In Elvis, Baz Luhrmann’s campy excesses overshadow The King’s essence
By giving Tom Hanks free rein as Elvis' manipulative manager, Luhrmann diminishes a groundbreaking artist and his monumental accomplishments
Film Reviews Baz Luhrmann
There’s undeniably something appealing about artists who cannot be anyone but themselves—especially filmmakers who bring 100 percent of their personality to every project, whether or not it needs that much. Baz Luhrmann is one of those artists, and it should have made him the perfect director for Elvis, the life story of Elvis Presley, a singular artist in his own right. Unfortunately, what audiences get from Luhrmann is simply excessive: his fast-cutting super-montage style overpowers the subject matter, and the result is an impressionistic, jumbled highlight reel of Presley’s many accomplishments, despite vivid recreations by actor Austin Butler as The King.
That Luhrmann enlists Tom Hanks to play Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis’ calculating manager, is no doubt intended to showcase both the control Presley lacked in his career, and the irrepressible talent and charisma that transcended that control. But the director’s oppressive style, always angling for a blinding, speed-ramped depiction of events that are already interesting enough by themselves, sadly revisits that trauma upon the late star twofold—first by Parker on screen and then by the filmmaker as his would-be biographer.
Hanks, as Parker, narrates the film, which is at least as much his as it is Presley’s. A music promoter shepherding singer Hank Snow from one revue to another, he crosses paths with Elvis shortly after the release of “That’s All Right” on Sun Records and immediately sees the commercial potential—especially when the young singer causes eruptions of spontaneous excitement from an otherwise genteel crowd. For his part, Presley is simply harnessing the twin influences of rhythm & blues and gospel that he experienced while growing up in Memphis’ poorest, and blackest, neighborhoods. But Parker, seeing dollar signs in the young man’s hips, soon seduces the singer away from his Sun contract with the security of a house that would become Graceland, and the promise of a family business run by his well-meaning but feckless father Vernon (Richard Roxburgh).
Presley’s half-Pentecostal/half-pornographic gyrations in a handful of television appearances soon land him in hot water with a white Moral Majority that fears his proximity—musical and otherwise—to the black artists that inspired him. Parker suggests that enlisting in the Army (even though IRL Elvis was drafted) will both appease his critics and perhaps work out some of the rebellious energy underpinning his mesmerizing charisma. While serving in Germany, Presley meets a serviceman’s daughter, Priscilla (Olivia DeJonge), who later becomes his wife; after returning stateside, he transitions into film acting, an endeavor that leaches much of his fan base and, with each disposable project, diminishes his goal to become a serious actor “like James Dean.”
Returning to music with a television special in 1968, Presley rekindles his career and makes plans for a world tour. But when Parker’s gambling debts—and his mysterious past—threaten to catch up with him, the manager manipulates his star into settling for a years-long residency in Las Vegas, where drug abuse and the excesses of fame inevitably catch up to Elvis, threatening to undermine his legacy.
Luhrmann astutely observes that Presley’s career was a bellwether for America’s cultural and political changes between the 1950s and late ’60s, but he gives selective attention at best to what even a casual Elvis historian would call “pivotal” moments, from his first recordings to his reactions to the deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. It’s no new insight to observe that the filmmaker is terminally afraid of silence or stillness, but Luhrmann starts cannibalizing his subject’s life early with montage after montage—less in service of Presley’s perspective than that of Parker. And while it’s clear from the beginning that the manager is a slimeball, the film never adds new or meaningful dimensions to that portrait.
Despite Parker’s repeated efforts (on screen and one presumes in real life) to tame his client, one thing that Luhrmann captures effectively is how Presley simultaneously kickstarted the country’s sexual awakening, and came to embody it, via the black music—the “race records”—from which the young man borrowed so liberally and (according to this film, anyway) lovingly. One hopes that there were at least a few young gay men as comfortably thirsty while watching Presley’s first major TV appearance back in the ’50s as the one depicted in the film. But what’s fascinating (and fun) to watch is the way that as a largely unknown quantity, especially among white audiences, Presley’s music and his movements chummed up feelings that few fans previously had outlets for and, consequently, were helpless to resist them, in part because they were unable to fully comprehend them.
As Elvis, Butler is pretty phenomenal; playing the singer from his teens to his final days, singing, dancing, (briefly) fattening up and everything in between, there are no cracks in his performance (I don’t know how many of the vocal performances were his, and don’t especially care). If as an actor he exudes slightly more danger—at least by the standards of contemporary aesthetics—than the real Elvis, it feels like the right choice under a filmmaker incapable of subtlety. But in terms of the character’s depth and identity, Butler navigates a spider web-thin through line amongst Luhrmann’s noisy machinery.
More baffling—even catastrophic—is Hanks’ turn as Tom Parker, whose simmering Dutch roots were distantly identifiable in real life but are amplified here by an accent better suited for one of Austin Powers’ enemies. Notwithstanding the just plain bad choice to tell the story of one of the most iconic artists from the viewpoint of his scoundrel of a manager, Hanks maintains a consistent veneer of menace and untrustworthiness, down to his cryptic descriptions of Presley as the singer’s cultural stature grows throughout the film. One supposes that Hanks deserves credit for finally playing an outright villain for the first time in his career, but he plays Parker like such a fiend that it seems clear he was egged on, to his detriment, by Luhrmann’s campy excesses.
Luhrmann, who co-wrote, produced, and directed the film, revisits some of his earlier tricks from The Great Gatsby and Moulin Rouge to give Presley contemporary relevance, weaving a musical tapestry out of the singer’s hits and music from contemporary artists. But like everything else in the film, they’re mashed up to no meaningful effect, while he languishes too much effort by half recreating costumes, sets and locations from periods in his subject’s life. Somehow, Elvis’ Vegas stage show looks exactingly rendered, but the director cannot convincingly stage scenes that take place at an airstrip or on a hilltop in Hollywood.
One imagines that for Luhrmann, such criticisms roll like water off the Brylcreem in young Elvis’ immaculately appointed pompadour—or maybe they’re beside the point for someone so entrenched in cartoonish theatricality. But when you feel like you know less about a subject after a film than before, that’s a bad thing. If one thing is clear from the story told here, it’s that the artist seldom (if ever) felt fully able to express himself and explore his creative ambitions on his own terms. Luhrmann was clearly able to do so—for himself, anyway—in attempting to tell Presley’s story. But as a coda to a career that probably can’t be contained in a film by anybody, much less this particular filmmaker, Elvis sadly reiterates the through line of his legacy: it’s another example of artists exploiting Presley in pursuit of their own greatness instead of honoring his.
104 Comments
I mean Elvis is pretty camp that I don’t mind the approach, but doesn’t seem to blend well with the standard beats of a biopic.At least in a rare instance the family loved it and Butler’s performance.
That’s how I knew that this movie has gotten bad reviews. In the ads they only mention that Priscilla liked it.
No, they lean pretty heavily on Lisa Marie too :)I thought exactly the same thing. They can’t find a single critic to even quote out of context.
The thing is, the reviews are not bad at all. Currently sitting at an 84% on RT.
They used to do something like a critic calling a movies costumes great. They would just have the word great as the so called glowing review.
I’m also guessing based on the casting choice of Olivia DeJonge and the reviews I’ve heard so far that the movie sidesteps the issue of a 14 year old girl being courted by a man in his mid-20s.
which as much as I think Elvis was unaware of his appropriation of Black music, I don’t think he was unaware that he groomed a girl because even back then people thought that was fucking weird.Riley Keough mentions that he left their family with a lot of generational trauma, and so it must be kind of weird emotional times in the fam right now.
What’s even weirder is that Priscilla was an officer’s daughter. In the social culture of the military, officers usually try to keep their daughters as far away from the lower enlisted men as possible. Then again, he wasn’t just Private Presley from Tupelo at this time, he was already world-famous Elvis.
Her family were definitely not big fans of the adult man who was dating their daughter, but because they were in Germany and he was going back to America soon they figured it wasn’t going to go anywhere. And then Elvis went back to America, and they kept up a long-distance relationship until she essentially ran away to be with him.
to be fair- not excusing it- Elvis never had sex with Priscilla and was amazingly considering his image somewhat not that sexual; it’s one of the reasons she divorced him. She said in her book (which, bizarrely to me, inspired the Depeche Mode song “Personal Jesus”) that Elvis resisted her desires until they were married and they barely touched her again. Reading Peter Guralnick’s exhaustive Elvis biography, I was astounded at how many different women he interviewed that saw Elvis in the 70s that themselves were kind of taken aback that Elvis never had sex with them and just wanted them to hold him and read books about numerology to him. Bizarre dude, yes. But far less perverted than the image suggests
RT is showing an 83%, but most of the scores are 3.5/5. Not great not terrible.
I mean, what else is the family going to say?
I’m not excited about this one but you can’t use a director’s tropes as a way of criticising the film. “This Baz Luhmann film is bad because Baz Luhmann made it” shouldn’t fly because the criticism should be centered around why certain directorial choices were made in the first place.
Nah, it’s a perfectly valid perspective given how identifiable Luhrmann’s tropes are and the fact this is a biopic and not an original script.
As for why the choices were made, that should be obvious: Luhrmann is clearly far more interested in some aspects of the story than others, but they tend to be the more superficial aspects and not ones that reflect Elvis’s inner life – again, a common problem with his films in general and something that’s commented on within the review.
Agreed – there are Wes Anderson films I love because they’re a real story with real characters, strongly flavored with his personal style (Tenenbaums, Rushmore, many parts of Life Aquatic). And then there are Wes Anderson films that do nothing for me because they’re just cold empty style on style on style (most of the rest)
Why does it being a biopic obligate it to not be like this? Would you say the same of Ken Russell’s The Music Lovers?
Ken Russell is such a great comparison to Baz Luhrmann: we can agree that even when his style and aesthetics have always been wild, sometimes hey might have been too wild for a biopic (litzsomania)
It’s still not a valid criticism. The director is the main identity of the film. Not the writers (of which Luhmann is one half) nor Elvis himself. The director has the identity, and tropes are a way of the director expressing this identity. Clouding Elvis clearly wasn’t a concern of Luhrmann’s while making a Baz Luhmann movie or the tropes wouldn’t be there in the first place. It’s not good criticism.
That’s not necessarily true. An Aaron Sorkin project usually has very specific positives and negatives, its whether the negatives override the positives that delineate the social network from being the ricardos
Subjectively. I like Newsroom but Aaron Sorkin’s vision of America is candy-coated, fake and ridiculous. It doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with this, because I am just me. Just because I have an opinion, it doesn’t mean that it is a review, or any other kind of profession criticism.
What? No. It is very believable that all the worst things about this movie are precisely the most Baz Luhrmann things about this movie.
To you, to others. That’s still irrelevant. No one cares whether some people hate the Luhmann feel or some others do. It’s not criticism.
True, except that they’re engaged in writing an article about one of his movies. Which makes it pretty damn relevant.
Why are they engaged? What’s forcing them to indulge the work of a filmmaker they do not care for?
first off, i’m not sure what insight you expect a critic to have into specific decisions a director has made, nor do i understand what difference that makes to critiquing. the ‘why’ doesn’t really matter if the movie doesn’t work.second off, ‘baz made specific choice X, Y and Z and therefore this movie is bad’ isn’t exactly a long walk from “This Baz Luhmann film is bad because Baz Luhmann made it” (which i don’t even think is the main takeaway from this review). i’m curious as to what your idealized version of this review would read like.third off, yes you can! you can absolutely criticize the direction of a movie in conversation with a director’s style. that’s like the whole point of having a style!
And it’s a criticism the director risks when they have as obnoxious and cringe-inducing a style as Baz Luhrmann, the world’s worst living director (in a world where Guy Ritchie is alive, that’s quite an accomplishment).
“If they wanted you to think about the director while you’re watching a movie, they’d show the director’s name before the movie!” – the internet
Why is the only valid form of criticism. The rest is opinionated football commentary with no substance. You have it backwards. Studies say that film reviews don’t hamper the box office and over the years the material has changed from asking why a filmmaker does what they do to: “I am a blogger and I don’t think the movie worked – and that’s the only thing you need to hear.” It’s not criticism. It’s an opinion.
no, you invented a bunch of rules in your head and are mad at the internet about it. every criticism is an opinion. even the criticism you like.
I have a masters in the craft. I know the rules. Most bloggers make up their own rules, especially American bloggers. When criticism was at its peak, What the film was saying was topic number 1. Now it isn’t even a topic at all. ’X’ is a ‘bad movie and here’s why,’ is about as much as people can muster in these depressing times we are in.
I mean, Baz Luhrmann directing the film literally is the reason that all Baz Lurhmann films are bad, so…
To say Elvis borrowed liberally and lovingly from Black artists is not just disengenuous but false. He stole. Full stop.
That’s the movie I want.
That’s giving Elvis too much credit. Seriously.I say none of that as a defender of Elvis, but as a literal student of African American culture in the post-WWII days; Elvis didn’t consciously “steal” anything- he was unwitting, guileless. This was amped up in the public subconsciousness by a publication in the 50s’ owned by a White conservative geared towards Black readers and then Chuck D’s comment in a Public Enemy song.
Elvis knew “That’s All Right” which was an Arthur Crudup song. This was 1954 and Elvis came up in poverty; the fact that he knew it in a pre-Youtube world is astonishing enough (the musicians with him didn’t know it and initially thought Elvis made it up)- it was not the first song Elvis played. It was the 17th, after numerous Dean Martin ballads and country songs. Elvis stumbled upon it. “Hound Dog”, “Jailhouse Rock”, “Heartbreak Hotel”, among others were written by White people, incidentally.
But here’s the kicker that even the film keeps missing and was reiterated by a Black professor I had: what you are thinking of is something misappropriated unfairly towards Elvis- Sam Phillips was quoted as saying if he had a White singer who could capture the Black feel, he’d make a million bucks- Elvis NEVER SOUNDED BLACK. He sounds like a Country singer. I defy you to find one Black singer from 1954-1956 that sounds like Elvis. This “Elvis sounds Black” stems from WHITE people- White people who didn’t listen to Black artists. Go listen to Perry Como records or Hank Snow records- that’s what the majority of White people heard. Elvis sounds insane by comparison. But Elvis “stole” from Black artists is bullshit. B.B. King especially spoke out about this. Learn the score before you repeat the same old tired tropes. It’s not Elvis, but it’s Black artists of his caliber that you’re doing a disservice to.
Great points; I suppose there’s no convincing folks who equate Elvis to someone like Pat Boone, whose Little Richard covers were expressly intended to supplant Little Richard’s records on radio and white kids’ turntables. But I’ll add that one of Elvis’s major vocal influences was Clyde McPhatter, and Elvis’s phrasing etc., particularly on early ballads like “I Was the One” and “I Want You I Need You I Love You,” owes a lot to McPhatter. So that’s one Black singer he sounded like. Roy Hamilton being another major influence, and I pretty clearly hear his influence on Elvis too.
wisbyron – I was about to leap into this argument, but you did it much more articulately than I could. Good damn job.I always did find it amusing that Sam Phillips went on and on about finding a white singer who could sound black, because… you’re right, Elvis sounded like (and was) a white boy from Mississippi. He was good, he was great… but to me he always sound like he’s from the south. [There’s a lot to be said about the white music publishers and producers who grabbed credit – and royalties – from artists (a lot of black artists) pretty much in exchange for radio play. I think the DJ Alan Freed did it a few times too, but I can’t remember. It’s a pretty shady practice that still goes on; the money is in publishing, and if you can “contribute” to a song and get a co-writing credit, the money just keeps coming.]
Elvis NEVER SOUNDED BLACK. He sounds like a Country singer.Facts. Reminds me of the stories you hear about Dr. Dre listening to one of Eminem’s mixtapes and not knowing he was white, which always sounded like absolute bullshit to me — Eminem has never sounded like anything other than an angry white dude.
i think he tried to sound more black in his early stuff. or like, sounded like a white guy who was trying to sound black, so if you’re half listening to it on a cassette you could probably be fooled.
One of his first major songs was Blue Moon of Kentucky, a Bill Monroe song that he quite hated since it wasn’t a folk interpretation.
Country music, as well as rock and roll were also black music.
Country music has black roots, but it also has Irish roots, because it owes a lot to folk. Music history is so much more complicated than just “one group made it and another group stole it”. Sometimes it is racist, but a lot of the time it’s more about poor people producing it and rich people making money off of it and trying to control it, like all art. It’s much more about class than race.
Black people invented music!
43 white people agreed with you lol. Elvis was white soul because white people didn’t want their kids dancing to black music. He stole it. He benefited from it and never gave credit where credit it due. Hes 50’s Justin Timberlake. Go write another fake thesis.
Billy Eckstine, the Mills Brothers and Dean Martin were as big an influence on Elvis as Arthur Crudup. And what is the “publication in the 50s’ owned by a White conservative” you speak of without citing?
I think the HBO docuseries on Elvis does a great overview of many of these points but also points out that when we talk about stealing, that means taking full credit for things and erasing their origins. Elvis talked openly about his influences and he never claimed to have invented or originated anything:“The colored folks been singing it and playing it just like I’m doin’ now, man, for more years than I know. They played it like that in their shanties and in their juke joints and nobody paid it no mind ‘til I goosed it up. I got it from them. Down in Tupelo, Mississippi, I used to hear old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now and I said if I ever got to a place I could feel all old Arthur felt, I’d be a music man like nobody ever saw.”-Elvis Presley, 1956, to reporters asking him how he came up with his sound.This isn’t to say Elvis is in no way problematic or that the man himself never did anything racist. I just think to call him a thief really does do a disservice to everything going on at that time. Chuck Berry’s “Maybellene” was a hit in 1955. The reporter who conducted Presley’s first interview in New York City in 1956 noted that he named blues singers who “obviously meant a lot to him. He was very surprised to hear him talk about the Black performers down there and about how he tried to carry on their music.” Elvis never thought of himself as having invented anything.
“Hound Dog” may have been written by two white men, but it was written for and performed b Big Momma Thornton. And I think your thesis strays too far form the original question. Elvis wasn’t some naive hayseed. But you had the one Black professor, so you must be right.
It’s systemic. Stealing happens, but villain hunting can be complicated, and sometimes an oblivious problematic act is also a genuine expression of admiration. I always thought the Chuck D lyric was based on the apocryphal “buy my records and shine my shoes” quote, but he was probably commenting imprecisely on the overall issue. And it’s true Elvis never really sounded like anybody. He sounds like a hybrid, a meeting of different but related traditions. Often gloriously so.
This is such an absurd over simplification of a very complex issue. Elvis, of course, profited off his position as a white man bringing elements of the blues and black music/culture to white America. Of course, part of the thing here is he grew up in those cultures, was a part of that music as it was happening, and of course it was a pillar of his sound. Exactly as primarily white country music was. Part of the magic was the combination of the two. Chuck Berry tapped the same vein.Now of course there’s a world of implications here, and there’s no doubt having a white face/voice made this sound palatable to the white record buyers. Did Elvis profit to a greater degree than black artists doing the same? Absolutely. Was it part of some mustache twirling plan on his part? No. He was playing the music he knew, that he grew up with, that he loved.And I say this as a mild Elvis fan (there’s a few undeniable classics) but more of a Chuck Berry/Buddy Holly guy to be honest with you, when it comes to rock n roll of the era.
There has never been an artist that hasn’t “stolen”. Stop getting your info from Facebook memes, that’s how Trump was elected.
That’s what I had always thought, but a friend who has done way too many hours of research into this kind of stuff (Elvis, Beatles, etc.) tells me it’s a lot more complicated than that – and that if you had to simplify the narrative, it really was the record company producers who played up the “cleaned up” rock-n-roll image to the public. Whereas Elvis himself did quite a lot behind the scenes to help promote black musicians in the genre.
So the movie is bad because Baz Luhrmann made a Baz Lurhmann film? That’s not exactly cogent criticism. The most “traditional” film Baz has made was Australia, and that was underwhelming.However, based on trailers, I can get behind Hanks’ accent as being distracting. It stuck out to me and seemed like camp. For better or worse, I’m glad to see a biopic transcend typical biopic tropes.
Didn’t Hanks play a villain in The Ladykillers, and also use an equally terrible accent in it? I mean, if Elvis’s manager can be labeled a villain, surely a guy taking advantage of a woman to plan a casino heist from her house would be considered one. Also, The Ladykillers is an awful movie that I love watching.
Also, The Circle?
And also Cast Away, where he enslaves Wilson before leaving him to die out at sea.
I was going to mention The Circle but I thought I was one of the few people who actually saw that movie.
I owe you a generic cola beverage.
He played a real stinker in Cloud Atlas. Of course, each lead actor played about five other characters so the intermittent appearance of Dr. Henry Goose is often overlooked.
He was the true true.
And in Charlie Wilson’s War he’s busy with a phone call instead of having sex with Emily Blunt and that’s just wrong. Boo!
He knew his son was going to have sex with Blunt only one year later in “The Great Buck Howard” and he freaked.
Hmm, making such a massive sacrifice so his son would know happiness would be pretty cool actually. And at least it wasn’t the asshole son.
Wow, Hanks really IS America’s dad. (except for the asshole son, I guess…)
I believe Tom Hanks first credited movie is him playing a slasher villain (He Knows You’re Alone), though I never seen it on tv.
I’m guessing Tom had all copies of the film burnt.
I’m fairly sure Hank’s character gets killed in that movie. My old real estate was one of the stars in this, too.
The only time Tom Hanks ever worked as a less then moral character was Road to Perdition and he’s definitely not the villain in that.
Don’t forget about his performance as alcoholic Uncle Ned in that one episode of Family Ties
Don’t forget about his performance as alcoholic Uncle Ned in that one very special episode of Family Ties. FIFY.
Or, more importantly, the college roommate that helped corrupt Jim Ignatowski.
He did, Buster Taco—he also played a baddie in The Circle, albeit one that cleverly allowed him to flip the script on his Totally-Decent-Guy persona.
He took an apartment that could have been safely and affordably rented by an actual woman in Bosom Buddies.
Luhrmann is the King of Inauthentic.
If it didn’t have the campy excesses you’d be complaining how straightforward it was and lacking in campy excess, the whole point of this guy
Yeah it’s interesting that the opposite critique is used for super hero movies. I get that there are shades of gray and this film probably is frustrating in some way, but still kind of frustrating
Bubba Ho-Tep is the definitive Elvis movie anyway.
I just tried watching this. Figured it was time to give it a shot. I didn’t like it, surprisingly. Not sure why. I enjoyed the short story enough.
Because it isn’t good no matter how much goodwill and affection Bruce has earned?
So what you’re saying is this film is no ‘Walk Hard’?I’ll still watch it, an overindulgent Baz Luhmann film is still a plus point for me.
There will never be another Walk Hard sadly.
Apatow & Kasdan have to think about their whole lives before they make a movie.
Apatow, unfortunately, then includes that entire process in each movie he makes.
I admit, when I first saw the clip in the trailer where the crowd is getting all riled up at Elvis singing (the one the pic at top is from) I couldn’t help but hear “Take My Hand” in my head.
Is there a scene where Elvis meets young Forrest Gump?
“Why fella, you look just like my no-good manager!”
After watching Strictly Ballroom, it hit me that Baz Luhrman has never stopped making that exact kind of movie. The difference is that he seems to have forgotten that movie was a comedy, and now he expects us to take that same kind of absurd melodrama seriously.
Elvis wasn’t really drafted like a regular schmoe was drafted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Elvis_Presley#Pre-induction
yeah and they could have stopped it and put Elvis in an entertainment unit, doing shows with Bob Hope or something. The Colonel really was canny and got Elvis to do the “regular fella” thing like everybody else
Thanks for posting this, it was quite interesting to know that he could have taken a much cushier position, but declined it to be as much of a regular grunt as was possible for him. BTW, Bad Nauheim, where he lived in Germany, is a really nice town (as are most towns in Germany with “Bad” in the name). His off-duty hours were likely spent quite comfortably.
He cavalierly destroys retail property by stomping on a giant toy piano in Big.
Baz Luhrmann’s campy excesses overshadow the King’s essence is the exact reason why I’m going to see this film. If Luhrmann is not being excessively campy, then what’s the point?
From the title, “Baz Luhrmann” and “campy excesses” seems redundant.
Todd: “…while he languishes too much effort…” should be “…while he lavishes too much effort…” “Languish” means “to become feeble, weak or enervated,” a verb that certainly doesn’t apply to Baz Luhrmann!
I’ve felt this way for about 25 years, but here’s my “hot take” anyway: maybe Baz Luhrmann just isn’t that good at storytelling? Visually, sure, I guess. I mean, I like sugar on my cereal as much as anyone, but I also like, you know, some fucking cereal in there somewhere.
C- wow, so Dr. Strange part 2 bad! Wait, why aren’t people attacking Todd about this grade like they did when he gave it to Dr. Strange? Almost like it’s okay to shit on a normal movie but don’t shit on Marvel Movies… hmmmmm.Anway, I will take your word for this. You were right about Dr. Strange (I think C or C+ just for some of the funny deaths) and Top Gun (I think A or A+) so at best Elvis probably is a C+ and that’s a hard pass for me.
so actually offended by that baby pink tux I don’t know how or where…. At least he didn’t run for politics, huh. Elvis 4 Pres.
In ___, Baz Luhrmann’s campy excesses overshadow
This pretty much describes every project of his for me.
It was way over the top, and Hanks was distracting but I would highly recommend for Butler’s performance. It’s amazing and he should be nominated for an Oscar.
Exploiting other people’s success was literally all that elvis did, he stole songs and dance moves from black artists and repackaged it in a way that was acceptable for white women to buy
My opinion which is probably going to come off as contradictory and emotional. I have been a big Elvis fan since I was a little girl probably as far back as 4. I am now 57. I remember very well when Elvis had his Aloha concert in 1973 on live television. My family and I went to Graceland back in 1973. I was 8 years old at the time. We were on family vacation. Elvis was right behind me and I didn’t know it until years later watching our home movies. If only I had turned around. Yes, it was the real Elvis Presley. I also remember when he died. His death changed the world and not for the better. I saw this film and my love for Elvis is even stronger than before. Austin Butler’s performance was outstanding. I agree with most of what this critic says. To say this was a true story, well it was Baz’s version and almost fiction. Tom Hanks performance was confused and creepy. Why the foreign accent? To hear Hanks talk about his performance, he makes it sound that is how the Colonel spoke. No, it’s not. I’m actually surprised that this movie was loved by Elvis’ family. Which makes me wonder some things that I will keep to myself. It is a good movie but could have been so much better if done the right way. Take out Tom Hanks replace him with another seasoned actor who would understand how the Colonel spoke. Replace the director, he’s too much like Cecil B. Demille which was great in the Ten Commandments but not for telling of the story of Elvis. I’m actually torn on that. Get someone who puts the truth out there and would be brave enough to do it. I’m not denying the dark side of Elvis Presley. He did abuse drugs and had a lot of women. I have never believed that Lisa Marie is his only child. I’m sure he has quite a few love children walking around who are now middle aged. The truth is Baz did not put Elvis’ heart in this and that was greatly disappointing. Elvis’ heart was Jesus Christ. Yes like I said, I know about Elvis’ dark side. I’m not blind to it. He was human. Very much so. The Colonel tried to make him into a god and no human can possibly live up to that. Elvis was our Bell Sheep. So many similarities between Elvis and King David in the Bible. King David sure had a dark side and yet was a man who was after God’s own heart. Hollywood doesn’t like the truth and that’s why they don’t like Jesus. Gospel music and Elvis’ beliefs was the heart of him. Here’s where I contradict myself. I really liked the movie in spite of well everything that’s wrong with it. Why? I’m not sure why maybe it’s because it brought Elvis back. Elvis was so worried that people would forget him. Told you my opinion is all over the place so to speak. I do agree with most of what this critic says. This movie made me cry so hard. I’m going to see it again today as matter of fact before it leaves the theaters. It’s an Elvis and me kinda thing that only a die hard true Elvis fan would understand. I’m also now a fan of Austin Butler. He’s like a breath of fresh air. He’s polite, well mannered (it seems) young man, a gentleman. I just hope Hollywood doesn’t put a spell on him or maybe they already have. God bless.
Interesting story and opinion. Have you read Last Train to Memphis and Careless Love? I feel like Peter Guralnick would have uncovered information about an illegitimate child if that were true. His book certainly left no stone unturned.