Freddie Mercury carries this movie. Not Rami Malek’s portrayal of him, though his portrayal of the rock star is easily the strongest part of this film, but the late Freddie Mercury himself after all this time. Still, it isn’t enough.
On its own terms, Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) is frequently disappointing and overwhelmingly mediocre, most notably in its clumsy narrative pacing and its clunky dialogue. Somehow, each scene feels like it was cut to the same length of time, and so each event plays out in a bizarrely steady rhythm, leading some of the more important story beats feeling as if they were cut prematurely when they deserved more time, while other more trivial beats were allowed to overstay their welcome, lingering on awkwardly. I cannot imagine that this was a deliberate decision during the editing process, but the only alternative is sheer willful ignorance. Poor judgment or carelessness; our choices are scarce and paltry. For a biopic about the life of such a dynamic figure, the camerawork is lifelessly static much of the time. When it’s not, the cuts are manically frenetic, cutting back and forth during the most mundane of scenes, offering cinematic whiplash instead of narrative immersion.
The writing fares no better than the cinematography and its flaws were especially glaring when attempting to deliver its many moral lessons, which not only lacked sufficient depth and development, but also felt shoehorned and heavy handed in their execution. Mercury was an electrifying and powerful force in life, absolutely, but he had a subtlety and nuance about him too. Bohemian Rhapsody has neither, bungling its themes and delivering its emotional payloads with none of the smooth, electric tact of the legendary front man. Some of the most intriguing and encompassing struggles of Freddie Mercury’s life like homosexuality and a sense of family belonging were present in the movie, but I saw every single boring move coming before they came, and when they did finally played out to the point of tedium, each one was as painful as the last, bludgeoning me over the head with the tritest of clubs. Emotional through lines were sorely needed.
The poorly timed cuts did the script no favors either, as certain powerful lines that could’ve worked were left understated and given too little time to breathe, while other weaker lines that didn’t work were overstated and given too much time to fizzle out awkwardly.
Aside from the admittedly convincing casting, especially of Brian May, and the mis en scène in a few standout shots, the film itself has almost nothing in the way of engagement or inspiration as a creative piece of art. The movie owes much to Rami’s convincing depictions of Freddie’s iconic gestures, mannerisms, and poses, which lend a much-needed sense of authenticity to the film. Without Rami, the movie would become nigh unwatchable, and so he deserves high praise for that feat.
Still, the unfaltering star of the show is still Freddie Mercury, even decades after his passing. Against all odds, the movie creates a powerful impact during its final sequence based on the Live Aid concert of 1985, a true testament to the legend of Freddie Mercury and his lasting legacy on both music and the world. It’s previously knowing Freddie’s inspirational yet heartbreaking real life story that keeps your attention and it’s Queen’s music that provides a vital pulse to this corpse of a movie. Without it, this entire film is practically hollow, and to that you might reply, “Well of course a movie about Queen needs their music! What kind of a biopic about Freddie Mercury would it be without his songs?” and I don’t deny that. I’m certainly not suggesting that a biopic about a band and its frontman shouldn’t include their music. What I am saying is that if you did take out the music by Queen, what’s left of Bohemian Rhapsody the film is what critics once incorrectly said about “Bohemian Rhapsody” the song: an overly long and flashy but ultimately superficial and insubstantial bit of fluff.
Only for this Bohemian Rhapsody, the scathing reviews are spot on.