mallaverack

What's with all these critics here comparing "Allied" with the 1942 classic "Casablanca"? Just because early scenes are set in Casablanca, according to many reviewers here, then the films are obviously closely related as can be seen by the "many references and similarities to 'Casablanca'". Excuse me, but have I missed something - I cannot name even one character or incident in "Allied" that can be compared with those in the 1942 film. Not one!

Please help me out here - I'm absolutely perplexed by the insinuations made by those who come across as know-nothing know-alls.

Oh, and must every two human beings who have a loving relationship exude this so called chemistry? The absence of flying sparks, according to reviewers here, definitely spells failure and any such portrayal on screen points assuredly to lousy acting by those involved!

Some need to appreciate life as it is, not what they think it should be.

Overall, a most entertaining and meaningful film about love and war.

Unfortunately, a number of reviewers here seem to have chosen to view this mesmerising movie with pre-conceptions of how a musical biop must be presented. Some apparently will accept nothing less than highlighting, in chronological order, incidents from the life of the subject, in this case, the King of Rock n' Roll. And this must not be encroached upon with any substantial side-issues such as the mismanagement of Elvis' career by the Colonel, his career-long manager. Especially if the anti-hero speaks with a funny accent and is portrayed by an actor who is heavily made-up to resemble the real character - goodness me, Hanks' performance is totally against character and one of his best ever!

The Australian director has chosen a different approach with the Colonel as narrator and villain producing a biop which touches on bigger themes than a young man's rise to superstar status and eventual demise. And in using not only Elvis' music but more recent tunes in an imaginative way the result is a dazzling spectacle of sound.

Revealing the story of Elvis' rise cannot be done accurately without the the insidious presence of Colonel Parker. Consider the latter's influence - Elvis' enlistment in the regular army and not some Special Service position; Elvis' marriage; the financial deals; the film contracts and what many consider a negative, the curtailing of international performances. The latter of course was the consequence of Parker's abiding fear that he would be identified as an illegal citizen.

To be truthful I found the depiction and motives of the Colonel of much interest because the general public has a wide-ranging knowledge of the King's life and career more so than the ubiquitous Colonel Parker. So to linger on the significance of Parker's character in this movie so critically is, in my opinion, nit-picking.

Austin Butler is the very best of screen portrayals of the King. It may well be seen as the definitive film characterisation of Elvis. Butler's performance is universally acclaimed as intense, electrifying and full of bravura, making the movie "Elvis" amongst the very best of musical biopics.

For the magnificent production values, costuming, direction, camera work and music, this movie deserves more than a nod for next year's Oscars.

I'm very grateful for the reviewer here who pointed out that John Wick killed 73 persons whilst 8 others lost their lives during this movie's plot.

Most critics here seem to agree the slaughter was carried out stylishly but I'm not satisfied it was done in an efficient manner. Why shoot somebody, seemingly at least twice through vital organs only to slavishly follow this up with a bullet to the head? Must admit though that the splotch of red which ensued made the dark interior scenes much more colourful.

Fascinating.