Anyone else find biopics extremely boring?

wobatkicker23 · 09-03-2019 11:24pm #1

Lincoln, The Iron Lady, the Churchill one, Bohemian Rhapsody.

Films where you know exactly what happens and it comes down to how well the actor pretends to be the real life person but is often an imitation.

No imagination or intrigue.

Anyone else can’t stand biopics or is it just me?

Heckler · 09-03-2019 11:50pm

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

Lincoln, The Iron Lady, the Churchill one, Bohemian Rhapsody.

Films where you know exactly what happens and it comes down to how well the actor pretends to be the real life person but is often an imitation.

No imagination or intrigue.

Anyone else can’t stand biopics or is it just me?

I like biopics. What I don't like is people saying Oh he doesn't even look like him. Rami Malick got a lot of grief for not looking enough like Freddie.

I'm a huge Johnny Cash fan. Joacquin Phoenix didn't look like Johnny Cash at all but I enjoyed Walk The Line.

Sad Professor · 10-03-2019 12:15am

Conventional biopics - yes, usually very boring and very lazily made films designed as star vehicles for their lead actor and/or to win awards. Directors are often hacks, collecting a paycheque, or working with poor material. But there are exceptions. First Man last year while it had a more or less by-the-numbers script for the genre, was extremely well directed.

My favourite biopic of recent years is Jackie.

Dades · 10-03-2019 12:17am

A biopic done right can be fantastic.

Bohemian Rhapsody was paint-by-numbers and clearly made under the watch of the remaining band members.

I, Tonya and The Wolf of Wall Street are two great biopics of the last few years. Great stuff.

pixelburp · 10-03-2019 12:28am

I watched an interesting essay on YouTube - the name escapes me atm - and while its focus was mostly on musical biopics it suggested a core failing of these boilerplate films: too many are the story OF the subject, instead of a story ABOUT them as people.

That they're too intent on telling generic, brief biographies of the artists life instead of taking a crystalised moment and exploring the character. Trying to tell everything but ending up saying nothing, and doing so in the most rote fashion.

It further made the point that by all accounts, Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story should have killed off the genres as it (continues to) exists, but the film flopped so hard it kinda disappeared.

Sleeper12 · 10-03-2019 12:49am

wobatkicker23 wrote:

Lincoln, The Iron Lady, the Churchill one, Bohemian Rhapsody.

wobatkicker23 wrote:

Films where you know exactly what happens and it comes down to how well the actor pretends to be the real life person but is often an imitation.

Bohemian Rhapsody wasn't factual. I wouldn't call it a biop. I certainly didn't know what was coming next in the movie. It was more fiction than fact. Freddies solo album split the band? In the real world Freddie was the third member of Queen to release a solo album not the first. The band never broke up. In 1985 Queen had "the works" tour. This finished about 6 weeks before liveaid. They didn't get back together for liveaid. They weren't rusty & they didn't even need to rehearse because they were fresh off a tour.

otnomart · 10-03-2019 8:47am

Depends from the biopic.
I did enjoy Walk the Line.
Also The Imitation Game; Iris (with Dench and Winslet) and Sylvia (with Paltrow)

Tipsy McSwagger · 10-03-2019 9:15am

I refuse to watch BR, I’ve seen some clips and it looks terrible. Best music biopic ever is ‘Behind the Candelabra’. It’s brilliantly acted and absolutely hilarious.

Technocentral · 10-03-2019 3:22pm

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

Lincoln, The Iron Lady, the Churchill one, Bohemian Rhapsody.

Films where you know exactly what happens and it comes down to how well the actor pretends to be the real life person but is often an imitation.

No imagination or intrigue.

Anyone else can’t stand biopics or is it just me?

Big generalisation, there are good and bad films in all genres, stories based on real life people can be as good or bad as fiction.

Technocentral · 10-03-2019 3:28pm

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

Lincoln, The Iron Lady, the Churchill one, Bohemian Rhapsody.

Films where you know exactly what happens and it comes down to how well the actor pretends to be the real life person but is often an imitation.

No imagination or intrigue.

Anyone else can’t stand biopics or is it just me?

Big generalisation, there are good and bad films in all genres, stories based on real life people can be as good or bad as fiction. Lincoln, First Man, I Tonya, Downfall, The Aviator, Milk,Straight Outta Compton, Love and Mercy and Control all great.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 8:47pm

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I refuse to watch BR, I’ve seen some clips and it looks terrible. Best music biopic ever is ‘Behind the Candelabra’. It’s brilliantly acted and absolutely hilarious.

And having seen it you are completely right.

tuxy · 10-03-2019 8:52pm

Dades wrote: »

Bohemian Rhapsody was paint-by-numbers and clearly made under the watch of the remaining band members.

Why then was the story in Bohemian Rhapsody so completely different from what actually happened? It was the films main flaw imo.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 8:56pm

tuxy wrote: »

Why then was the story in Bohemian Rhapsody so completely different from what actually happened? It was the films main flaw imo.

Because a lot of the real details are pretty nondescript. The worst one in the film was the "breakup".

frisbeeface · 10-03-2019 8:58pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I watched an interesting essay on YouTube - the name escapes me atm - and while its focus was mostly on musical biopics it suggested a core failing of these boilerplate films: too many are the story OF the subject, instead of a story ABOUT them as people.

That they're too intent on telling generic, brief biographies of the artists life instead of taking a crystalised moment and exploring the character. Trying to tell everything but ending up saying nothing, and doing so in the most rote fashion.

It further made the point that by all accounts, Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story should have killed off the genres as it (continues to) exists, but the film flopped so hard it kinda disappeared.

I think this is the one you are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3q3LEaK7_U

branie2 · 11-03-2019 8:03pm

I like them

JohnFalstaff · 12-03-2019 3:09am

branie2 wrote: »

I like them

Me too. Watkin's Edvard Munch is wonderful.

Ciaran_B · 12-03-2019 12:12pm

If they're done with a bit of imagination they can be good - like the Bob Dylan one 'I'm Not There'. The Oscar-sludge stuff that's popular now is just trash.

odyssey06 · 12-03-2019 12:17pm

I think I'd rather see a film that focused on one crucial period \ event and used that to show the essence of the person, rather than trying to hit a lot of life milestones.

pixelburp · 12-03-2019 12:31pm

frisbeeface wrote: »

I think this is the one you are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3q3LEaK7_U

Yes, that's the one; made some good points about just how formulaic these films are, and the note about Dewey Cox was a good one.

Perifect · 12-03-2019 12:42pm

Bohemian Rhapsody clearly wasn't factual and the bandmates made themselves look like angels, this shows that people involved shouldn't have that big a role in the making of biopics. I never watched Churchill, I'm guessing that wasn't actually factual either. It painted him in a good light? Not as a horrible, racist man who despised Indians and blamed them for the millions who died of starvation?

spurious · 12-03-2019 1:13pm

I enjoyed 'On the Basis of Sex', Ruth Bader Ginsburg's story, even though I knew what would happen.

CelticRambler · 12-03-2019 1:14pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I watched an interesting essay on YouTube - the name escapes me atm - and while its focus was mostly on musical biopics it suggested a core failing of these boilerplate films: too many are the story OF the subject, instead of a story ABOUT them as people.

That they're too intent on telling generic, brief biographies of the artists life instead of taking a crystalised moment and exploring the character. Trying to tell everything but ending up saying nothing, and doing so in the most rote fashion.

Having listened to too many dreary autobiographies read by the author on RTE Radio 1 and BBC Radio 4, I've come to treat "based on a true story" as a good sign that I probably shouldn't watch any movie with that tagline. Of course I rarely stick rigidly to my own rule, so have watched too many dreary biopics and agree with the above. They can be beautifully made films, well-acted/shot/edited/directed with (or without) a great score, but in essence be nothing more than a long-drawn-out, not entirely factual chronicle of someone's "journey" to some arbitrary point in their life. I find movies with a similar theme based entirely on a fictional character are usually much more enjoyable.

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 12:49pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think I'd rather see a film that focused on one crucial period \ event and used that to show the essence of the person, rather than trying to hit a lot of life milestones.

Agreed. Hidden Figures for example played very fast and loose with biographical details but to terrific effect.

branie2 · 13-03-2019 6:17pm

My fav biopic is Michael Collins

Relikk · 14-03-2019 12:51pm

Ed Wood is the only outstanding biopic I can think of, off the top of my head.

I find most biopics boring and formulaic.

Skerries · 14-03-2019 3:27pm

there have been some outstanding bipics over the years which I would easily watch again and have

Schindler's List
The Doors
My Left Foot
Lawrence of Arabia

SimonTemplar · 14-03-2019 10:39pm

While watching Vice, I kept thinking that the subject matter would have been better served by a well crafted Netflix documentary, like the ones on Trump.

santana75 · 19-03-2019 7:44pm

I'd agree, most are terribly boring. Occasionally though someone comes up with an out of the box concept and magic is occurs. Amadeus is one that springs to mind. Im pretty sure its not historically accurate in any way, but its a cracking film all the same.