Queen's Prog Moments & Album Ranking

[SteveSly]

Despite having horrendously negative critiques, the movie is a good hit in Continental western Europe.

Many of the critics do seem to hate it, but I thought it was really really well done, and I was prepared for it to be a let down.

[thedunno]

1 Queen II
2 Sheer Heart Attack
3 Day at the races
4 Night at the opera
5 Queen I
6 Jazz
7 News of the world

(large gap)

Innuendo,The game , the works, A kind of magic and the Miracle

(another large gap)

Hot space, Flash Gordon and Made in heaven


After Jazz they never really managed to impress me. Even the praised Innuendo seeems to lack that power and urgency that the earlier albums have.

[Nashorn]

Despite having horrendously negative critiques, the movie is a good hit in Continental western Europe.

I don't know where you live, but the German reviews I've read were mostly quite positive.

[calyx]

I went to see the film earlier this week, quite expecting to like it after I'd read/heard positive reviews, which did mention that factual inaccuracies around the "Live Aid" closing segment. To be honest I was rather underwhelmed. First, there are many more factual inaccuracies, to the point where every single event depicted in the film can be doubted to ever have happened. OK, so they wanted to make the "Live Aid" comeback a little more dramatic by pretending the band hadn't played together "in years" (said by Brian May in the film), when in fact it took place a couple of months after they'd ended the world tour for "The Works". Sure, there had been a point in 1983 where Mercury was in Germany making his solo stuff after the "Hot Space" fiasco, but was there ever anything akin to a "break-up" ? Certainly the band meeting in the film where the rest of the band "pardon" Mercury in order to make the "Live Aid" show happen is ENTIRELY fictional - unless it happened prior to them recording "The Works" ? Others have pointed out that 1977's "We Will Rock You" is depicted as written in 1980, and the recording of their first album is a bizarre mix of them doing their first (in a shitty studio with their own money) and second (recording "Seven Seas Of Rhye" with better production values).

Added to that was the generally appalling dialogue, as in the several instances of band members (mostly May) expounding on how Queen were a band of "regular people" their fans could identify with. I was also bothered by the guy who plays Mercury being seemingly bothered by his false teeth to the point where he seems to struggle emitting any sound with his mouth whenever he's not singing. I haven't seen many actual Mercury interviews but it isn't my recollection that he spoke like that.

In the end the film did reaffirm my view that Mercury was an exceptional vocalist, but not much else. Whatever else I like about Queen was either secondary or absent from the film. I was talking to a friend last night about music biopics and we both agreed the Brian Wilson one was largely superior in every department.

[SteveSly]

I went to see the film earlier this week, quite expecting to like it after I'd read/heard positive reviews, which did mention that factual inaccuracies around the "Live Aid" closing segment. To be honest I was rather underwhelmed. First, there are many more factual inaccuracies, to the point where every single event depicted in the film can be doubted to ever have happened. OK, so they wanted to make the "Live Aid" comeback a little more dramatic by pretending the band hadn't played together "in years" (said by Brian May in the film), when in fact it took place a couple of months after they'd ended the world tour for "The Works". Sure, there had been a point in 1983 where Mercury was in Germany making his solo stuff after the "Hot Space" fiasco, but was there ever anything akin to a "break-up" ? Certainly the band meeting in the film where the rest of the band "pardon" Mercury in order to make the "Live Aid" show happen is ENTIRELY fictional - unless it happened prior to them recording "The Works" ? Others have pointed out that 1977's "We Will Rock You" is depicted as written in 1980, and the recording of their first album is a bizarre mix of them doing their first (in a shitty studio with their own money) and second (recording "Seven Seas Of Rhye" with better production values).

Added to that was the generally appalling dialogue, as in the several instances of band members (mostly May) expounding on how Queen were a band of "regular people" their fans could identify with. I was also bothered by the guy who plays Mercury being seemingly bothered by his false teeth to the point where he seems to struggle emitting any sound with his mouth whenever he's not singing. I haven't seen many actual Mercury interviews but it isn't my recollection that he spoke like that.

In the end the film did reaffirm my view that Mercury was an exceptional vocalist, but not much else. Whatever else I like about Queen was either secondary or absent from the film. I was talking to a friend last night about music biopics and we both agreed the Brian Wilson one was largely superior in every department.

You are correct about the inaccuracies, but it did not bother me that much. From what I have read there were tensions at the end of "The Works" tour, but it does not appear that there was anything close to a break up. Of course Roger Taylor did a solo album before Freddie did, so that is off too.

As far as the actors portrayals of the band members, I thought they were pretty much spot on, especially Brian May. That guy sounded (and looked) pretty much exactly like May. I thought the Freddie depiction was very good too. Freddie often came across as rather shy in many interviews I have seen with him, and I thought they captured that quite well.

[Trane]

I don't know where you live, but the German reviews I've read were mostly quite positive.

It's in below my avatar; though I work around the greater Amsterdam

The negative reviews I've heard/read were coming more from the rock experts than the pure movie critics, and were concentrating on the downplaying of Mercury's decadence (to the point that he's presented as an "LBGT-activist avant la lettre" and all sorts of personal abuses of all kinds (partying 'till you drop, thing), mainly, but many "approximations" about the band's history.

How much of that is justified, I don't know, and I probably will not know, since I don't really plan to see it (unless I get a near-unanimous nod from specialized sites like this one)

I went to see the film earlier this week, quite expecting to like it after I'd read/heard positive reviews, which did mention that factual inaccuracies around the "Live Aid" closing segment. To be honest I was rather underwhelmed. First, there are many more factual inaccuracies, to the point where every single event depicted in the film can be doubted to ever have happened. OK, so they wanted to make the "Live Aid" comeback a little more dramatic by pretending the band hadn't played together "in years" (said by Brian May in the film), when in fact it took place a couple of months after they'd ended the world tour for "The Works". Sure, there had been a point in 1983 where Mercury was in Germany making his solo stuff after the "Hot Space" fiasco, but was there ever anything akin to a "break-up" ? Certainly the band meeting in the film where the rest of the band "pardon" Mercury in order to make the "Live Aid" show happen is ENTIRELY fictional - unless it happened prior to them recording "The Works" ? Others have pointed out that 1977's "We Will Rock You" is depicted as written in 1980, and the recording of their first album is a bizarre mix of them doing their first (in a shitty studio with their own money) and second (recording "Seven Seas Of Rhye" with better production values).

Added to that was the generally appalling dialogue, as in the several instances of band members (mostly May) expounding on how Queen were a band of "regular people" their fans could identify with. I was also bothered by the guy who plays Mercury being seemingly bothered by his false teeth to the point where he seems to struggle emitting any sound with his mouth whenever he's not singing. I haven't seen many actual Mercury interviews but it isn't my recollection that he spoke like that.

those are the more frequent critics read/heard that kept resonating with me
I also heard once or twice that this was more of a vehicle to Mercury's glory than one to the band... and I don't have much a trouble to believe it in my current state of mind about it

[Nashorn]

It's in below my avatar; though I work around the greater Amsterdam

Oh yes, sorry, I had overlooked that.

The negative reviews I've heard/read were coming more from the rock experts than the pure movie critics, and were concentrating on the downplaying of Mercury's decadence (to the point that he's presented as an "LBGT-activist avant la lettre" and all sorts of personal abuses of all kinds (partying 'till you drop, thing), mainly, but many "approximations" about the band's history.

How much of that is justified, I don't know, and I probably will not know, since I don't really plan to see it (unless I get a near-unanimous nod from specialized sites like this one)

Yes, I completely understand that, but it didn't really bother me, since I have never been a big fan of Queen (although I enjoy listening to them from time to time). I enjoyed the movie as an entertaining piece that celebrates the band and the music. It probably would have been different for a band that I am really into, then the inaccuracies might have bugged me more. :-)