Elvis

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.

There is a lot to unpack about what I did not like about this movie but I also feel I need to 'fess up about my love of Elvis and growing up a fan as a child. I was 11 when he died and it came as a big shock. In rural Norfolk where we lived mostly 20 years in the past so it seemed that he had only just arrived. I spent a long time after following the legend. The Kurt Russel movie, the odd "That's the Way it is / Was" documentaries - stylistically plundered for this movie and of course all the movies. Owning 40 Greatest Hits was pretty much issued to you growing up. Then Punk Rock and New Wave came and Elvis just became the distant past, even if he did shock his audience in a way Johnny Rotten could only dream. Occasionally American Trilogy would come on the radio and I'd crank it up and do an Elvis impersonator sing-along, "Wisha was, inna lanna cotton" I played it on my excited drive to see this movie I had been waiting for, saying to my partner, "If this song is not referenced in the movie, I'll be stunned, it is definitive Elvis".

Once the film started, it was the first track we see enacted by the incredibly brilliant Austin Butler who nails it. Sadly, there is not much else good to say about this movie beyond his performance. It makes sense of course that Baz Luhrmann would open with that. Luhrmann is never one to use a nutcracker when there is a sledgehammer he can bang an idea a few times with until you get it. That's my point. This is not really an Elvis movie. It is a Tom Parker movie that wishes it was an Elvis movie. I am not sure you can be that dark and cynical about Elvis life and hope to get away with it considering what baggage the typical audience are likely to bring to the show. For Elvis to be portrayed as this easily manipulated kid, when anyone who watched the documentaries mentioned above knew The King was always in charge. If you tip the weight of the narrative to Colonel Tom you have to reduce the personality of Elvis. Don't get me wrong when I first heard rumours about this movie I was very keen for a Colonel Tom movie played by Tom Hanks but for that movie to work it needs a less important Elvis, that's a tough trick to pull off.

This movie is only coherent to an Elvis fan. To others not plugged into the folklore, myth and legend, it is long and boring with Luhrmann over egging his point and being cynical and depressive. He either fast forwards too much that is relevant or dwells on insignificance to bolster and pad out the Colonel Tom con artist. There is the art of the conman, the huckster, referenced through this movie. In reality, the biggest card trick is shuffled by the director who promises us a celebration of Elvis but delivers a woeful, tedious tale of a mediocre manager who got lucky clinging to a rocket after it had already launched. Butler is brilliant, no doubt, Hanks is hammy at best. Luhrmann tries to use Elvis to paint Tom Parker which is like I said, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Fun in places but subtle it ain't. Thang yer verry mush.

Firstly Austin Butler was great , he could actually be Elvis as he looked so much like him and clearly worked hard to do Elvis justice , but I didn't really enjoy the movie but can't put my finger on why , the Main actors did a good job but I couldn't really get an emotional connection with them or the story line until the very end , I thought the legend Tom Hanks had too much of a part to play and Elvis didn't get enough , the story seemed to bounce all over the place and to me just felt and bit disjointed , Im no movie critic or expert so I recommend seeing it as lots have really raved about it but I woo the be watching it again.

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.

It's probably not the best biopic ever made but I personally loved this take on Elvis. I loved that it exposed The Colonel's abuse and gave some insight to just how much Elivs worked for the benefit of others. He took care of everyone.

I'm not gonna give a long review. I just wanted to share how good I thought it was. Austin Butler deserves an award for how brilliant he was in this role. I saw where some reviewers were complaining about him not looking closely enough like Elvis but I thought he was a nice fit. There was only one Elvis folks. We just have to work with what we have and as I mentioned, I believe Austin deserves an award. He put serious thought and effort into playing this role. He wasn't hard on the eyes either!! Great Job!!

Loved it!