox’s BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY.] Gwilym Lee, Rami Malek, and Joe Mazzello in Bohemian Rhapsody

Gwilym Lee, Rami Malek, and Joe Mazzello in Bohemian Rhapsody.

Photo by Alex Bailey

There’s a lot to parse in the making of Bohemian Rhapsody, the long-gestating movie about the music of Queen and, more specifically, the life of lead singer Freddie Mercury. Will the film have anything interesting to say about a band that’s long moved into legend? Can the movie be about more than just their classic songs? Will there be a Wayne’s World reference?

The answers to those three questions are hit-and-miss, and the film contains more than its fair share of cheesiness. Rami Malek plays Mercury, complete with an enormous — and somewhat distracting — set of fake teeth. The film tracks his rise from Farrokh Bulsara, an unknown airport worker, to Freddie Mercury, arguably the greatest lead singer of all time as a member of Queen with Brian May (Gwilym Lee), Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), and John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello).

The film is split between the process of the band making hits like the title song, “Another One Bites the Dust,” and “We Will Rock You,” and the personal life of Mercury. He is shown to have a long and loving relationship with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), even after coming out as bisexual and pursuing relationships with men that would ultimately lead to him contracting HIV.

The film, credited to director Bryan Singer even though he was removed from the project, is a frustrating experience. While it hits the high points of the aforementioned songs well, delving more into how the same band released lighter tunes like “You’re My Best Friend” and “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” would have been nice to see. A cameo by Mike Myers as music label executive Ray Foster is fun, but his scenes seem to exist merely for him to make the obvious Wayne’s World reference.

The same goes for Mercury’s personal life. Writer Anthony McCarten includes lots of valuable scenes involving Mercury and Mary, his family, and other various friends and business associates. But, aside from his flamboyance and some diva-like behavior, he fails to show what made Mercury's life that much more interesting than those of his bandmates. The band’s eclectic music choices are shown to have been made together, so more detail on their actual process would have been preferable to the overkill on Mercury.

The performance scenes scattered throughout the film are good-to-great, but they also come with their own set of frustrations. Singer and/or replacement director Dexter Fletcher can’t seem to leave well enough alone and focus on Mercury and the rest of the band. This comes to a head in the climactic sequence showing their iconic appearance at Live Aid in 1985. Instead of zeroing in on Malek’s electric performance, the film shows way too many cheesy and pointless snippets of people in the crowd dancing.

And make no mistake, Malek is great. The teeth remain an issue throughout, but Malek overcomes them with a complete commitment to the role. We may not be hearing only him singing in the role, but he sells every inch of both the big and small moments. Also great are Lee as May and Allen Leech as Paul Prenter, a business associate/Mercury protector.

The power of Queen’s music and the Oscar-worthy performance of Malek are enough to make up for the lesser moments of Bohemian Rhapsody. It’s not as enlightening as some biopics, but that won’t stop you from wanting to sing along.

movies

Movie Review

Andrew Garfield leads peasant rebellion in medieval film The Uprising

Photo by Betina La Plante/Focus Features

Andrew Garfield in The Uprising.

Writer/director Paul Greengrass made his name with a cinéma vérité style of filmmaking that brought immediacy and depth to three Jason Bourne films, United 93, Captain Phillips, and more. In The Uprising, he uses those skills to tell the story of the so-called Peasants’ Revolt in 14th century England.

Greengrass wastes no time starting the main plot as Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) and his fellow villagers object to onerous taxes put on them by the country’s nobility, led by the young King Richard II (Woody Norman), to fund an ongoing war. Ploughman initiates a violent response over the tone-deaf — and unseemly — way the king’s guard go about their business, and the rebellion soon starts to spread across the countryside, with the citizens looking for a degree of autonomy.

The ever-expanding group makes their way toward London to try to make their case to the king himself. Meanwhile, the king’s top advisors, including Archbishop Sudbury (Stephen Dillane) and Treasurer Hales (Tom Hollander), try to usurp power from the inexperienced monarch even as the king’s mother (Katherine Waterston) tries to get him to be more assertive.

The history of the English monarchy is long and lurid, as Shakespeare detailed in multiple plays, including Richard II. Though the events in the film took place almost 650 years ago, it’s easy to see parallels between what the peasants were fighting for and modern-day politics. Greengrass’ storytelling intent is solid, and the righteous anger the citizens feel is initially relatable and palpable.

But the populism theme of the story soon gets bogged down in drudgery and minutiae that is difficult to understand, especially when the details are lost in the thick regional English accents. The leaders of the rebels — including John Ball (Jamie Bell), Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), and Alyce (Thomasin McKenzie) — are shown doing a lot of planning, but the strong feelings they have about their quest don’t come across well, leaving the audience as passive observers.

When there is action, Greengrass and his team employ a frenetic style that is not great for comprehension. While the gist of what is happening and what side is winning is legible, individual moments go by so quickly so as to be nearly meaningless. Save for Ploughman, any connection that has been made with various characters proves futile, as Greengrass doesn’t seem to have any time for emotion. Scenes that should feel thrilling or heartbreaking instead come off as empty.

Garfield is a two-time Oscar nominee who has done great work across multiple genres. He’s fine in this role, but whether it’s the story, the filmmaking, or something else, he’s not as captivating as usual. The same goes for other strong actors like Bell, McKenzie, Dillane, Hollander, and Waterston, who each seem to be giving their all to their performances but are somehow muted in the process.

Done right, The Uprising could have been a rip-roaring account of people standing up against their oppressors. What Greengrass has made, though, is a film that can’t translate its medieval story for a modern audience and concentrates too much on unexciting elements and too little on thrilling ones.

---

The Uprising is now playing in theaters.

movies film reviews