MovieChat Forums > Elvis (2022) Discussion > I didn't like it, and I'm an Elvis fan

I didn't like it, and I'm an Elvis fan

posted 2 years ago by Ticketsplease (4024)
44 replies | jump to latest

Elvis was such an intriguing person, you could literally pick one of these aspects of his life and write a movie around it. But they went with Tom Parker.

Tom Parker is a footnote in his life, and they decided to make a picture around that dynamic.

Let's talk about that. Tom Hanks did a worse Dutch accent than Mike Meyers in Goldmember.

I heard his American accent shine through throughout.

Speaking of accents, those Aussie actors need better dialect coaches because it did not sound right at all.

The movie airbrushed over Elvis and his underage love.

It skipped over Gladys death after accusing her of being a drunk.

It ignored the Memphis Mafia, Elvis collection of police badges, his visit to the Whitehouse, the affairs, the Bible readings at parties, the nocturnal lifestyle, his kindness, his sense of humor....I could go on.

This movie really needed 3 actors. Young, 30s, and death Elvis.

Sorry but it wasn't good for me as a fan.

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I completely agree with you. As a basic run through of his life, it's serviceable but all over the place. I was really hoping to see a deeper take on his life but it was very shallow and only skimmed the surface. By the time they got to the end and talked about getting out of the contract and the drama that went with that is when I thought 'wow....they could have made an entire movie just on the drama of this contract!'. He was breaking out Hound Dog in one scene and the next minute he's having his come back special. You never even got the sense he was gone to even need a come back special.

I also wasn't a fan of the Parker POV. I don't quite get the 'snow job' stuff. For a movie like Evita, where the narrator is talking about how she conned everyone to thinking she was a goddess. It worked because you are left wondering was she evil or a saint. Here, I'm not sure what Parker was trying to tell us. We were conned? Elvis was a con/fake? not as good as we think he is? I don't get it and I would have preferred to just see things through Elvis' eyes.

In the end, the movie feels all over the place, not sure what to focus on. It wants to have modern music then forgets about it half way through the movie. It wants to be in Parker's POV then forgets halfway through. They want us to see 'the real Elvis' but continue to paint him as an elusive god just talked about instead of experienced. I wanted more. I wanted to know more. I wanted more Elvis songs. What made him go from leather jackets to jumpsuits? I wanted more.

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) 2 years ago

Regarding Tom Parker, Hanks overdid his Dutch accent.

Here's how he actually sounded.

https://youtu.be/mfsDx4IsQe0

He basically had an American accent with a Dutch touch here and there.

Hanks sounded like Mike Myers!

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

Just saw it again last night and still enjoyed it. I picked up on a few more non Elvis/modern songs throughout the film. I'm not sure how I feel about the accent. As someone who didn't know much/if anything about Parker outside of his title 'The Colonel', it didn't bother me. If they are going for this more show business/things not what they seem take, it fits for me in a weird way. It gave parker the mystique of being an outsider to Elvis and everyone around him. I think Hanks would have pulled off the original man's accent fine so what he did in the movie had to be an artistic choice. Not saying I like it or agree with it but I can understand it.

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) 2 years ago

The thing with accents is that you need to break apart each syllable of each word of dialogue and learn your script that way. I heard a lot of American syllables slip through, so it wasn't an convincing accent for me.

[–] DoubleRD77 (96) 2 years ago

It is hard to get all that done in a movie, which is why I believe series are so popular today. Each season is like a 10 or 12 hour movie, which gives you a lot of time to tell a story and develope characters. If they made a series, I think that would be cool. I did like the movie though.

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

It's definitely a good starter for a newer or soon to be new Elvis fan. It hopefully is intriguing enough that you want to go learn more and check out a few documentaries or his movies. He's actually really enjoyable to watch in those movies. I agree with you about the TV series. It allows more time to space out the events and you can get more details in there. I know they have a new (new to me) Selena series. I loved the 1997 movie but I just haven't had a chance to watch the show yet.

I definitely enjoyed the movie but I don't know if I'll want to see it again after Wednesday (I'm going again with my cousin). Some movies like Jersey Boys and Selena I can watch over and over. This one just felt a little long and left me wanting more...but not in the really good way. you know?

[–] Ed (527) 2 years ago

Two reason I won’t see this film, unless for free years in future on some streaming service:

1) the director. I hate his style. Moulin Rouge was an undisciplined, spilled-paint of a film. Dreadful. Australia was forgettable, too.

2) why see a film about Elvis when the real Elvis made over several dozen films that I can just watch to see the real man and his actual singing voice, too?

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

I don't really follow directors that much. I follow the films. My problem is when I don't like something, someone's argument is 'well that's the director's style!' and I'm just like...'well, it's a dumb style.' Elvis and Thor are doing this to me right now. I've never seen any other movies of his so I went in blind. Never had an interest in Mulan Rouge...at all. And yea, I would have preferred a straight bio pic to whatever this was trying to be. This movie has that same feeling of undisciplined spilled paint. It took a minute to adjust to what I was watching. I don't like when I have to do that.

I love bio pics. I don't know why. I like seeing different people's take on the history. Maybe because it's something new...It's something just out so I know people have seen it so can discuss it fresh as opposed to being like 'have you ever seen this?' and being awkward if they've never heard of it. and I prefer seeing the action unfold as opposed to being told what happened in an actual biography. The actor was very good. I thought they were using Elvis tracks the whole time until they revealed he was singing as 'young Elvis'. I thought there was a very good voice match. But you are right; you can never copy the real thing and there are so many movies of his that people miss out on. I love his Hawaii movies and have seen them a few times but I can't wait to start watching others. 'Love me Tender' is the only other one I've seen.

[–] melissah1982 (883) 2 years ago

Just wanted to update myself as I had posted before that I didn't know 'if I wanted to see it again after Wednesday', which would have been my 2nd time....I have since seen it 8 in the theater, 1 once after it's streaming release and plan on seeing it for a 9th in theaters tomorrow (Elvis's anniversary) and possibly a 10th on Wednesday which looks like the last day in theaters. I am in love with this film' I think they put something in it to make us all addicted, lol. I still want to see more. I know there's a 4 hour cut and I NEED to see it. Elvis was such an interesting and beautiful person and you can't even begin to show his whole life and career in one film. Baz made a great effort though and gave us a film that we can enjoy and use as a jumping off point into Elvis's life through films/documentaries.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I like Baz Luhrman as a director! I mean I don't like all of his films, agree that "Australia" was godawful, but his early films are great fun. I have adored "Moulin Rogue" and "Strictly Ballroom" for decades now, they're just my cup of tea, and I like his "Romeo + Juliet" and "The Great Gatsby".

"Elvis" was IMHO a bit of a misfire. I enjoyed watching it more than I didn't,, but the narrative was spotty and incohesive, the guy playing Elvis nailed the young Elvis but never seemed to mature, the dreadful Elves Movie period is barely mentioned, and Hanks was in well-aged-country-ham mode. I think someone could make a really good movie about the improbable story of "Tom Parker", but this wasn't it.

[–] diagoro (490) 2 years ago

Considering his fame, talent and legacy, they could have easily done a trilogy, or a tv series. Something that was able to go into depth, rather than skirting the surface.

Also didn't like the directing style, and using crap rap in parts. The man had an immense library, there's no need to use anything else.

[–] Tyler1986 (236) 2 years ago

That was supposed to be a dutch accent? I had no clue what he was going for. That accent might have been the worst part of the movie.

[–] punkrockgirl (1270) 2 years ago

There were things I liked and didn't like about it. I thought the way the film is shot was very good, it's chaotic and sad just like the life of Elvis. Austin Butler's performance is really what stood out to me. I do like the concept of using more than one actor to play Elvis in different eras. It's worked plenty of times before in other films. I would've liked to see the whitehouse visit and the Bible readings. I don't think the affairs were brushed over, they were addressed, maybe not dwelled on, but what would be the need for that? Even with an over 2 hour long movie, it still seems rushed and tries to cram in a lot, but they did pretty well considering there's a lot of story to cover and it's hard to cover everything in a movie.

[–] 123Guy (7636) 2 years ago

Of the parts they glossed over.... yes, if they covered everything, it would be a 74 hour movie. Movies never cover everything

[–] ATG6 (3000) 2 years ago

Yeah, they left out a lot of good stuff, but Austin Butler did a great job.

The best part of the movie was the ending credits though, when they played the real Elvis singing In The Ghetto, and you realized how much better his singing voice was compared to pretty much everyone else.

[–] stickman38 (3416) 2 years ago

I checked this movie out yesterday on HBOMAX and speaking strictly as a piece of film, I thought it was very good. Although, it did seem like a somewhat dreary way of portraying such an icon in music. But it was also a pretty hard look at the latter days of his life.

Obviously, Elvis was in very poor condition when he died, he should have stopped doing shows at least 2 years before he passed away. He needed to rest up, get sober and get in shape. It's unfortunate that he wasn't able to turn things around.

That being said, the film has some iconic moments too. Like his Christmas show and whatnot. Elvis in all leather was quite the scene. Austin Butler played this role quite well, he was the star of the show for sure. The thing that didn't really work for me was all the hoopla, which was pretty heavy in this movie, to the point of not having much of a direction, things happen fast, and it's a very "showtime" version of Elvis' early days. You just get lost in this and lose the "characters" and the development of their moments in the movie. This worked in Moulin Rouge (which is still my favorite musical) but I don't think it worked as well in this movie.

Being told from Parker's point of view was alright, I didn't mind it so much but it just seems like the point of the movie was to give Parker a final blow to his gut because of his mismanagement of Elvis and whatnot. That didn't seem to reap many rewards for the viewer in my opinion. I wanted more Elvis but I got a story about Parker instead.

Film might have been a tad too political as well but I think it was shot well and told a story within the story.

At any rate, I'll give Elvis a solid 7.3 out of 10. Butler should at least get an Oscar nom for his performance. That was probably the highlight of the movie.