Elvis

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 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.

My Review Baz Lurhmann's - Elvis

My Rating 7.5 /10

10/10 for Austin Butler's portrayal as Elvis

Elvis has the Baz Lurhmann brand all over it as it's bound to seeing Baz wrote the story as well as Directed and Produced the movie . Whether that's a good thing or not I'm not so sure but top marks for his choice of Austin Butler to play the title role of Elvis Presley.

Austin Butler had big shoes to fill and Elvis fans won't be disappointed as he portrays the iconic singer over more than 20 years of his life covering the 50s, 60s, and 70s, eras from his childhood and meteoric rise to stardom to his long, slow decline.

This biographical movie unlike the 2019 movie Judy I'm pleased to say covers the good years as well as the sad years when Elvis left us tragically aged only 42 under identical circumstances to Judy Garland who was 47.

Both stars burnt out prematurely both were exploited but their fame and legacy of music and film footage will live on for centuries as they are both true historical cultural icons.

Austin Butler really does hold the entire movie together for me he gives much more than an Elvis impersonation which so many performers have done before.

At times and at certain camera angles Austin Butler looks uncannily identical to Elvis Presley and he sings the early Elvis songbook in his own voice to perfection. Austin's voice is only blended with Elvis's own voice in the later Las Vegas years .

Many other actors in addition to Austin Butler auditioned for the role including Ansel Elgort, Miles Teller, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Harry Styles but the right choice to play Elvis certainly was Austin Butler in my opinion.

Unlike Rami Malik who played Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody and had the Freddie Mercury teeth he wore cast in gold , Austin Butler's transformation really just relies on eye make up ,hairstyle and the tight pants and flamboyant shirts and capes that Elvis wore during his performances.

I'm certain Austin Butler's performance is what prompted the Elvis movie to receive a 12 minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival last month. Rami Malik received an Oscar and lip synched the songs so Austin Butler who sings in his own voice should at least get a Best Actor Oscar nomination in 2023.

There were positives I liked in Baz Luhrmann's Elvis and negatives as much as I admire Tom Hanks as an Actor the role of Colonel Tom Parker who is the storyteller through whose eyes we see the rise and fall of The King of Rock is a despicable and ugly character . While of course he is a central character in the Elvis Presley story I felt telling the story through such an unsympathetic character was unnecessary and I found Tom Hanks Dutch accent and his prosthetic nose a little irritating at times.

The Cinematography by Mandy Walker is stunning as are the costumes by Baz Luhrmann's 4 time Academy Award winning wife Catherine Martin .

All biography movies stretch or modify the facts to a certain extent to add more dramatic content and while this story is reasonably accurate Baz has used some poetic licence in some scenes . The emotional meeting of Elvis and the Producer Steve Binder of his 1968 Christmas comeback show at the iconic rusting L. A. Hollywood sign never happened but it's effective.

The opening introduction scene of Colonel Tom Parker discovering Elvis at the Carnival which I'm sure was inspired by Guillermo del Toro's recent movie Nightmare Alley also never occurred. World events of that time are used as a timeline like the assassination of Bobby Kennedy during taping of an Elvis television show also are fiction but it does add drama to the script.

There's also a silly hysterical scene where an entire Christmas snow set is built to convince The Colonel that Elvis was going to sing Here Comes Santa Claus in his 1968 comeback show this also apparently was a complete fiction as was the fact that Elvis was persuaded by Parker to enlist in the army rather than being arrested for his suggestive stage gyrations. Elvis did not enlist he was drafted and surrounded by the media when he entered the Army in March 1958.

Those who love Showman Baz Luhrmann's flamboyant highly individual directing style I'm sure will love Elvis I enjoyed it but didn't love it.

The supporting cast that includes Olivia De Jonge as Pricilla Richard Roxburgh as Vernon Presley Helen Thomson as Gladys and Kodi Smit-McPhee as Jimmie Rodgers Snow are all good but in my view could have been featured more .

I personally think he lacks subtlety and while putting on a great show his script in this case focuses to much on the character of Colonel Tom Parker and as I recently referred to heroes as main characters in stories Colonel Tom Parker was no hero. Colonel Tom reminds me more of Rumpelstiltskin in more ways than one Elvis turned the straw that Colonel Tom Parker gave him into gold and like the Princess in the Grimm's Fairy Tale sadly Elvis paid a very high price.

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 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.