Elvis (2022)

[AimingforYoko]

AKA The movie that gave Tom Hanks Covid:

Ah, Baz Luhrman, typically understated. And what is that accent Hanks is sporting?

Edited February 17, 2022 by AimingforYoko

[Spartan Girl]

The guy looks pretty good as Elvis.

[Shannon L.]

I think he looks a lot like a young John Travolta, but that's not going to stop me from seeing the movie.  I love biopics and this one looks really good.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Shannon L.

[AimingforYoko]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The guy looks pretty good as Elvis.

He sounds better than he looks.

[Bastet]

5 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

And what is that accent Hanks is sporting?

I tried to listen to some interviews of Tom Parker (who was Dutch, coming to America at age 20) from back in Elvis's day to see if he really sounded like that, but I didn't find a lot from a quick search and what I did find didn't seem to match.  Didn't Parker pretend to be American?  If so, I wouldn't think he'd walk around sounding like that.  (Of course, I've never heard anyone walk around sounding like that until just now.)

[methodwriter85]

I've always liked Austin Butler. Never thought he looked like Elvis but I'm glad he's getting a big break. Hopefully it hits. 

I did like that having the Tom Hanks name attached meant they could get a guy who wasn't really a big star to play Elvis.

[Spartan Girl]

My favorite bit in the trailer was his first (I assume) stage show, when the guys in the crowd are laughing at his longer hair, but the second he starts those thrusting moves, their girlfriends are all over him.

[Simon Boccanegra]

On 2/17/2022 at 8:10 PM, Bastet said:

I tried to listen to some interviews of Tom Parker (who was Dutch, coming to America at age 20) from back in Elvis's day to see if he really sounded like that, but I didn't find a lot from a quick search and what I did find didn't seem to match. 

It does sound weird. I've never felt Hanks had much of a facility for accents. He gets by with it when the material is broad and farcical, e.g., his over-the-top "southern gentleman" in the Coens' unloved remake of The Ladykillers. But in more serious movies in which he's attempted to sound as if from New England or Eastern Europe or wherever, his attempts have been distracting. He sounds fake, and the viewer is conscious the whole time of his attempts to stay in it and keep it consistent.

[vb68]

At first glance, I didn't think he looked like Elvis at all. But towards the end of the trailer, as Elvis aged, Butler looked more like him, which seems rather odd. it does look like it could be a good movie.

[ShadowHunter]

I wonder how new audiences and people not familiar with Elvis are going to react to his relationship with Priscilla. Though maybe this movie will be seen by fans and people already familiar with it.

[methodwriter85]

On 4/30/2022 at 1:17 PM, ShadowHunter said:

I wonder how new audiences and people not familiar with Elvis are going to react to his relationship with Priscilla. Though maybe this movie will be seen by fans and people already familiar with it.

It's really thorny. I do remember the Dale Midkiff movie from 1988 pretty much maintained the entire time that they never did anything besides kissing until Priscilla was 18. Although that in itself is looked down upon these days as it's considered "grooming" to start a relationship with a minor and wait until they're 18 to make it physical to avoid legal trouble.

I don't get the feeling this is aiming towards getting the kids in to see this, though. 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by methodwriter85

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

It's really thorny. I do remember the Dale Midkiff movie from 1988 pretty much maintained the entire time that they never did anything besides kissing until Priscilla was 18.

Yup. And it was based on Priscilla's book, "Elvis and Me" or something like that. I remember reading some of it when it was released.

[methodwriter85]

24 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Yup. And it was based on Priscilla's book, "Elvis and Me" or something like that. I remember reading some of it when it was released.

It makes total sense to me that Elvis made sure he was the first (only) sexual experience of the girl he'd marry. Elvis always struck me as having a severe Madonna/Whore complex so it makes sense to me that he basically molded Priscilla into what he thought a wife should be while he had his fun with Ann Margret and Nancy Sinatra. Of course, he didn't plan on Priscilla developing a mind of her own and not being cool with his philandering.

Natalie Wood stated that she found Elvis extremely boring and he'd ask her stuff like why she doesn't stay home like a good girl. I'm assuming that because she was still underage when she met him, Elvis was trying to see if she could be a "Madonna" and then found out quickly that wasn't her game at all as she was the consumate party Glamour girl.

Edited May 3, 2022 by methodwriter85

[ShadowHunter]

On 5/3/2022 at 2:05 PM, methodwriter85 said:

It's really thorny. I do remember the Dale Midkiff movie from 1988 pretty much maintained the entire time that they never did anything besides kissing until Priscilla was 18. Although that in itself is looked down upon these days as it's considered "grooming" to start a relationship with a minor and wait until they're 18 to make it physical to avoid legal trouble.

I don't get the feeling this is aiming towards getting the kids in to see this, though. 

I have her book and I remember the miniseries. In fact you can actually watch it for free on YouTube. This movie will probably just cover the beats of that relationship and not get too deep with everything else that went on between them. 

[AimingforYoko]

Trailer #2:

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, ShadowHunter said:

I have her book and I remember the miniseries. In fact you can actually watch it for free on YouTube. This movie will probably just cover the beats of that relationship and not get too deep with everything else that went on between them. 

I mean, they cast Priscilla with an adult so we can assume they're skimming over the part about her being 13 when they meet. Even if they try to depict that, you're going to see an adult playing that like you did in the 1988 t.v. movie instead of an actual 13-year old.

[ruby24]

11 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I mean, they cast Priscilla with an adult so we can assume they're skimming over the part about her being 13 when they meet. Even if they try to depict that, you're going to see an adult playing that like you did in the 1988 t.v. movie instead of an actual 13-year old.

The glossing over of this really bothers me. You have to show things as they were. And frankly, pretending she was an adult is lying to cover up the reality of what happened.

[methodwriter85]

12 hours ago, ruby24 said:

The glossing over of this really bothers me. You have to show things as they were. And frankly, pretending she was an adult is lying to cover up the reality of what happened.

Winona Ryder was 17 when she filmed the role of Jerry Lee Lewis's 13-year old child bride. I can't see that happening now without a lot crap being said even though Winona was very close to 18. In this case, the Priscilla in the 1988 movie was about 22 when they filmed, and I believe this Priscilla is about 23 or 24. So again, you're not getting that effect of actually having to see Elvis being flirtatious with a 13-year old child, which feels like a tactic to make the audience more comfortable. Of course the difference between the two cases is that Jerry married Myra at 13 when she got pregnant, while they kept everything on the DL with Elvis and Priscilla and she has insisted that nothing happened between them until she was 17 or so. There's a plausible deniability which is why Elvis's career was fine while Jerry career flamed out over the controversy. I can't help but think that Elvis probably held up the Jerry Lee Lewis example as why he held off until Priscilla was a few years older. 

[AngieBee1]

The film covers Elvis and Priscilla's relationship in broad beats. The meat of the story is his ascension and fall and how tethered he was to the Colonel.

[ShadowHunter]

All reviews are saying how good Austin Butler is. The one thing everyone seems to have agreed on. I am going to see it on Saturday.

[methodwriter85]

I thought it was good, but I also thought that Tom Hanks played the Colonel so cartonish that it dragged down the film for me. I did think the movie picked up when we got to Vegas. I don't think this is Oscar 3 for Tom Hanks.  Austin Butler did a great job though. 

[ShadowHunter]

59 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

I thought it was good, but I also thought that Tom Hanks played the Colonel so cartonish that it dragged down the film for me. I did think the movie picked up when we got to Vegas. I don't think this is Oscar 3 for Tom Hanks.  Austin Butler did a great job though. 

Yeqh I've heard mixed things about Tom Hanks which is surprising. One review said all he does is wear a fat suit and do a craapy accent.  I'll find out in a couple of days lol.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I’m now seeing the trailers on teevee, and the one thing that already has me 😒 is a still thin Elvis in Vegas. He was considerably heftier by the time he got there.

[auburn-waves]

Elvis was the thinnest he’d ever been when he started Vegas. Austin actually looks slightly bigger than him in the early Vegas scenes. Elvis didn’t start getting “heftier” until 1973. In his Aloha From Hawaii concert in January of ‘73 you can see he’s gained but he still looks damn good. Graceland had to actually have special mannequins made to display his early jumpsuits because he was so thin the regular mannequins were too big to dress.

[luvthepros]

I saw Elvis in Vegas early on, probably his first year at the International Hotel. I recall him being in fantastic physical shape, certainly not slender but not beefy either. He was sexy as hell and in awesome singing voice. I saw him a few years later at the Nassau Collisum twice. Saw him the first night with family then went back the next night and sat by myself right next to the stage. To see this man up close was something I will never forget. At that time, Elvis was beefier but not at the point he was at the end of this movie. I then saw Elvis again in Vegas when he was very heavy and not well. What I do remember from that last time seeing him was his voice was still with him. That voice of his was gorgeous.

[Sakura12]

I saw this with my mom. I was born in 82 so I missed the Elvis craze. But I was obsessed with him when I was younger, I had an Elvis themed birthday when I was 9. My parents wanted it to be generic 50's themed and I was like no just Elvis. Lol. I loved his music. I listened to my parents records, I had cassette tapes and later cd's of his albums. I don't know how accurate this movie was but if he really was like that on stage, if you saw him live you were lucky. It really felt like he wasn't just singing, the music moved through him.

I knew the end of his life was sad and depressing. I didn't know all that about his manager and that makes it more depressing. I know he had his demons and was a man of his time but his music and his voice were something else.

While I think Austin Butler only vaguely resembles Elvis he did a great job. This is a big get for him so I hope he gets some recognition. Hanks felt like he was in a different movie. He's a great actor just not very good with accents. 

[One4Sorrow2TooBad]

Kurt Russell did a pretty convincing Elvis  in the tv movie Elvis(1979). I gave Bruce Campbell in the movie Bubba Ho-Tep , an Honorable Mention   for his portrayal of  Elvis who faked his death and is now an aging old man stuck in a run down nursing home. The movie is funny as hell, you'll be cheering your ass off towards the end. 

[luvthepros]

I've read several comments that Austin Butler looks nothing like Elvis. I beg to differ. I saw the movie on opening day and was blown away by the likeness he projected on the screen in many of the scenes. Not only is Austin's likeness very similar to Elvis, but he delivers a really human and vulnerable realness to the man himself in his acting. He sort of truly encompasses Elvis and not as an impersonator. It is difficult to explain. All I can say is go see the movie and be totally entertained. Those scenes of Elvis on stage are so reminiscent of those live shows I saw of Elvis in Vegas and when he was on tour.

[Laurie4H]

I’d give it a 7 out of 10.  The first half was all over the place.  I thought the best part was when they got to Vegas.  I love the intro music so I’m glad they showed it being composed.  They never showed him singing C.C. Rider though?  I thought the casting of Priscilla was off and no mention of their age difference.  I think a good depiction of their relationship would is the 1988 mini series Elvis and Me.  I thought Tom Hanks was good.  I always forget he is Tom Hanks in his movies even with his distinct voice.  Austin Butler was good and especially in the Vegas scenes.  

[luvthepros]

35 minutes ago, Laurie4H said:

I’d give it a 7 out of 10.  The first half was all over the place.  I thought the best part was when they got to Vegas.  I love the intro music so I’m glad they showed it being composed.  They never showed him singing C.C. Rider though?  I thought the casting of Priscilla was off and no mention of their age difference.  I think a good depiction of their relationship would is the 1988 mini series Elvis and Me.  I thought Tom Hanks was good.  I always forget he is Tom Hanks in his movies even with his distinct voice.  Austin Butler was good and especially in the Vegas scenes.  

The one criticism I have of the movie is that Priscilla's very young age was not made known. The actress was a woman, playing a young teen so it did not look so odd. I think that was deliberate. In today's sexual climate, Elvis would be accused of "grooming" Priscilla as she was only 14 when they met and he was 22. Elvis had other under age girlfriends and that was glossed over too.

41 minutes ago, Laurie4H said:

I’d give it a 7 out of 10.  The first half was all over the place.  I thought the best part was when they got to Vegas.  I love the intro music so I’m glad they showed it being composed.  They never showed him singing C.C. Rider though?  I thought the casting of Priscilla was off and no mention of their age difference.  I think a good depiction of their relationship would is the 1988 mini series Elvis and Me.  I thought Tom Hanks was good.  I always forget he is Tom Hanks in his movies even with his distinct voice.  Austin Butler was good and especially in the Vegas scenes.  

The first half of the movie was chaotic which was a perfect depiction of the whirlwind Elvis was experiencing as he rose so quickly to being an icon.

[AimingforYoko]

Yep, this was a Baz Luhrman film all right. I do agree with his choice to gloss over Elvis' movie 'career'. It was two and a half hours as it was. Austin Butler was awesome. Hanks had the weasel part of the role right, he should have skipped that accent.

One embarrassing thing this reminded me of is that I watched The Simpsons ten years before I realized their Dr. Nick was based on Elvis' Dr. Nick.

[Lady Whistleup]

How did the film portray Elvis's last years? Was it a lot of pill popping and weight gain and general malaise? I admit I don;t want to watch this film because I have such love for Elvis's music that I don't want to watch the sad final years.

[One4Sorrow2TooBad]

2 hours ago, luvthepros said:

The one criticism I have of the movie is that Priscilla's very young age was not made known. The actress was a woman, playing a young teen so it did not look so odd. I think that was deliberate. In today's sexual climate, Elvis would be accused of "grooming" Priscilla as she was only 14 when they met and he was 22. Elvis had other under age girlfriends and that was glossed over too.

The first half of the movie was chaotic which was a perfect depiction of the whirlwind Elvis was experiencing as he rose so quickly to being an icon.

Marrying young women was somewhat fashionable back in the late 50's. Didn't Errol Flynn also have a thing for young women? I always thought Jerry Lee Lewis was a bit off about marrying his teenage cousin back then. 

[methodwriter85]

3 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Yep, this was a Baz Luhrman film all right. I do agree with his choice to gloss over Elvis' movie 'career'. It was two and a half hours as it was. Austin Butler was awesome. Hanks had the weasel part of the role right, he should have skipped that accent.

I honestly feel like this should have skipped over the origin part and focused on what was going on in 1968-73. It kind of feels like that's where the heartbeat of the movie was, anyway. They were flashing back anyway so the beginning felt redundant. I guess the main reason to have it was to shout out the black influences on Elvis's music as well as the seeds for his eventual downfall. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by methodwriter85

[AngieBee1]

I don't think Olivia DeJonge in her early scenes looked too far off from 14-year old Priscilla.

https://ibb.co/YX00DJ5

Quote

How did the film portray Elvis's last years? Was it a lot of pill popping and weight gain and general malaise? I admit I don;t want to watch this film because I have such love for Elvis's music that I don't want to watch the sad final years

Luhrmann took a light touch regarding those areas. Not too much pill popping and they wait until the last frames to show the weight gain. Prior to that scene there were two fleeting mentions of him gaining weight.

[luvthepros]

17 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

How did the film portray Elvis's last years? Was it a lot of pill popping and weight gain and general malaise? I admit I don;t want to watch this film because I have such love for Elvis's music that I don't want to watch the sad final years.

There was just one very short scene with Elvis at the piano, with a shot of his back. Then there was a quick shot of his very puffy face with Austin in a fat suit and facial prosthetics. Right after those scenes, there was footage of real Elvis performing. THAT was fantastic to see Elvis on the big screen in a movie theater. Just wonderful to end the movie that way.

Edited June 26, 2022 by luvthepros

[luvthepros]

13 hours ago, AngieBee1 said:

I don't think Olivia DeJonge in her early scenes looked too far off from 14-year old Priscilla.

https://ibb.co/YX00DJ5

Luhrmann took a light touch regarding those areas. Not too much pill popping and they wait until the last frames to show the weight gain. Prior to that scene there were two fleeting mentions of him gaining weight.

Now that I see that photo of young Priscilla, I agree that Olivia DeJonge did have a transformation on screen from young kid to adult mature woman. They did do a great job with her make up.

[luvthepros]

14 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I honestly feel like this should have skipped over the origin part and focused on what was going on in 1968-73. It kind of feels like that's where the heartbeat of the movie was, anyway. They were flashing back anyway so the beginning felt redundant. I guess the main reason to have it was to shout out the black influences on Elvis's music as well as the seeds for his eventual downfall. 

I really feel that those scenes of very young Elvis gave a huge insight as to why he moved the way he did and felt the music to his core. Those scenes of his early years as a kid were wonderful. I really didn't know that much about his young life and I am a fan of Elvis since the 60's when I was a teen.

I may have mentioned on this forum already that I saw him perform live in Vegas when he was in his prime and also on Long Island when he was on tour. I also saw Elvis when he was very heavy in his later years I believe that was in Las Vegas. He moved around the stage as if he were treading water but that voice....that voice.......that voice never ever left him. His voice was astonishing!

Edited June 26, 2022 by luvthepros

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

The ones I've seen praise Butler for his performance as Elvis but find Baz Luhrmann's shtick grating and out of place. I've seen mixed reviews on Hanks as Parker, with some critics feeling like he gets too much of the spotlight. 

Quoting from the Miscellaneous Celebrity Thread. Having seen the film, I have to say I disagree with the critics' overall take but definitely understand where they were coming from regarding the spotlight on Parker. I was getting slightly frustrated in the first thirty minutes when it felt like the emphasis was on Parker, especially knowing the backstory of how this man manipulated and essentially held Elvis' whole career hostage. 

But by the end, it all kind of worked for me, which is typical of Baz's work. At first glance, it does seem like a mess, like it shouldn't all work but by the end, it does. And this did for me. The emphasis on Parker never sugarcoated how creepily manipulative he was. But every villain has a story and as the actors have said in some of their press, the fact is, good or bad, you cannot tell Elvis' story without Parker's as well. Because a lot of it was intertwined. 

I mean if all the stories are accurate, the big reason he sabotaged Elvis from ever going international is because of his shady past and fears of leaving the US and being able to get back in. And that sabotage was a big impetus to Elvis' eventual spiral and demise because the man understandably felt trapped. Same with practically selling Elvis' soul to that hotel because he was a degenerate gambler who owed a lot of money. So again, the stories were so interconnected that by the end, I totally get why Baz chose to frame the film as he did. 

As for the performances, I'd seen some mixed reviews for Tom's performance but honestly, I thought he was amazing. The true test for me is that very early in the film, I forgot I was watching Tom Hanks. I also thought he managed to capture the perfect balance of showing how Parker was the villain, without it ever becoming cartoonish. He was the perfect sleazy oil salesman, you wanted to cringe at some of his early moments with Elvis, seeing the master manipulation but it was all done without ever seeming over the top. That's great acting. 

Austin was a revelation. He nailed it. That boy also has some very beautiful and soulful eyes. I thought he captured a lot of Elvis' most vulnerable moments with just his eyes alone. The scene where he fired Parker on stage was brilliant. In fact, the only person I thought brought very little to their role and the overall film, was the actress playing Priscilla. Now that may not be all her fault as it's not like she really had that much to do. But I've seen actors in lesser roles who still managed to stand out. She just didn't for me. She wasn't bad, just not very memorable. 

Overall, I'd give the film an 8/10 and seems a lot of the early movie goers agree, as its current Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes is 94%. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by truthaboutluv

[luvthepros]

3 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Quoting from the Miscellaneous Celebrity Thread. Having seen the film, I have to say I disagree with the critics' overall take but definitely understand where they were coming from regarding the spotlight on Parker. I was getting slightly frustrated in the first thirty minutes when it felt like the emphasis was on Parker, especially knowing the backstory of how this man manipulated and essentially held Elvis' whole career hostage. 

But by the end, it all kind of worked for me, which is typical of Baz's work. At first glance, it does seem like a mess, like it shouldn't all work but by the end, it does. And this did for me. The emphasis on Parker never sugarcoated how creepily manipulative he was. But every villain has a story and as the actors have said in some of their press, the fact is, good or bad, you cannot tell Elvis' story without Parker's as well. Because a lot of it was intertwined. 

I mean if all the stories are accurate, the big reason he sabotaged Elvis from ever going international is because of his shady past and fears of leaving the US and being able to get back in. And that sabotage was a big impetus to Elvis' eventual spiral and demise because the man understandably felt trapped. Same with practically selling Elvis' soul to that hotel because he was a degenerate gambler who owed a lot of money. So again, the stories were so interconnected that by the end, I totally get why Baz chose to frame the film as he did. 

As for the performances, I'd seen some mixed reviews for Tom's performance but honestly, I thought he was amazing. The true test for me is that very early in the film, I forgot I was watching Tom Hanks. I also thought he managed to capture the perfect balance of showing how Parker was the villain, without it ever becoming cartoonish. He was the perfect sleazy oil salesman, you wanted to cringe at some of his early moments with Elvis, seeing the master manipulation but it was all done without ever seeming over the top. That's great acting. 

Austin was a revelation. He nailed it. That boy also has some very beautiful and soulful eyes. I thought he captured a lot of Elvis' most vulnerable moments with just his eyes alone. The scene where he fired Parker on stage was brilliant. In fact, the only person I thought brought very little to their role and the overall film, was the actress playing Priscilla. Now that may not be all her fault as it's not like she really had that much to do. But I've seen actors in lesser roles who still managed to stand out. She just didn't for me. She wasn't bad, just not very memorable. 

Overall, I'd give the film an 8/10 and seems a lot of the early movie goers agree, as its current Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes is 94%. 

Very insightful comments.

[bunnyface]

Ultimately, I liked the movie even though I found it very sad.  The first bit, maybe 30 minutes, I was thinking "oh no, what have we done."  But after that it was really good.  

I am not a big Elvis aficianado, but even I recognized some things that made be think "I don't think that's right..." but I know it's just a "story based on..."  Like the drugs. This movie portrayed that Parker was keeping him drugged up to work him like a mule, but I know I've read other accounts that Parker, as well as others, tried to put a stop to the drugs and Elvis found a way around them.  So the story varies according to the lens needed.   I do think Parker was scummy but I also know even after he was exposed after Elvis's death, Priscilla and others continued to have a "congenial" relationship with him, so there was something there.   But the movie was good.

As for the Priscilla age thing, that's is definitely skeevy to us now so they glossed over it  But I also know it was much more common back then.  My aunt got married at 14.  My next door neighbor, who is in her 80s, got married at 15.  My grandparents got married at 17 and 18.  My grandfather was only 18 and had to have my grandmother's father sign for the marriage, because he wasn't considered of age.  That was 1942.  It happened more commonly than we can imagine.  It was viewed differently.  

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 2/17/2022 at 2:27 PM, Shannon L. said:

I think he looks a lot like a young John Travolta, but that's not going to stop me from seeing the movie. 

I saw the trailer many times in theaters and nothing about it made me want to see the movie, including the fact that in the scenes in the trailer, he looked like John Travolta and not Elvis.  But things lined up and I went anyway, and I'm glad I did.  I was distracted periodically throughout the movie by his eye makeup, but would push it aside because Butler's performance was so good.

His performance of "Suspicious Minds" in Las Vegas was a-ma-zing. 

On 6/25/2022 at 4:59 PM, AimingforYoko said:

Yep, this was a Baz Luhrman film all right.

I've seen only Strictly Ballroom, and that was thirty years ago.  But I have to say, I was really taken by his style.  Even the whatever-it's-called before the opening credits, showing the production company or distributor or whatever, was flashy and gaudy and wonderful.  If anybody was going to do a major Elvis biopic, this was the right guy.

On 6/27/2022 at 3:58 PM, bunnyface said:

That was 1942.  It happened more commonly than we can imagine.  It was viewed differently. 

Some of the posts here had the ages a little wrong (not significantly, but accuracy matters):  According to lots of sources, Priscilla was 14 (not 13) when she met Elvis, and Elvis was 24 (not 22).   That's a big ten years when you're talking about being 24 and 14 years old. 

Then again, Priscilla's mother was 18 when she got married and 19 when she had Priscilla.  I found differing accounts of Priscilla's father's age (he died when she was a baby), but he was at least five years older than her mother (and maybe nine years older), and Wikipedia claims they'd been dating for three years when they got married.  Looks like it runs in the family. 

But maybe not Elvis's family--his mother was older than his father. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by StatisticalOutlier

[EEF]

Saw the movie today.  I thought the first hour or so was more about Colonel Parker than Elvis.  It picked up a bit when Elvis got to Vegas.  At the end you had to feel sad for Elvis, such a tortured soul.   He could sing tho, nobody has or will ever come close to his voice.  I think Austin Butler did a great job, at times you felt it was the real Elvis.  Going to see it again with my daughter.

[Spartan Girl]

Went to see this with my parents—my dad’s first trip to the theater in a while, and as an Elvis fan, he knew right away what was glossed over and rearranged timeline wise.

That being said, I thought it was pretty good. Austin Butler was fantastic. For the moments when he was singing for real, he was great, but there is only one Elvis.

God, Colonel Parker was such a scumbag. I don’t know if Tom Hanks’ accent was legit or not, but either way, he got the job done. It made me mad that even Elvis’ own father got sucked into the Colonel’s interests and was complicit in screwing him over. Man, poor Elvis. He looked so broken and defeated at the end. I wonder if things would have been different had he gotten to do the international tour. Then again, knowing how much enablers and hangers-on that were around….maybe the same thing would have happened anyway.

Yes, definitely a Baz Luhrman movie, especially in the first half. But when it works, it works.

[truthaboutluv]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I wonder if things would have been different had he gotten to do the international tour. Then again, knowing how much enablers and hangers-on that were around….maybe the same thing would have happened anyway.

I don't think the point was whether or not Elvis would have still had to deal with vultures and users but more the opportunities he lost being essentially imprisoned by Colonel Parker. It is insane for the level of fame and success Elvis had that he never even did a UK tour when you consider how everyone from The Supremes, Jackson 5, etc. did international tours.

And of course then the British invasion that came across to US shores - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. All the while Elvis was stuck in the US, in a hotel night after night. No wonder the man abused food as a comfort. And that's not even counting some of the other film opportunities and projects the Colonel essentially screwed up by being a raging dick who pissed off every producer, director, etc. 

Of course, all that said, I guess it speaks even more to his talent and greatness that he was still able to becoming the iconic legend he did despite those constrictions. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by truthaboutluv

[choclatechip45]

I thought it was a good film, but it was very long. I am a 90s baby and not a big fan of Elvis so a lot of the story was new to me.

[Spartan Girl]

17 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

I don't think the point was whether or not Elvis would have still had to deal with vultures and users but more the opportunities he lost being essentially imprisoned by Colonel Parker. It is insane for the level of fame and success Elvis had that he never even did a UK tour when you consider how everyone from The Supremes, Jackson 5, etc. did international tours.

And of course then the British invasion that came across to US shores - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. All the while Elvis was stuck in the US, in a hotel night after night. No wonder the man abused food as a comfort. And that's not even counting some of the other film opportunities and projects the Colonel essentially screwed up by being a raging dick who pissed off every producer, director, etc. 

Of course, all that said, I guess it speaks even more to his talent and greatness that he was still able to becoming the iconic legend he did despite those constrictions. 

Definitely. I don’t claim to be an expert on addiction, but frustration can fuel vices in the worst possible ways.

Vegas was both the best and worst thing that happened to Elvis. It would have been fine to do for six weeks but every year? That being said, it was one hell of a show. The bits of him doing “American Trilogy” always give me chills.

I don’t know how much of the depiction of his relationship with Priscilla was accurate, but if it’s true he met her after his mother died, it kind of hits the nail on the head of a Madonna/Whore complex. And I’m sorry but I have to side-eye how the movie conveniently glossed over all his other relationships.

I didn’t know about that show appearance where he got duped into serenading the dog. I looked it up on YouTube and he clearly tried to be a good sport about it, but yeah, given how fast he ran off the stage, he was clearly pissed. Elvis DID have a sense of humor, but had they ran it by him ahead of time, he could have prepared and made it funnier. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Spartan Girl
More to add

[Spartan Girl]

And now I’m kind of tempted to read Linda Thompson and Ginger Alden’s memoirs about Elvis. Has anyone else read them, and if so, how bad does it get? I don’t want to read it if it’s too exploitative.

I know Elvis’ mental and physical heath was bad towards the end—which I think the movie got the point across while remaining respectful. But the one thing that always makes me sad was on the “E! True Hollywood Story” episode, when one of his friends/associates or whoever recounted how upset he was about some tell-all coming out, and he lamented: “What’s my little girl going to think of me?”

I definitely thought about that when he was saying goodbye to Lisa Marie before boarding the plane.

[MerBearHou]

We saw this today.  It’s been said before, but cannot be said enough, Austin Butler is a wonder.  I hope he wins all of the awards in awards season.  I didn’t know him from anything he’s done, so I read about Austin — he’s had quite the career in his young 30 years.  He made me really feel what Elvis might have been feeling.  Plus the singing and movement — he was incredible.

I am so not a Baz Luhrmann fan at all and this movie was very Baz.  He irritates me with his indulgent Baz-ness.  The first 30 minutes were too slow and too fragmented and frenetic, IMO.  But when it hit its stride, we were so hooked.  

My husband and I left the movie glad we saw it, super impressed with Austin’s performance, and just overall felt so sad for Elvis and how he was manipulated and taken advantage of.  He was caught in a trap.

[ShadowHunter]

Austin Butler was great. Really good and I am glad he is the one who got the part. Tom Hanks was okay.  He made the Colonel someone you could honestly hate but some parts his acting was ehh.  The movie wasn't about Elvis and Priscilla but seeing a bit more of her would have been nice. Maybe one day someone will do a miniseries about them again.