MovieChat Forums > Elvis (2022) Discussion > I didn't like it, and I'm an Elvis fan

I didn't like it, and I'm an Elvis fan

posted 2 years ago by Ticketsplease (4024)
44 replies | jump to latest

Elvis was such an intriguing person, you could literally pick one of these aspects of his life and write a movie around it. But they went with Tom Parker.

Tom Parker is a footnote in his life, and they decided to make a picture around that dynamic.

Let's talk about that. Tom Hanks did a worse Dutch accent than Mike Meyers in Goldmember.

I heard his American accent shine through throughout.

Speaking of accents, those Aussie actors need better dialect coaches because it did not sound right at all.

The movie airbrushed over Elvis and his underage love.

It skipped over Gladys death after accusing her of being a drunk.

It ignored the Memphis Mafia, Elvis collection of police badges, his visit to the Whitehouse, the affairs, the Bible readings at parties, the nocturnal lifestyle, his kindness, his sense of humor....I could go on.

This movie really needed 3 actors. Young, 30s, and death Elvis.

Sorry but it wasn't good for me as a fan.

[–] TheArgentinian (7061) 2 years ago

The movie was almost 3 hours without all you mentioned. You wanted a 6 hours movie?

[–] Speeed (190) 2 years ago

I agree. This movie was a shit and pony show which looked like it was made by a JHS kid.

I loved Elvis growing up and he exuded so much charisma. His voice was straight from heaven.

This movie seemed to be fascinated with jiggling crotch shots and having the lead try and look cool in every pose and scene as possible.

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) 2 years ago

Yes. If you pull the curtain back in a superstar, they're meant to look more human, warts and all. This guy was a show pony.

[–] greenvelvet (166) 2 years ago

Things I liked:
- The focus on the Colonel. Originally I didn't have much interest in the movie as it seemed like yet another Elvis biopic but focusing on the Colonel brought something new. The title should have been "Elvis and the Colonel" though as it's a bit misleading.
- Austin Butler did the voice and most of the mannerisms pretty well.

Things I didn't like:
- Tom Hank's accent. No way anyone would have believed he was an American if he had spoken like that.
- So many scenes looked like a something you'd see in a Photoshop tutorial.
- The music. I got the feeling they just wanted to sell some new material and target people that wouldn't be interested in Elvis because of accusations he stole from the black community.
- Austin Butler never quite looked right without the glasses on.
- The movie was too soft on Elvis. He could be a total jerk at times, was pretty vain, and had some weird beliefs, all of which make him a much more interesting character.
- Historical inaccuracies that felt unnecessary.

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) 2 years ago

He was basically a drug addict and went down the path of wanting enlightenment, so he did mind altering drugs. Baz could have had some fun showing us what Elvis saw tripping out.

[–] greenvelvet (166) 2 years ago

That would be amazing. Pretty surprising no one has done a trippy Elvis movie yet unless the estate is preventing it somehow. Just think how fun it would be to see Elvis tripping when he jammed with The Beatles.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 2 years ago

Not true. The amphetamines were introduced to him in the army. The military still uses it today so that their soldiers can keep up with the strict regimen. Elvis did not drink because he saw how it destroyed his family. Plenty from both sides had alcohol dependency issues so he avoided it. The amphetamines were not considered bad drugs at that time, they were thought of as akin to vitamins and they didn't know of the addiction problems. Many people in Hollywood used to take uppers and downers to survive the lifestyle. They simply didn't know back then.

[–] BeenSavage (631) 2 years ago

The movie was too soft on Elvis. He could be a total jerk at times, was pretty vain, and had some weird beliefs, all of which make him a much more interesting character.

Would you be able to elaborate on this? Because of this film, I've become a bit of an Elvis fan and just starting to get to know the man behind the music.

[–] greenvelvet (166) 2 years ago

It's been a while since I read any Elvis stuff but from what I recall, he wasn't always easy to get along with and liked being the centre of attention. For example, the famous Elvis shooting the tv thing was because a guy who had been dating Priscilla after she broke up with Elvis came on the screen. Elvis had a lot of women in Germany, not just Priscilla. He even had a spare room for the women to share! A lot of the women he dated throughout his life looked uncannily like his mother. Elvis was heavily into numerology and that type of stuff. Then there's the weird solo trip he took on a commercial airline to become a drug "agent at large" for Nixon. He loved doing karate and incorporated it into his shows despite being terrible at it.

I recommend you read the book "Elvis and the Memphis Mafia" by Alanna Nash as it has a lot of interesting details as told from the guys closest to him.

[–] BeenSavage (631) 2 years ago

Thank you!

[–] [email protected] (2017) 2 years ago

1. The shooting of the tv was because of Anita Wood. Robert Goulet told Elvis on the phone while he was stationed in Germany that he would (jokingly) take care of Anita himself.

2. As for numerology and eastern philosophy it was a fad in the 60s and 70s. Westerners were introduced to eastern philosophy and they bastardized it into something weird because they didn't understand it. Hippies were into it, so were The Beatles and Led Zepellin, in fact most western musicians were into that. Elvis was not unique in it, it's pretty generic for westerners actually. You won't find any hippies in Asia.

3. The meeting with Nixon was simply due to the badge. Elvis had serious hobbies and was passionate about them. 1 of them was collecting police badges, and he learned about the NARC badge through a friend/bodyguard. He 1st tried to get it through the head of the fbi, but he wouldn't budge no matter what charm or donation he offered. So he revised his strategy and went to Nixon instead with a story. After he got his beloved badge, nothing else came off of it because the badge was all he wanted.

4. He wasn't terrible at karate, he genuinely got a black belt without any preferential treatment. The next levels were different though and Elvis in his last years was physically sick.

I've read the MM book. I also recommend Guralnick and many others.

[–] greenvelvet (166) 2 years ago

Why are replying to fact check my answer like this was an exam or something? So weird.

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) 2 years ago

Elvis wasn't terrible at karate. He was a black belt.

The footage of him training to me looks like someone with skill.

Sure he couldn't pull off a head height kick but not everyone who has a black belt can do that.

[–] greenvelvet (166) 2 years ago

A black belt doesn't mean much. His form is terrible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF5HepBXFo

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

This movie wasn't really made for Elvis fans, was it. It was made more for people who are curious about Elvis.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 2 years ago

But it doesn't work on that basis either because if you don't know a lot about him, there's a lot of really basic stuff that the movie never tells you.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

The movie wasn't meant to be an informative biography of Elvis, I mean it skipped the Hollywood years completely! How can one possibly understand Elvis's personal and artistic decline without knowing that he spent a decade selling out making absolute crap for money?

No, them movie was meant to be more about Tom Parker, or "Tom Parker", or maybe the American South. Who knows, it wasn't very coherent.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 2 years ago

It did a couple scenes on the movie career, actually, but yeah, it's about their relationship, but in the end, what we see never justifies the movie needing to be made. I suspect there is a four hour version that does work, but too few people would want to sit through it. Maybe Luhrmann should make miniseries rather than movies.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Luhrman made some great movies in his day, but I can see why Hollywood isn't giving him many chances. And I don't think he'll get more after this, if he couldn't tell the story coherently in two hours he had no business making a movie instead of a miniseries, and it is absolutely a director's job to know what kind of running time things will need - storyboard it out if you're not sure!

This movie is so frustrating, because Parker really is a very interesting character, but both Lurhman and Hanks failed to make him interesting enough to justify the movie's existence.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 2 years ago

His reach tends to be larger than his grasp. I think as he dives into a subject he finds more and more he wants to include to the extent that he loses track of the whole. It works in an epic film like Australia, but not really with a subject like this.

Once a star, always a threat. He'll be back with something else, no doubt. One doesn't need Hollywood to make films anymore anyway.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Agree that Luhrman's reach does tend to exceed his grasp, which can be charming at times, but not here! No, in this movie a few scenes crackled with life but only a few, the majority fell flat. Okay, I think that was partially Hanks's fault and not Luhrman's, but Luhrman it was Luhrman's job to rein in Hanks just as it was his job to fit the movie into the running time.

I actually hope Luhrman goes back to making Australian indies and not more Hollywood films, that's where he did his best work.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 2 years ago

I disagree. There are many new fans because of this film. This troll board is a poor basis of the success of this film in garnering new fans.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 2 years ago

A lot of Elvis fans liked it actually but most of the people here are trolls and haters. They're teeming on the TGF boards as well.

[–] kspkap (13555) 2 years ago

As I wrote earlier it has taken me decades to learn to appreciate the God given unique talent Elvis had. I saw this 2022 movie first at the theater and felt is was OK. I do wish more time had been spent showing the realistic ability Austin Butler had putting forth portraying Elvis. He didn’t have to “look” like Elvis in his performance. All the naysayers and trolls on this board are more than likely young punks who doesn’t know a good performance when they see one.

Austin Butler lived Elvis’s life for over two years. He read everything and watch everything he could about Elvis. He did a damn good job, so much so the inflection of his voice used to portray Elvis stayed with him. As soon as the movie was released to Blu-Ray, DVD & Digital I purchased it. On YouTube there are many comparisons of Elvis and Austin. Watch them and see how Austin captured Elvis’s persona. Here are some. There are many more. Notice not only the physical actions, but look how Austin captured Elvis’s facial expressions when performing.

Notice the expressions when first going on stage for this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VEIx57lMuM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHcpEkKjRDs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAJvyHp4DB8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IWOEfD8p4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKhzJbTte4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYmT2qKI1b4

I have purchased about 15 movies starring Elvis. I can understand why he came to hate do those movies. IMO. as soon as he started to sing the movie was put on the back burner. I’ve also purchased 6 CDs. The man’s voice was so unique it was totally him. No one singer can match his abilities.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 2 years ago

All true, except it did include the Memphis mafia.

I think the title of the movie should have been Col. Tom Parker, but that would have hurt the sales.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 2 years ago

What about Lolita and Amadeus, should those titles be changed too because it followed this Hitchcockian format of the pov from the villain's stance?

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6349) 2 years ago

Mozart & Salieri would have been good, yes. Amadeus wasn't good actually, at the start, because people didn't know how to pronounce it. It's always bad when people are at the ticket window and don't know how to pronounce the name of the film they plan to see. Can put them off asking.

Lolitia and Humbert weren't famous so it wouldn't have helped.

You didn't ask about The Blue Angel. ;)

[–] [email protected] (2017) 2 years ago

You have the 2 terrible miniseries to quench your thirst for generic biopics.