Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for The Nutcracker and the Four Realms and Bohemian Rhapsody.
Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.
First on the docket: Christmas comes early with The Nutcracker and the Four Realms.
On Christmas Eve, a grieving young lady is transported to a mysterious world where her help is needed.
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms wants to know two things: How soon is too soon to go full Christmas? and: How is it possible to go so wrong with this story, this cast, and the full weight of Disney in your corner?
We'll start with the positives, because there are a few. The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a spectacular production with gorgeous sets and costumes, and the CGI is astonishing throughout, avoiding those missteps that have become common in even the priciest productions. The cast is top notch and mostly seems to be having fun despite the poor material. James Newton Howard's lush score perfectly compliments familiar excerpts from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite. All of those things ordinarily would keep the Four Realms spreading its cinematic cheer all the way through the new year, but...
...the Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a lousy movie. All the bells and whistles in the world can't offset a paper-thin story, an easy-to-spot twist, and a mysterious world that looks beautiful but feels more mundane than magical. An underused Helen Mirren is the only principal who seems to recognize just how badly it's all going to turn out, and she appears uncomfortable every second of her too-little screen time. The movie runs well shy of two hours, but feels very long indeed. Setting itself up as a new family holiday tradition, the Nutcracker and the Four Realms is likely to disappear from cinemas and from the memories of those who see it long before ol' Santa slides on down the chimney.
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms clocks in at 99 minutes and is rated PG for "some mild peril."
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is a criminal waste of some wonderful resources.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms gets three.
Fangirl points: Matthew Macfadyen! Jack Whitehall! Gustavo Dudamel! The divine Misty Copeland!
Next up, the much-anticipated Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody.
The story of one of the world's most revered rock n' roll bands, from inception through their performance at 1985's Live Aid.
Well, dear reader(s), as I've mentioned a time or twelve, I make every effort not to read reviews prior to writing my own, to ensure nothing outside of the film itself informs my opinion. Having said that, I spend a LOT of time online, and there's no avoiding headlines and friends' posts all the time. From what I've seen, it appears fans absolutely love Bohemian Rhapsody, and critics are somewhat less enthusiastic. I understand both sides, and I'll talk a little about each, but mostly I want you to know why I come down firmly on the side of the former.
Bohemian Rhapsody is less a grittily-realistic biography than it is a loving tribute to Freddie Mercury. While his less-flattering diva moments aren't entirely missing, they're easily outweighed by the affection with which the film presents him. The surviving members of Queen come off very well, as people who live to tell their own stories tend to do.
Though the trailers promised to tell "his story," Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't delve too deeply into Mercury's difficulties with a disapproving father, nor the painful reality of being a gay man in the 70s and 80s. It's all there, but none of it is really the focal point it might have been in a Very Serious Film releasing into awards season. It feels like filmmakers backed off a bit for fear of alienating the broader audience for which they clearly are aiming, which results in some unfortunate missed opportunities, but a happier film overall. Bohemian Rhapsody navigated a tumultuous road to the big screen, so of course there are those who feel it would have been better served by other talent that had been attached along the way. Personally, I think it does beautifully with the talent it has. Though they aren't necessarily A-List (yet), I am more than a little familiar with Rami Malik, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, and Joe Mazzello, yet I never saw anyone other than Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon up on the screen, so effectively do they embody their characters. The supporting cast is equally extraordinary. If the film is guilty of glossing over some of the lower moments in the band's and Mercury's histories, it more than makes up for it with iconic performances, perfectly mimicked by four fantastic actors. Choosing to end on a high note--with the rousing Live Aid performance--might be considered contrived, but it's a fitting tribute to a legend and that's good enough for me.
Bohemian Rhapsody runs 134 minutes (could have gone another 134 with no complaints here) and is rated PG13 for "thematic elements, suggestive material, drug content, and language."
Bohemian Rhapsody may be a less-than-factual biopic, but it's a joyful tribute to one of the greatest bands of all time, and I enjoyed every minute. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Bohemian Rhapsody gets nine.
Fangirl points: Gwilym Lee!! Rami Malek! Tom Hollander! Aidan Gillen! (This might be my favorite cast ever!)
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment