Oh, those reporters are trying hard to bring BR down. This scribble is presently front page yahoo.com news:
So, while they whined until this weekend, that the movie was gay- sanitized, they are now whining that the gay community is shown in a bad light. How can the community be shown in a bad light, if the movie white-washed the topic????
These media stunts will not work. The audiences will continue to flock towards the BR movie for the next few weeks. And after that, the movie will do well in home movie sales too. You can bet on it.
And the funny thing is, as the critics are licking their wounds, you can see that they still haven't figured out why they got it wrong. Haven't figured out why they always seem to have gotten Queen wrong, btw.
So, the Guardian thinks it is because only movies that are representing a brand can sell at the box office, and of course Queen is a brand. Clear as mud, right? That reporter leaves the question open, why it is then, that reporters got it so wrong? Was Queen not a brand two weeks ago, when they wrote those reviews? Am I missing something?
Others are complaining about gullible audiences that accept every timeline and every prettied up story-line, and that only they, the critics, can see through the charade. Freddie was, so they say, far more promiscuous than this movie lets on.
I, for the life of me, after having seen the movie, cannot understand how they can come to that conclusion. They must have just watched the first 20 minutes, and decided based on that. There is not other reasonable explanation. Or they were confused and were hoping to see some salacious gay soft porn flick or something. I am so glad that Sasha Baron Cohen did not get to do this movie, because I think he would have tried to take it to much more R-rated places. Outside a sensationalist media, nobody wants to see Freddie painted in that light, and how unfair would it be to both his character and his life work, had that happened.
The movie works, because it is a celebration of Queen and their music, and an opportunity to look back and reminiscence, while at the same time introducing the band and their music to two new generations. The movie also works, because a lot of the dialogue is smart and insightful. Not all is, some historical progressions are shorted to such extent, that the result seems clumsy, as in today we are nobody, and next minute we are touring America. But the fact, that some of these early chapters were shortened, so that exactly the impact of Freddie's orientation could be explored and given some depth, that seems to go over those journalists heads.
So does, in my opinion, the following circular moment:
Normally, it is widely understood that Adam is benefiting and standing on the shoulders of empire that Queen and especially Freddie has built, in visuals, drama, stage presence, music, lyrics, etc.
In a strange reversal of sorts, this biopic is also standing on the shoulders of a house that Adam has built.
There are multiple scenes showing male on male physical contact, kisses, hand-holding, and so forth, a taboo on TV and usually also mainstream family oriented film until 2009. Adam, as we all know, punched right through that invisible barrier, and changed that taboo. The glass shards came raining down on him for daring to do that, but the reality is, it is today accepted standard, at least in the western hemisphere. This movie heavily relies on that foundation that Adam built, to present Freddie to a 2018 movie audience, as a complex and bi-sexual character. Ten years ago, this movie could not have been done that way.
The critics though, seem to take all this for granted, are commonly complaining that Freddie is not portrayed as gay enough, none of them seems to realize that none of that portrayal would have been possible a decade earlier, or without Adam's courageous help.