Elvis and the Colonel: The Untold Story

This film is just so much nothing like Elvis and the legend at all. Everything is wrong with it. There is nothing in it which is right. Its more like 'Elvis + The Colonel: The untrue story'.

First of all. The idea of a ghost of Elvis appearing and narrating makes the show pathetic. Plus, Rob Youngblood looks nothing like Elvis either. A weird face with weird eyes and weird jaw- bones. Nothing like Elvis with extremely thick side-burns which are obviously just bits of fur stuck on. They were just too big that nobody would have grown them or would have been able to grow. The appearence and attitude of this portrail was nothing like Presley.

Then there was a replica of the house 'Graceland', that was so much unlike the actual house. The grave also, was quite different with thick writing of Elvis' name. Then there was also a rectangular swimming pool which Elvis never had. The hair style was very unlike Elvis'. Just too much hair and not combed right either. The hair styling was bad.

Vernon Presley portrail [ Elvis' father ] was nothing like the actual man either. He was just a total different appearence. Nothing the same and no attempt on making the actor look like Vernon. Gladys was slightly like the real mother of Elvis but not very close. Colonel Tom Parer played by Beau Bridges was probably the only thing that came close to the truth in the movie but still was not absolutely great.

Many actions that commence in this movie were distorted and untrue such as Elvis giving his mother a pink cadillac car when they were at graceland. Elvis gave his mother that car in 1956 when he had never even thought of having the mansion.

In this movie Elvis was ment to have done his 68 Comeback special live when he didnt. He had done it 6 months in advance. Elvis' appearence didnt change through the 50s to the 60s. Nothing changed. Also, Parker was also for the idea of a comeback in this movie but really he hated the idea.

The actor to play Elvis didnt even sound like Presley. It was just too much of a bad attempt from a bad impersonator. With just a deep southern American accent and no special tone which Elvis really did have.

Colonel Tom Parker also in real life discovered Elvis at an open air concert but in this it was just in a night club.

In this bad show and waste of money Elvis got fat in 1973 but Elvis never got fat until a bout 1 year before he died in 1977. There was also a scene which was ment to be in the 50s with Elvis getting out of his film trailer in the costumes to the movie 'Change of Habit' which was made in 1969.

Another fault included, Colonel Tom Parker telling Elvis that he could leave Hollywood when he wanted but it was the other way around. Colonel wanted to stay and Elvis wanted to leave. Plus, in the movie, the actor to play Elvis' hair stylist was nothing like the actual hair stylist with a beard and weird clothes.

The list of faults just goes on and on and on. It was a total amateurally made film which should of not been made at all. It was just awful. If there is a movie to be made on the theme of the nice guy Elvis and The Colonel it should of been made by Elvis historians. Not by someone who knew nothing about The King. The script must have been just written by a 9 year old who had to do a school project but got bits and parts of the facts. Nothing is right in the film.

Besides all this. All the facts been wrong and the movie been totally incorrect, the acting was just horrid from everyone besides Beau Bridges. The acting, the script, the photography and directions were all bad. Nothing was right. It was a total mistake making this movie.

In brief, the major untold story is largely incorrect. Although Bridges really does give a decent perfromance as the batering, carnival huckster, the poorly written Elvis role becomes even more preposterous when the ghost of Elvis appears and speaks in the film. Totally and absolutely and without a doubt not recmmended.

If it weren't for the INCREDIBLE and UNDERRATED actor, Beau Bridges....whom I actually like JUST as much if not MORE than his incredible actor brother, Jeff.... I would NOT have liked this movie AT ALL! EVERYONE knows that Elvis Presley was one of the MOST BEAUTIFUL people (man OR woman) in HISTORY! EVEN in his later days....he was STILL a well-groomed and UNIQUE-looking, handsome man....though far (yet NOT so far....as he looked awesome as late as the end of '76) removed from his earlier days where he was a beyond reproach 'GOD'! But in THIS movie....they made the King look HORRIFIC in his later days....as the actor that played him couldn't hold a CANDLE to the CANDLE illuminating Elvis! It almost made me laugh, but I RESPECT and LOVE Elvis SO/TOO much to even laugh at the IDEA of Elvis! Beau Bridges is just good to great in ANYTHING he's in....so his portrayal of the Colonel was pretty interesting, at LEAST. This movie, to its credit, made me research Colonel Tom Parker more in depth (and I found out some pretty rotten things about him....though WITHOUT the Colonel....there probably would NOT have been the UNPARRALLELLED phenomenon that was/IS Elvis Aron.... NOT 'Aaron', which is STILL a mystery to me that that misspelling is/was on his burial stone/site....as Jesse, his brother that passed shortly before him, had the middle name 'Garon'.... Presley)! So, YES, the portrayal of Elvis and the way they had the actor narrate the movie is a WASH. BRIDGES is what made this movie watchable....and the MYSTIQUE of Elvis....as we (DIE hard Elvis admirers.... BEYOND mere 'fans') know that ANY-THING about Elvis is a must-watch/listen! One of the AMAZING things about Elvis is that we NEVER see, comprehend or can consume the ENTIRETY of what he was/STILL is! So....watch this movie to gain some new insights on Elvis....and the performance of Beau Bridges. THAT'S it! I am 'leaving the building'. After all....in the END....it's ALL...about the KING! Elvis FOREVER!

I haven't seen this film since 1993 when I was only nine years old, but I still remember every bit how much of a flagrant travesty it was to The King, and to the story of his life. This movie has the audacity to suggest that Elvis Presley's drug problem was already beginning to develop in the early 1960's, when everyone who knows about Elvis also knows that he had no REASON to do his perscription sleeping and awakening "upper and downer" drugs at that time, because he was never on tour and the only thing occupying his career was his movie-making period. In fact, from 1961 to 1968, he had no public appearances at all, except for his films. Also, the movie portrays Elvis in 1973 as already beginning to gain some serious weight, when in fact, no significant change could even be perceived on Elvis' body until late 1975, when he was becoming more and more frequently hospitalized for digestive disorders. And any true Elvis fan would be angry at the way the film portrays Elvis, as a slothful, short-tempered, childish prima dona. Take it from me, folks. If you want to see a good Elvis documentary, wait for TNT to air Elvis: The Early Years, a very thorough and accurate peice focusing mainly on Elvis' childhood all the way up through 1955, when his noteriety was about to reach its peak.