Destination: Graceland

This movie received some pretty scathing reviews back when it came out and apparently it was even nominated for several Golden raspberry awards including Kevin Costner for worst actor.

Does the movie deserve all of that? Hell no, this is a fun action black comedy which i think a lot of people will enjoy especially if you are a fan of Quentin Tarantino and similar edgy violent thrillers.

Kurt Russell is reliably cool as always and i actually thought Costner was pretty badass, i want the jacket he wears for much of the movie. The action is frantic and bloody and i enjoy the overall politically incorrect tone running through the movie. Some scenes are actually really cool and stylish looking.

It isn't perfect, there are some really out of place nu metal songs on the soundtrack (there should be way more Elvis songs) and some of the jokes do fall flat.

Looking up some other movies which came out in 2001, is this honestly as bad as trash like Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles or Ghosts Of Mars?

Check it out, you might be surprised.

`3000 Miles to Graceland' isn't quite as dopey as the cover art featuring Kurt Russell and Kevin Kostner clad in Elvis regalia would suggest. Although it breaks little new ground in its already overworked genre, the film does emerge as an efficient crime drama thanks to a gallery of interesting characters, some impressive performances and Demian Lichtenstein's flashy directorial style.

After a shaky first half hour or so, in which the film seems to be struggling to establish its direction and tone, the movie miraculously hits its stride and, thereafter, never really lets up. The story centers around a band of ex-cons, united by their almost obsessive love for the King of rock'n'roll, who decide to knock over a Las Vegas casino dressed as Elvis impersonators. Predictably, the heist serves merely as the pretext for one of them, the obviously psychotic Murphy (Kostner), to cold-bloodedly eliminate his accomplices. The fly in his ointment turns out to be Michael Zane (Russell), the most principled one of the group, who survives the holocaust and spends his time, along with a pretty single mother and her precocious child, trying to keep out of Murphy's way.

In terms of plotting, the film follows a pretty traditional route for this kind of film. However, the characters here seem a bit more fleshed out than they often do in some of those other films, particularly Zane, who seems caught between his criminal inclinations and his innate goodness as a human being. Cybil, the single mother played by Courteney Cox, likewise seems conflicted between genuine love and emotion and the excitement of easy wealth and a life lived on the edge. But it is Kostner as Murphy who sets the real tone for the film. His portrayal of a steely-eyed psychotic killer literally sets the teeth on edge, as he callously mows down scores of policemen and innocent bystanders who happen to get in his way. He makes for a truly soul-cringing villain. Russell, who played the actual legend back in his own younger, more halcyon days, makes a fascinating subtle counterpoint to Murphy's unbridled ruthlessness.

The film is not, however, a total success. For one thing, the violence often seems excessively brutal, graphic and mean spirited for a movie that seems to want to be a lark of sorts (after all, a movie featuring robbers dressed as Elvis impersonators can't be bidding to be taken too seriously). Moreover, the plotting, which far too often relies on unlikely coincidences to keep it rolling, also borders frequently on the incoherent. Finally, the morally ambiguous ending doesn't really sit well with those of us who find a couple of thieves, no matter how charming they may appear to be, unlikely candidates for heroism in the context of a `happy' ending.

All in all, however, `3000 Miles to Graceland' will probably appeal to those who like their crime dramas offbeat, quirky and filled with interesting characters.

Scrolling through the 135+ comments, I'm amazed at how outraged so many viewers are at the "excessive violence," "explicit sex," "foul language," etc., etc., etc. C'mon. A film is advertised as Elvises robbing a Las Vegas casino during an Elvis convention. How much more lead in do you want? You expect, action, thrills and ... content? Amazing. Listen. This is one of the funniest, outrageous films I've seen in a long time. Yes. The story's incredible. But, in any film, we have to consider the level at which we're willing to "buy in." I mean, some people were outraged at the farting scenes in Shrek. Now, they're complaining because Russell and Costner-- especially the latter-- are too violent. Well, let's go back a year or so when Russell and Costner both made Wyatt Earp films, playing the title roles. From my view, both vehicles were ghastly but entertaining. So, I submit that what we have here is the COSTNER and RUSSELL Revenge vehicle. Costner is always on the leafy edge, whether he's dancing with wolves, building baseball fields for ghosts or water-skiing as bait for sea monsters. Russell, whose track record in shoot 'em-ups is no less than Stallone or Arnie, is likewise coming off some hound dog roles, such as being an automated soldier, a remake of his Escape from New York (LA? Why'd anyone want to go there in the first place?) and the sci-fi Stargate. Now, we get these two guys in a mindless, black comedy, full of S&V-- the most since the cult film Thursday-- with quirky twists and turns. Mindless violence? Yes. Gratuitious sex? Yes. Entertaining? Yes-- but only if you don't take it too seriously. I loved it.

I saw elements of "Out of Sight" and "Honeymoon in Vegas" in this action movie. The film deals with a heist pulled off by thieves posing as Elvis impersonators during a convention, and their following dillemas afterwards. The film becomes fairly predictable and unbelievable in the ensuing chaos, as most of the action takes place in showdowns between Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner's characters, the latter of whom claims to be an illegitimate child of Elvis. I thought it was a pretty good movie, and you might find something you like in it.

** 1/2 out of ****

This started with such great style, color and pizazz, I thought I had discovered a real "sleeper," a film I didn't expect to be good that was turning out to be very entertaining.

Well, after the big Las Vegas heist and shortly thereafter when we got a full look at the wild characters and even wilder action scenes, the film settled down and the dialog took over. Unfortunately, that was the film's downfall as the dialog is either incredibly stupid and-or annoying in the second half of this movie. Most annoying was this young kid, you know - the smart-ass kind that says things NO kid his age would say in real life. He also had a foul mouth, and I don't like to see that from young kids.

All the characters in here are pretty much low-life people, the worst being the one played by Kevin Costner, who seemed to relish this role. If you like low-class people, you'll like this story. I gave it points for the style and the fast-moving story, but it's too unpleasant overall for me.