samyoung-82648

When you think of Luhrmann, you think of Mulin Rouge and the Great Gatsby. This film in many ways follows the template of those excellent films. So where did this one miss the mark?

Firstly, Austin Butler provided an excellent performance. It was less Remi Malek as a wooden imitation of Freddie Mercury, where I struggled to see the character. It was far closer to Taron Edgerton in his brilliant portrayal as Elton John who lived and breathed the spirit of Elton in a stellar performance. In this Elvis film, you really got the feel of Elvis and how he influenced the people around him. Austin's performance was mostly superb and he (without doubt) held the film together. The scene where Priscilla left was one of the few mediocre scenes by Austin.

The film, however, was let down badly because Luhrmann couldn't decide if he wanted a factual account or a Hollywood revised "paint by numbers". Luhrmann put significant effort into Austin as Elvis and let all other primary and secondary characters (including Tom Hanks) play shallow roles that just didn't quite work. It's probably the worst Tom Hanks role i've seen. The charm and sleaziness didn't really come through particularly well.

Whilst less important, the film is fairly woke and kept on drawing me back to modern day with its segregationist, revisionist perspectives of the past. I genuinely didn't feel like I was watching the 50s at all. This almost felt like the Dewy Cox story (which is a parody and an excellent one at that). Luhrmann let himself down badly by confusing a biopic with woke politics. If this was fiction (Gatsby or Moulin Rouge), it wouldn't matter anywhere near as much. However, when you're covering a real person and dealing with more modern material, it does matter.

Huge plusses for Austin Butler and the costumes and the music.

Huge minuses for revisionist history and wokeness.

On the balance of things, it was a reasonable film. Had Luhrmann made the 50s portrayal a little more relatable and tried to portray characters more meaningfully (less Dewy Cox), this film could have easily been an 8. Segregation existed. Poverty existed. Alcoholism and violence existed. There's a fine line between art (revising) and telling (recounting) history. This film didn't quite get past Hollywood's wokeness. For a much better biopic, I recommend Elton John (Rocketman). Rocketman doesn't pull punches and it truly shows the highs and lows around Elton John. Tom Hanks was sufficiently integral and sufficiently weak that he let this film down more than I would like. Gary Oldman would have been a much better choice as that man can do nuance far more effectively than Hanks.

New Zealand has brilliant music bands, great actors, and some great productions. 7 Periods with Mr Gormsby is one of my favourite TV series: it's intelligent, hilarious, witty, and not afraid to pull punches. You see similar wit in Flight of the Concords.

Then you've got anything Taika Waititi. He is the opposite of everything I mentioned. Think of him as New Zealand's lowest common denominator. In the first 30 minutes, I counted one character in Thor: LaT that I liked (Stellan Skarsgard, who appeared for 10 seconds).

I say the following in all seriousness. If you are of reasonable intelligence, do not watch this film without some form of mind-altering substance. You will need something to dull the pain.

Generally speaking, I don't walk out through a film. I made an exception here. This was dreadful, not funny, and utterly low brow.

I scored 3/10 because I saw that the general production was reasonable. The story and acting was dreadful.

On the good side, this film is set across Asia. This gives the film an interesting vibe. The story is reasonably engaging.

However, what kills this movie for me is the behaviour of the characters. It's hard to explain how bad they are portrayed. Characters assert things that just don't make sense. They query each other in odd ways and to be honest, Hemsworth goes from petty criminal geek to near trained assassin. It's just silly.