Elvis

There are certainly times in which Baz Luhrmann's "Elvis" is an engaging and entertaining biopic of rock-and-roll's biggest star. The performance numbers are often incredible and Austin Butler inhabits all aspects/ages of the lead role adeptly. Unfortunately, Luhrmann's let's say "unique" style of filmmaking can't quite get out of its way long enough (especially in the early goings) for this to be a top-notch flick.

For a very basic overview, "Elvis" tells the story of the titular character (played by Butler) from childhood all the way through his Vegas residency at the end of his career. The narrative frame comes from the voice of Colonel Parker (Tom Hanks), Presley's manager and quasi-abuser (largely in the financial department). Elvis's relationship to "black music", teen heartthrob fame, military service, and late-60s comeback are all given time here, including his marriage to Priscilla (Olivia DeJonge).

Perhaps the most notable thing to mention about "Elvis" is that the first 30-45 minutes are kind of a mess. Luhrmann is in peak wackadoodle form (granted, what else could be expected from the director of 1996's "Romeo + Juliet"), what with jarring time-cuts, crazy montages (one that turns the proceedings into a comic book!), and quite a bit of time spent on the bizarre Hanks Parker portrayal. There is also a far-too-on-the-nose scene in which a young Presley supposedly learns his later musical style via an R&B jam session and a revival ministry happening concurrently. I'd blame no one for thinking this was a total mess before the 1 hour mark.

Fortunately, in this case, there is still 2 hours left of "Elvis", and that's when it settles into being a pretty entertaining film. Basically, once all the crazy material is out of the way and audiences can just settle into Butler's portrayal, there is a lot to like. I was really impressed with Butler's ability to portray the young rebellious Elvis, as well as the fat, worn-down-by-life version. The staged musical numbers are every bit as good as those found in recent musical biopics like Rocketman or Bohemian Rhapsody. I'll certainly be revisiting some Presley tunes after seeing this.

Overall, I can't put "Elvis" in my top tier (Walk the Line, Love & Mercy, & Judy) of biopics because its director seems almost physically unable to "tell it straight" when this film and acting performances would have certainly been good enough for that grounded approach. But it was easily good enough to hold my interest and take me on an interesting journey through the iconic musician's entire career.

Austin Butler is terrific, I want to say that immediately. But, I was waiting for the movie to start, and in the dizzying display of visual pyrotechnics I forgot this was a Buz Luhrmann movie, so it would probable never start. A long, beautifully made trailer that hints at a revolutionary bio-pic. But that's all it is, a hint. Tom Hanks's Colonel Parker is out of a Charles Dickens novel. Yes Fagan. But I must say Austin Butler kept me there. True that sometimes he doesn't look or feel real but neither did the real Elvis. Butler's physicality is astonishing and that's what I took with me and I thought, I would love to see the movie when it comes out,.

Compared to other musical biopics that have hit the screen in recent years (Rocket Man, Bohemian Rhapsody), 'Elvis' is tad underwhelming. It is a solid film but Luhrmann's direction failed to fully draw me in and impress.

There is a lot to like about this film however. Austin Butler gives a truly terrific performance and thoroughly shines in the role. He is so charismatic and really embodies everything that Elvis was. Hanks on the other hand is reduced to a bit of a caricature which really didn't work for me. A shame as I am normally a huge fan of Hanks but felt like this casting was a little off.

Perhaps the biggest draw back for me was the style of film making. The opening 30-40 minutes were very chaotic. The non-linear story telling made the opening act feel unnecessarily messy. Once things were unravelled and we started progressing through Elvis' life chronologically, things somehow felt drawn out yet fleeting at the same time. I think Luhrmann missed the mark on this one a bit.

I also would have liked to have seen more from a musical perspective. At times the film had the wrong focus and I think it failed to capture just how and why Elvis became the icon he was.

Despite this the film does a good job of exploring over 20 years of Elvis' life, which is no mean feat. There are some fantastic sequences and brilliant costume work throughout.

Elvis is a solid film and there is a lot to enjoy, but I was expecting more and feel like with such an interesting story to tell this film could have and should have been better.

Tom Hanks portrayal of Colonel was distracting and aggravating

Austin Butler was incredible.

So much about Elvis is glossed over and Baz's direction and edits are distracting to the point you don't feel like you ever get to know Elvis the way you want.

If this had been directed by someone like Michael Mann who's specializes in layered and complex "people" this may have been great. Baz delivered a mediocre movie and distracting visuals.....

My biggest gripe is it feels like Baz seemed to concentrate more on visual editing and made Elvis more of a side note in this film.

Good luck but it's def a cautionary tale of the more famous you are the more alone you'll always be.

Looks like Tom Hanks phoned in his role. His acting, if you can call it that was disgustingly terrible. Austin Butler was the perfect actor to play Elvis. I enjoyed the parts of the movie that he was in without Hanks hovering around trying to steal the scene. The writers needed to delve more into Elvis Presley's early life. Priscilla's character was just a footnote. It was if she was hardly in his life. I would actually watch this movie again if I could delete Tom Hanks from the film. Tom Hanks sucked the life out of the movie as much as Colonel Parker sucked the life out of Elvis Presley and his career.