‘Bohemian Rhapsody’: Rami Malek Is The Lone High Note In This Sexless, Shallow Biopic [Review]

Like trying to hit that famed high B flat on “Galileo” without a warm-up, “Bohemian Rhapsody” is embarrassingly unprepared to cover the life of its subject — Freddie Mercury. This jumbled take on the legend is squawky, sexless, and shallow, assaulting the senses as it offers little insight or real depth into Mercury or the band he fronted. This is despite running an overlong 134 minutes, which at once feels like far too much time and not nearly enough. “Bohemian Rhapsody” takes the medley approach to the musician’s biography, changing songs abruptly – literally and figuratively – in each moment it starts to get interesting. Even the iconic Live Aid concert gets the radio edit treatment, giving the audience only a sampling of the man and the band’s full spectrum of genius.

That benefit show bookends the film, with a brief intro and an epic, fist-pumping foot-stomper of a climax that is by far the film’s best moment in an extended sequence that last 11 minutes (about half the length of the band’s actual appearance). But “Bohemian Rhapsody” begins in earnest when it joins Mercury (Rami Malek) in London in 1970, just before he meets up with guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) to form what would become the legendary rock band, Queen, along with bassist John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello). Mercury’s compelling vocals and compositions lead them to be courted by manager John Reid (Aiden Gillen) and his assistant Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), landing a record deal at EMI and catapulting to worldwide stardom. In parallel, the movie delves into his personal relationships, first with long-time partner Mary (Lucy Boynton), and then with his romances and dalliances with men.

There’s been almost as much off-screen drama surrounding “Bohemian Rhapsody” as there is on screen. The film’s credited director, Bryan Singer, disappeared during filming, which led to his firing and replacement by Dexter Fletcher. Singer has also been frequently, and credibly, accused of sexual assault, and he’s currently trying to get ahead of an upcoming Esquire article that could be even more damning. All that turmoil shows up on screen with a visual style that’s all over the place, particularly in its transitions. The filmmakers may have been trying to echo Queen’s many musical evolutions, but that works less well in a single film than it did in their discography. Moments feel like they were taken from a different movie entirely, whether it’s the single use of quotes on screen to show the critical reaction to the song “Bohemian Rhapsody” or the out-of-place, obnoxious graphics during a tour sequence. At times, it’s a garish mess that thinks that louder is better when it’s actually just louder.

If you were wondering what “Bohemian Rhapsody’s” theme is, you’re in luck – as was “Darkest Hour” and “The Theory of Everything” screenwriter Anthony McCarten (the go-to for bland biopics that Oscar voters and your dad alike will love). Mercury just so happened to have written a song, Queen’s hit “Somebody to Love,” that so clearly lays out the script’s approach to the rocker that McCarten didn’t really have to do much character work – or didn’t think he did – in establishing the man as lonely and desperate for connection. That point is so bluntly hammered home at each point that we’re left wondering that if it was so obvious how isolated Mercury was, why did no one in his orbit attempt to connect?

But what’s most astonishing about this version of Mercury’s life is that it’s so utterly sexless. Malek does his best, but the material gets only a PG-13 rating for “suggestive material,” among other things when there’s no reason to be so tame. This isn’t a biopic about Lyndon B. Johnson. Sex and sexiness were so intertwined with Mercury’s public persona that making a film this entirely lacking in anything more than the hint of lust can only be seen as intentional.

When the first trailer was released, Bryan Fuller worried that the film was ignoring Mercury’s bisexuality, but ultimately “Bohemian Rhapsody” does address it, in words, if not in deeds, at least as clearly as it does anything else (which is not that well). Where McCarten’s script and Singer/Fletcher’s direction really fails Mercury’s memory is in only devoting a brief postscript to the final six years of the musician’s life, where he had a committed relationship with another man and struggled with – and ultimately succumbed to – AIDS. As filmmakers, if you’re only interested in his most prolific period, music-wise, that’s fine, I guess, but maybe you’re making a movie about the wrong man.

Admittedly, “Bohemian Rhapsody” has a lot of ground to cover about a life and a career that spanned decades, but it blitzes through scenes and eras, touching briefly on compelling moments and then moving on too quickly. In their first studio recording, a montage shows them innovating the sounds listeners will hear, using coins on a drum and a swinging amp, but we get few details about how they made these decisions. On their first world tour, a trucker flirts with Mercury, then there’s a quick cut to the next scene. There’s no sense of rhythm or knowledge of what is actually worth spending time within the musician’s biography.

Both Mercury and Malek deserve better than this. In a role that couldn’t be more of a contrast with the actor’s Emmy-winning work as the guarded hacker on “Mr. Robot,” he goes big and bold, matching Mercury’s physicality, despite his slight stature. But it’s the small moments and expressions that truly elevate his performance. Unfortunately, the rest of the film just can’t keep up.

“Are you happy, are you satisfied?” Mercury asks during the climactic Live Aid scene, and in that electric moment, the answer is yes. But going out on a high note doesn’t make up for the rest of the movie’s flaws. Despite its intentions to get close to Mercury, “Bohemian Rhapsody” is as intimate as a sold-out stadium show, with none of the accompanying power. [D+]