Protecting the King

The life of the great Elvis Presley is fascinating and worth a look. The story is alright but the acting falls short. Elvis is not believable and his younger brother's "narrative voice" doesn't help the cause any. The film is probably only suited for fans of The King, and even then don't expect a lot. It's not even clear the true intent of the film. There is no interesting dialog in any scene involving The King. The director never creates any insight into the character, really falling short on what this entire production should have been based on. The more I write the more I realize what a waste of time that 90 minutes was.

From head to toe, this is one huge stink-burger of a film. Easily the worst movie about Elvis, and I've seen them all. With the WORST Elvis impersonator I've EVER seen on film. (Peter Dobson makes DON JOHNSON look like Elvis personified! Hell, I think Ron Howard could have done a better "King" ) Dobson looks like Charlie Sheen with a dead skunk sitting on his head, and he sounds more like Sly Stallone when he talks, over Presley. Because of the simple fact that you NEVER hear or see the name "Elvis", and never even hear instrumental muzak versions of ANY Elvis song, (all you hear is just bad/generic blues riffs…) Plus, ALL the names seem to have been changed… Why? The main person who would watch this flick would most likely already be an Elvis fan, and would already know who the "characters " are anyway. This all makes me doubt the whole story… What's B.S and what's real. It's like filming a movie about Watergate, yet calling the president at the time Jonathon Smith. I have an easier time believing Bubba-Hoetep was real, over this… (At least Bruce Campbell DID impersonate Elvis surprisingly well!)

I'm not being "Pollyannaish", I know Elvis was messed up individual, I've read every book I could get my hands on regarding "The King", including David Stanley's book. What's interesting is, Stanley's book was a testimonial on the evils of drugs, and how he became a born again Christian. You wouldn't ever guess that through watching this movie… It's a sea of excess, with only a passing reference to his spirituality at the very end.

It's as if David Stanley saw Boogie Nights, saw what a GREAT film is, regarding sex, drugs & rock & roll, and figured he could do the same type of picture, as there's already a built-in audience. Instead of the Porn world, it's rock and roll. Boogie Nights, which was a TOTAL immersive experience, with perfect acting, realism, fashions and music, I really felt I was in the late 70's watching that film (I'm 43, so I ought to know!) This film, however, is a sad wannabe. Serving Stanley's pocketbook and ego instead of honoring Elvis' memory. Sad and pathetic. The ONE good thing about this garbage dump of a movie? Danielle Keaton. She was really good in this pic... She kept me from giving this film the big goose egg.

I could not believe how bad this movie was, first- the guy who played Elvis looked and sounded nothing like him, second- why wasn't his weight gain preceding his death portrayed- when they showed his death in 1977 he was the same size as when the movie begins 1969. third- why is Elvis only referred to as "Boss", could they not get permission by EPE? fourth- why have the names of his entourage been changed, red and sonny west are referred to as Jeff and Frank and who I presume to be Joe Esposito is referred to as Ronnie. Don't waste your time on this piece of trash. Elvis would be ashamed that his one time stepbrother would do such a poor job portraying him. 0/10.

Oh boy. Probably you know this movie is tortuously bad. You will not need me to tell you this.

But you know, it almost could have been not so, because we all have a bit of groupie in us. We allow great latitude to filmmakers who go where we secretly wish we could, perhaps simply because it is forbidden.

Offhand, I can think of three films — all seriously damaged — that were groupie films that we allowed and even think are pretty good.

One of these you may not know. It was about Gram Parsons, a documentary that was structured as a groupie experience, even down to explaining why there was no sex. (He was chronically too doped up to perform.) It ends with a groupie stealing his body and burning it in the desert. Based on real events, home movies and interviews with the entourage, its almost perfectly designed as an ersatz tour.

Then there's "The Doors." Stone makes flashy but empty movies, but this one resonated because the focus wasn't the suicidal son of a dumb admiral, but on the girl who would give everything just to feel his skin. Its about the only thing Meg's dewy face and manner is good for.

Probably the one that seems the best but is the worst is "Almost Famous" because though it collected the whole audience in a grouping of groupies, and it had the sex with the simpleton girlies, it had the guys as well. This opened things up, because by the very act of watching we were joining that group. But the very act of thinking about it, we joined the autobiographical author/filmmaker as he (thought he) was thinking about the music and its place in the world.

(I won't get into the intricacies of "Bubba Hotep.")

So even this drek, this moronic project could have been subtly adjusted to fool us, especially because it centers on the plastic nature of Elvis-love. I think the exercise would not be worth it except to prove a point in film school. But I think a different edit, different dialog with the same scenes and a remote narration could retool this into acceptable groupieland.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

First off, the only reason this film rates more than one star is the fact that Peter Dobson does a pretty good job in the only scene he's allowed to resemble the Elvis so many have written about, namely the last time we see Elvis alive.

Having said that, this film is a massive slap in the face to Elvis and the only account from the many people that were closer to Elvis than David Stanley was, that almost from start to finish portrays Elvis as a totally contempt able individual.

If you believe this film then Elvis is entirely responsible for all the bad things (drug addiction, divorce, etc) that occur in David Stanley s life. He takes no personal responsibility for anything bad that he did...it was all the fault of being exposed to Elvis...oops, I mean "The King." You see, no one in this film has a real name. All people have pseudonyms and the Elvis character is never called Elvis, just Boss or The King. One can assume this was for (rightly) avoiding lawsuits. The Tom Sizemore character is clearly Joe Esposito. The entire film Elvis is portrayed as a drugged out, Ulta violent, brute. The image of Elvis that is predominantly displayed in so many other accounts by people who knew him longer and better is entirely absent. The kindness, generosity, humor, and warmth, are not there.

It's well known that Elvis did not approve of his father's marriage to Dee Stanley. He took David and his two brothers in as family and it seems that David took after his mother, who wrote an incredibly scandalous book about Elvis after he died full of ridiculous claims as well.

I bought this film because I'm a fan and a completionist, but let me save you the trouble. This film is an affront to any Elvis fan who has done even a minimum of research into his life.

This is just an attempt to divest David Stanley of any responsibility for being a drug addict, an adulterer, and a violent, rage filled youth.

If you want an account by someone who knew Elvis from the time he was in high school to his death...and was closer than David Stanley ever was to him, read Me and a Guy Named Elvis by Jerry Schilling or If I Can Dream by Larry Gellar.