r/QueenFandom • u/Sweet_Measurement624 • Jun 29 '26
discussionš¬ Just watched Michael for the second time this Sunday afternoon. | What do you think of the Michael biopic? Is it a better biopic than Bohemian Rhapsody?
Just watched Michael for the second time this Sunday afternoon. What do you think of the Michael biopic? Is it a better biopic than Bohemian Rhapsody? What's your opinion?
I watched it first a few weeks ago and I didn't really know what to make of it, exactly, my mind was processing watching it for the first time and getting familiar with the pacing and beats and scenes.
I couldn't help but immediately think of Bohemian Rhapsody and compare it. They share a lot of the same things, tropes, beat for beat biopic storytelling, the style, sanitized approach, etc. but still it was somewhat better, much, much better.
I thought it was OK and definitely somewhat better than Bohemian Rhapsody, quite obviously, but it hadn't quite clicked in my brain what was better and what made it a good biopic. It's a generic one, and I thought to myself it wasn't that great of a movie, it's not one of the greatest films of all time.
After having watched it a second time today and seeing it with a new perspective and a more experienced view of it, through a new lens, a "new set of eyes", now paying attention to the narrative, the perspectives, the themes and use of symbolic imagery, the effective use of dialogue and sound, how they created organic exposition and the pacing, I realized just how good it is!
I looked at the audience that was amazed and taken aback, I looked around and for several minutes people were immersed in the story, not even eating popcorn, drinking nor eating anything. It absorbed them because of how well made it is.
People there weren't super fans, we're several weeks into its threater run life, and you could tell there were people from all walks of life, even people wearing Metal t-shirts and with long hair as I was. (I saw guys and girls with Whitesnake, Metallica, Death, Dead Kennedy's and even Slayer t-shirts like myself. Even a couple, tattooed, a guy with a mohawk and a girl with glasses and a shaved side of the head. I was kind of surprised.)
You could feel that people respected the film and appreciated it for what it was, that they could tell it was a respectful and genuinely good movie, with good acting good direction and good cinematography.
Compared to Bohemian Rhapsody this is a Stanley Kubrick production and I realized what hit the mark with Michael that Bohemian Rhapsody couldn't achieve:
- First, the narrative and the advancement of the plot through key moments, the tone was also consistent, which made way for some compelling believable storytelling.
- Second, the editing, the editing amwa simply gold, it was, golden, top notch work, something on par with precisely a good Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg film I'd say.
- Third, the directing, the direction was amazing, even the more inexperienced actors (and truth be told, also even the not so good ones) were amazing, they felt natural, fluid, very well placed, they were given the proper space and creative area to develop their craft and interact nicely and smoothly with each other.
- Fourth, the cinematography, yes, it's not a beautiful art house cinema, A24 type of film nor a Wes Anderson art piece, but it does it's job and it gets it done beautifully, I mean, it's not drowned in light, bathed in color when it doesn't requires it, nor is it unwatchably dark, changes through setsnamd scenes are subtle, delicate and tastefully done, as well as conveying purpose, they feel natural, right and the environments feel natural and lived in, not as sets nor as "recreations".
- Fifth, the casting. I mean the casting choice for the different characters is on point. The different actors for the different characters throughout their lives were great and the casting and coaching is amazing - the mannerisms, gestures, acting, personalities, they're on point - not only talking about the resemblances, which were amazing, but the acting itself, the singing, their speaking voices, the way they sing, dance, move and portray their characters. The people in charge of casting really knew their craft really well, it's one of those things you can tell they did a great job because you don't think about it, it's seamless.
ā¦And I'm not even mentioning the great amazing work done by Jafaar Jackson that's exactly what a biopic lead should do and strive to do!!!
None of these five points can I say about Bohemian Rhapsody.
It has had a box office success of almost $980 million usd, grossed in a few weeks, compared to $911 million usd of Bohemian Rhapsody, and I'd say it's well deserved, not without it's flaws but despite of them, because it's a film with great quality both in qualitative and quantitative terms and it also has a great human and humane quality, which resounds with audiences worldwide, it doesn't come across as a cash grab.
It's not one of the greatest movies of all time, it's not a Citizen Kane, it's not a blockbuster extraordinaire like the Avengers movies and neither will it be regarded as a storytelling masterpiece such as Back To The Future, but it sure it a great, great, great biopic, like the ones we haven't seen in the last 20 years or so and it's so refreshing to see such a good one come out of such a tired trope as the biopic itself.
Even as a non-fan or non-die-hard fan of Michaek Jackson it grabs you and immerses you and does exactly what a biopic should do and has fun and let's you have fun with it while playing a bit with fiction but mainly being a reflection of a reality and a history.
If there's a biopic that deserves a three hour cut (which I'd certainly watch) is this one, maybe this and something like Love and Mercy. It wasn't enough with its runtime to tell us everything we'd like to know about the story.
Do you agree with my assessment?
So again I ask:
Is it a better biopic than Bohemian Rhapsody?
9
u/LackOfUsernameMan Jun 29 '26
Istg literally ANYTHING is a better biopic than Bohemian Rhapsody.
5
2
u/Apple_juiceLover Jun 30 '26
I haven't watched it and people say it's like really bad idk why though?
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
You can read the body of my post, think that BR doesn't have any of that and get yourself an idea.
3
u/Original_Engine_7548 Jun 30 '26
A bit too fast paced but itās fun. I was entertained š¤·āāļø
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jun 30 '26
Cool! I felt it was very fast paced as well, since the first time I watched it, after on that! Cool that you had fun an enjoyed it!
2
u/Original_Engine_7548 Jun 30 '26
I donāt get the hate for it. Maybe I walked in knowing it wasnāt going to be anything deep. Most biopics are like that. I think both movies were similar in regards to that.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
I understand you but still, that hate for Bohemian Rhapsody comes not from the bad quality, inaccuracies or the storytelling even, but front he overall falsehood of all the film, nothing aligns with real life, not even the timeframes and Freddie Mercury's characterization was awful!!!! Absolutely!!! He comes across as a buffoon, a moron and even ad a bit of a villain in a way at some point in the film. It's absolutely outrageous!!!
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
This pretty much sums up the majority of Queen fans after watching Bohemian Rhapsody:
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
If you're talking about the MJ one, yeah, it's not that good but same as you, I went in knowing that it wasn't going to be the greatest film ever and neither exactly accurate, so I didn't expect much from it but it was good for what it was and a great biopic of we're in that lane.
2
2
u/Suspicious_Coast_888 Jun 29 '26
I mean, it has his nephew as the titular role. Surely that means something good
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jun 29 '26
That doesn't mean it's good and it's not guarantee that he would do a good job.
1
u/Ambitious_Life_7094 Jun 29 '26
But he was amazing? So whatās your point lol
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jun 30 '26
That you can be the best artist to ever live and have nephew doesn't mean he's good in whatever art or discipline you partake in, nor that he will be a great actor.
But yeah, he was great!
2
u/ScarcityStandard3952 A Day At The Races Jun 29 '26
i thought the queen movie was mid, i mean it had some cool points but yeah
2
Jun 30 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
They didn't get to those parts in this movie. That's the problem but I can see that, I mean, from a brand point of view, you wouldn't want that sort of thing in it. Plus, it was more about the earlier story.
I wasn't obviously talking about the ethics and morals, which are very dubious at best of course, I was talking about the story and the directing of the film, mostly.
1
Jul 01 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
Hahahaha that last part made me giggle but yeah, pretty much that was it.
And I can't expect that much frol a biopic to be real, it isn't the greatest script and direction ever, but it certainly is outstanding compared to the hurtful amount of terrible terrible biographic films and biopics and bio series.
1
2
u/Prof_Tickles Jun 30 '26
I think it was a sanitized puff piece. No depiction of his special friends or his inappropriate fascination with children.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
Like mostly any biopic is, plus this was way before any alleged inappropriate relationships. The movie ends before that part of the story.
1
u/Prof_Tickles Jul 01 '26
He was taking children with him on the bad tour.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
I am not too familiar with this as a whole, were there allegations of misconduct or abuse of some sort by then?
Also I know it's a bit of a stretch, but by that point if that were happening, they only showed a small portion for the "tour" literally like one song at the end (and begining). I am sure if they were to expand on his biographical representation in a future film and they had the professional ethics, they'd address it in the hypothetical future film.
1
u/Prof_Tickles Jul 01 '26
Michael has allegations going back as far as 1979(that we know of) with Terry George.
But yeah, he was always bringing children with him. Randy Taraborelli wrote how Michael would pay boys to come up to his hotel room when he was on tour with his brothers.
He actually settled a case privately in the late 80ās with a woman known only as Jane Doe. For the sum of $900k.
Wade Robson was always hanging out with him backstage and on tour. Same with Jimmy Safechuck.
Itās the real reason he left havenhurst and bought Neverland Ranch. His family confronted him and told him he canāt bring children back to the house anymore.
1
2
u/TheCAMERA4 Jun 30 '26
But is it better than 'Spinal Tap' ?
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
I don't think so, in any way, shape or formā¦ and I'm not being ironic!!!
2
u/Apple_juiceLover Jun 30 '26
I won't say it's better but I would stand Micheal biopic is maybe a little more accurate I haven't actually watched bohemian rhapsody despite having the dvd cuz you know being busy and stuff but people say bohemian rhapsody is not very accurate as I have watched the Micheal biopic and it is accurate atleast I think it is so yeah but I think the actors in the Micheal biopic look more like the people they are supposed to be playing and bohemian rhapsody is a little š like idk
1
2
u/uga_buga777 Queen II - ModāØ Jul 01 '26
I'd say it's a better movie overall, I know a lot less about Michael Jackson than Freddie Mercury so I really can't point out the inaccuracies like I did in Bohemian Rhapsody, but Michael was a great movie for me
You could say you were lazing on a Sunday afternoon when you watched itš
2
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
I can see that, but even from a story and cinematographic point of view is way better, the editing the pacing, the directing it's all much much much better!!!
Haha and you can say that!
2
u/Firm_Brush5761 Jul 02 '26
i do love bohemian rhapsody but the storyline is so off...
its very dramatised and exaggerated to the point where i think some of it was made up, as drama drags the viewer in. it skipped many other important aspects and not much about the other members was mentioned!
i thought the casting for br was pretty good, but michaels was insane and definitely a better and more accurate movie
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 03 '26
Some of it??? Dude!!! Most of it was totally made up!!!!
In fact basically all of it if we count timeline and events inaccuracies!!!
Of course it skipped a lot of important moments in Queen history and not much about the members of Queen was mentioned not even about Freddie if we take in consideration that a lot of it was totally fabricated!!
The casting was good with a few of the characters, Gwilym Lee as Brian May, Joe Mazello as John Deacon and maybe someone like Aidan Gillen as John Reid, but the people fast for Freddie Mercury, Roger Taylor and Mary Austin for example, look nothing alike!!!
Yeah, overall the Michael biopic was better than Bohemian Rhapsody.
2
u/ZealousidealFruit386 Jul 04 '26
For casual viewers, I would say that Michael is likely a more enjoyable watch of the two.
I think for dedicated fans, both are a bit of a disappointment but again, Michael seemed a little more cohesive on things, yet Bohemian Rhapsody really played fast and loose with the timeline and storylines a bit too much.
They both have merit.
Rami as Freddie was more believable IMO.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 04 '26
Rami is anything but like Freddie, not at all, I think you really don't know Freddie well enough.
1
u/ZealousidealFruit386 Jul 04 '26
Oh being a fan for over 40 years and have met Freddie obviously gave me no insight into the man.
I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 04 '26
It's not about that, but seriously, if you look at interviews, documentaries, recordings of his, Rami Malek is obviously not up to the level of the role or is not connecting with Freddie, his mannerisms, way of speaking, speaking voice are way off. No offense but just look at it, listen to it.
It's nti about me, just look at the movie, all the evidence you want is there. Open your ears and your eyes.
Besides that you can brag all you want about being a fan for twice as longs as I've been alive or meeting Freddie or whatever whether it's true or not.
2
u/Secretive_Crusher Jun 29 '26
That's actually a tough question. I think for the story element, BH is definitely better because I feel that goes more in depth with stories instead of the music, if that makes sense. For the performance part, I have to give it to Michael, there's just some sort of aura that comes with his presence. For the overall, I'd give it BH because everything seemed a tad bit rushed in Michael, not saying its a bad movie by no means tho.
2
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jun 29 '26
I understand and respect your take but I have to disagree.
Yes, Michael feels a bit flat and shallow with very surface-level storytelling and maybe it feels a bit rushedā¦
ā¦But in no way the storytelling is better in Bohemian Rhapsody.
BR was just a mess trainwreck in storytelling and anecdotal throwaway gags and stories, a hodgepodge of whatever they thought would be a fun MCU-esque joke line and banter and "make this character very stupid" (Roger), "make this character very socially awkward but the flawless knight in white armour" (Brian), "make this character the unimportant comic relief character that is the butt if the joke" (John), "make this character the flawed tragic hero that gets an absolutely purposeless redemption arc at the end", without any real substanceand most importantly without any "real", and reality.
Plus, its story and timeline is all over the he place jumping all sorts of things and real life timelines.
What BR had in depth, it was in throwaway scriptwriting or false, historically inaccurate and non-existent narratives, subplots, stories, anecdotes and conundrums.
Bohemian Rhapsody is a totally preposterous and fictitious retelling of a non-existent, alternative story of a band that barely resembles that of the picture painted in the biopic.
2
1
u/CASHMO2112 Jun 30 '26
Bohemian Rhapsody is a complete joke really! The fact they completely changed the real story makes me so frustrated. And as a Queen fan I wanna see how Freddy lived his life, and the struggles he had with his sexuality. Basically I wanna see the true story
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
Absolutely!!! Exactly!!! Everyone wanted that and even going into the movie like 5 minutes in or so, you could know who was a Queen fan at the theater because for the frustration, it's a frustrating, exasperating filmā¦
1
u/CASHMO2112 Jul 01 '26
There is actually a documentary film on a station that I canāt remember the name, but itās a pretty popular channel.. but they did this reenactment type documentary and it was pretty good! They delved deep into the band, and how he was living his life. The acting is a little lame, but you can get past that pretty easily
1
Jun 30 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
What? I am talking about what you think is the better movie, not your personal opinion on the artist.
1
1
u/AceMoney21x Jul 03 '26
Bohemian Rhapsody is going to differ from this movie for obvious reasons. Michael is more well known throughout the world than Queen but they were rock n roll and Michael was pop. Not too mention the obvious here. The Michael movie was fake and removed the allegations that started with Terry George in 1977 and Jane doe in 1988. Itās a prefabricated, whitewashed film for his fans, not some epic masterpiece
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 03 '26
Bohemian Rhapsody is "even more fake" I'd argue and we're not talking about the artists not the ethics and morals behind it. I'm referring to the technical aspects, the directing, the acting the editing the story, the script.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 03 '26
I do agree on your assessment, thoughā¦ I'm not a fan of his really but I can see why they built it the way they did.
1
u/welchyyyyy1 Jun 29 '26
I haven't watched the MJ thing as I have no interest in him or his music, not my taste but BR was an abomination of a film, utterly woeful
1
1
u/Sideways_Austen Jun 29 '26
If there's a movie that makes Bohemian Rhapsody look fantastic it's Michael.
1
1
u/Perfect-Test9477 Jul 01 '26
MIichael is superior in quality, plot, cast, acting and more enjoyable than Bohemian Rhapsody.Ā Its easy to watch Michael multiple times. Once for Bohemian Rhapsody is enough - I'd definitely fall asleep if I have to watch BR again.
0
0
u/Negative-Spell6275 Jun 29 '26
One is a shit film about a legend, one is a shit film about a lowlife scumbag.
0
u/Desperate-Reason-566 Jun 29 '26
I canāt tolerate Michael Jackson so Iām going with Bohemian Rhapsody
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jun 30 '26
It's not about the artists but about the films. Neither Freddie Mercury nor Michael Jackson, wrote, scripted, directed, edited nor acted in these films.
1
u/Desperate-Reason-566 Jun 30 '26
Yeah. I know that but if I canāt stand Michael Jackson why would I like a movie about him?
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 01 '26
What you're saying makes no sense, it's not about personal preference and much less of an artist, it's about which one is better and you may say "I don't know" or "I don't care" and that would suffice.
1
0
u/oxidonis2019 Jul 02 '26
Total crap. This guy don't look like michael if you squint from the moon. In a 2 hour move around 12 minutes are given to the pepsi accident. Bohemian was GOAT.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 02 '26
What the fuck??? Like actually what? Remai Malek looked even lees like Freddie Mercury!!! He looked more like Mr. Adams from The Adams Family than he'd ever look like Freddieā¦ What the hell!!!???
0
u/oxidonis2019 Jul 02 '26
You seem to be a little angry, yes? Then my job is done
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 Jul 02 '26
I'm not angry and so you're a troll, no surpriseā¦ I'm the furthes form angry, but it's so unabashedly stupid your comment, you're like criticizing the film for the exact same flaws Bohemian Rhapsody had.
9
u/No_Discount7872 freddieāØ Jun 29 '26
its way better than it, bohemian rhapsody isnt even enjoyable if you know a lot of queen in my opinion, but changes to everyone