Read Mixed User Reviews for Elvis

5

PatrikSkJun 25, 2022

I have to say it's a great movie. I liked it more than bohemian rhapsody. The audiovisual side of the film is top notch. Give the same top.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

5

Mauro_LanariAug 12, 2022

(Mauro Lanari)
Elvis was "sex, drugs & r'n'r" (Ian Dury 1977). Sex: he **** with a multitude of groupies, the film shows only one; he dated Priscilla since she was 14 and not the double (28) as narrated. Drugs: he was an autonomous itinerant(Mauro Lanari)
Elvis was "sex, drugs & r'n'r" (Ian Dury 1977). Sex: he **** with a multitude of groupies, the film shows only one; he dated Priscilla since she was 14 and not the double (28) as narrated. Drugs: he was an autonomous itinerant pharmacy, the film shows that it was the bad manager who seduced him with a handful of pills or tablets. Rock'n'roll: in his music the white component of country prevails over the black one of blues and gospel, the film transforms him into a paladin of black culture, even a political activist. There is much more truth about him in the brief anecdote of the meeting with Nixon told by Lisa Johnson in 2016 than in these 159 minutes. Luhrmann is the new barker who gets rich by parasiting the fame of his sideshow phenomenon. Canonical objection: does postmodernity not declare that there are no facts but only narratives, storytellings? It is a psychotic thesis that can be useful and advantageous to who knows how many individually, collectively, globally. Luhrmann's style is baroque indeed rococo, pompous, bombastic, excessive, tacky, a dizzying acceleration of Sufi dance with the aim of obtaining the same effect: a drunk daze, a vitalistic Dionysian spirit, Nietzsche's active nihilism. Again the canonical objection: isn't it a simple problem of knowing how to live your time well, precisely the postmodern as a comfort zone? De gustibus.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

Onlyclassicvg1Aug 12, 2022

It may not be slavishly devoted to the facts (this isn't your typical birth-to-deather), but as with Todd Haynes's glam fantasia Velvet Goldmine, the movie achieves something trickier and more valuable, mining shocking intimacy from sweepingIt may not be slavishly devoted to the facts (this isn't your typical birth-to-deather), but as with Todd Haynes's glam fantasia Velvet Goldmine, the movie achieves something trickier and more valuable, mining shocking intimacy from sweeping cultural changes.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

PerfectPortalJul 5, 2022

Austin Butler disappears into the role of Elvis. The movie chronicles his influence and exploitation, and has some intriguing ideas, like the past and present playing simultaneously to demonstrate how immersed he is. The problem is theAustin Butler disappears into the role of Elvis. The movie chronicles his influence and exploitation, and has some intriguing ideas, like the past and present playing simultaneously to demonstrate how immersed he is. The problem is the distractingly hyperactive camerawork that, for the entire first half, lets no emotion settle.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

6

bertobellamyJul 14, 2022

Austin Butler shines in this — too bad the movie is not at his level. 'Elvis' tries to be so many things at once, and it fails in at least half of them. Also, the first hour didn't feel like a movie per se; I thought I was watching musicalAustin Butler shines in this — too bad the movie is not at his level. 'Elvis' tries to be so many things at once, and it fails in at least half of them. Also, the first hour didn't feel like a movie per se; I thought I was watching musical sketches or something. And then there's Tom Hanks' Colonel Parker, an obnoxious character that you don't want to see more than one minute.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

Compi24Jun 28, 2022

In terms of Baz Luhrmann films, this is far and away my favorite. What exactly that means, I'm still unsure, but it's definitely something. As with other Luhrmann films, "Elvis" is no stranger to the occasional foray into demonstrating flairIn terms of Baz Luhrmann films, this is far and away my favorite. What exactly that means, I'm still unsure, but it's definitely something. As with other Luhrmann films, "Elvis" is no stranger to the occasional foray into demonstrating flair in favor of coherence, particularly in the first act. It's especially frustrating with production and costume design this evocative and good. It's like, damn it, man, stop cutting and just let me look at everything onscreen. After that period, though, the movie finally settles into a decent rhythm, where everyone's favorite songs are showcased and things tighten down in a narrative sense. Do I wish the titular subject was more of the focus, instead of the Colonel Tom Parker character? Sure. Am I glad the powers-that-be addressed the African American influence on the music in question? Absolutely. I guess you take the good with the bad. In this case, it all nets out to a mostly enjoyable — if sporadically over the top — experience.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

SoulWarfareAug 12, 2022

The movie makes weird choices. Modern songs in the soundtrack. Focusing on the manager rather than Elvis. Tom Hanks being the wrong choice for the manipulative manager. The disjointed and speed run nature of the film

However, Austin ButlerThe movie makes weird choices. Modern songs in the soundtrack. Focusing on the manager rather than Elvis. Tom Hanks being the wrong choice for the manipulative manager. The disjointed and speed run nature of the film

However, Austin Butler is phenomenal as Elvis with his voice and body language. There are so many moments where it feels like HE IS ELVIS! I also found the second half of this film a lot more enjoyable as it starts to feel more consistent in its direction. I also like the visual direction of the director as it gave the movie more style.

Overall, I found the movie enjoyable nonetheless but I wish Elvis was more of the focus rather than focusing on the manipulative nature of Parker.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

QhasiAug 7, 2022

The film style works for the first hour of the film. The second half is for die hard fans. Otherwise you will just feel dragged into a weird interpretation of Elvis's life. I would be shocked if this film got an Oscar buzz.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

royalguy07Jul 17, 2022

Runs way too long and seems to gloss over seemingly important aspects and relationships. Even if Hanks performance was accurate accent wise it was extremely tough to listen to for almost 3 hours. Austin Butler did really well.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

6

fantasyJun 27, 2022

I couldn't wait to see ELVIS after the pure joy of Top Gun Maverick (10) and the utter disappointment of Jurassic World Dominion (0). Let me begin by stating that the biopic was very dark and depressing. Austin Butler's portray of Elvis wasI couldn't wait to see ELVIS after the pure joy of Top Gun Maverick (10) and the utter disappointment of Jurassic World Dominion (0). Let me begin by stating that the biopic was very dark and depressing. Austin Butler's portray of Elvis was excellent. It was so brilliant that I can see him get an Oscar nomination. Tom Hanks portrayal of the Colonel was so irritating and annoying. Once again Tom proves he can adapt to any role as he wanted to play it that way. He basically kept Elvis as if he was a bird in a cage and is largely responsible for Elvis' death at age 42. I think the audience would have loved to see more of Elvis' music. I also can't believe that no one ever looked into the Colonel's mental abuse and stealing 50% of his earnings. You would have thought that Priscilla and Elvis would have had that discussion however Elvis and his father, his business manager are portrayed as country bumpkins right up until his death. I find that near impossible to believe. I guess I went to see the movie hoping it would celebrate Elvis's life and music; but instead l, I found it downright sad and depressing.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

4

DoxdivaJun 25, 2022

Unfortunately, we thought the movie was choppy.. too many flashbacks and way too long... Tom Hanks was super annoying..
Butler gave an excellent performance..more of Elvis’s music would have done the movie justice.

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

6

AJ_13Jun 30, 2022

Felt endless. Even though Baz Luhrmann's style remains palpable, "Elvis" still is your typical music biopic. The movie is saved by a wonderful Austin Butler, unique editing and great concert scenes. The rest of it didn't quite appeal me.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

vickykoiAug 7, 2022

This movie was just bad, not a true biopic in any way. I've never been much of an Elvis fan, but to anyone wanting to learn more about the guy this movie was not very informative. The whole movie was centered around his manager. It neverThis movie was just bad, not a true biopic in any way. I've never been much of an Elvis fan, but to anyone wanting to learn more about the guy this movie was not very informative. The whole movie was centered around his manager. It never showed elvis's moms passing, which had a huge effect on his mental health and career… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

MattyiceSep 6, 2022

Like most Baz Luhrmann movies, Elvis does some things very well that make it an enjoyable watch, but it is bogged down by forced style, odd directorial choices, and questionable editing (or lack thereof). The style of the film is bombasticLike most Baz Luhrmann movies, Elvis does some things very well that make it an enjoyable watch, but it is bogged down by forced style, odd directorial choices, and questionable editing (or lack thereof). The style of the film is bombastic and Elvis' music, remixed or otherwise, is showcased with a huge burst of energy, although the sweeping shots and editing tricks get very tiring after a while and detract from the emotional stakes at hand. Austin Butler's performance as the titular character is spectacular and most of the other performances are good, except from, shockingly, the actor you would think would be the best performer: Tom Hanks. His Colonel Tom Parker performance is laughably bad and arguably the worst of his career. The directorial choice to tell the story from Parker's perspective rather than Elvis' or even a family member's perspective is just head scratching, as Parker is detestable throughout the film and he occupies just as much if not more screen time than Elvis. I applaud the risk, but this choice definitely frustrates the audience more and more as the film drags on as Parker becomes more and more hatable. Speaking of that, the film is way too long, clocking in at over 2 hours and 30 minutes, while also rushing through the prime of Elvis' career to focus on his sad downfall, which creates major pacing issues and leaves behind the fun side of Elvis' music that would've fit Baz's style. Overall, Elvis is about on par with the rest of Luhrmann's works, which means it has its moments, but has some truly head scratching flaws and directorial choices that drag the film down from being anything more than okay.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

eberman123Sep 8, 2022

Ok. I expected a lot from this movie. It became slow and boring as time went by. I was highly disappointed .

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

megid0Sep 5, 2022

Its too fast PowerPoint presentation mess but after that it has many good things

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

MATMJan 2, 2023

So, I'm pretty sure the only reason "Elvis" exists is because a producer watched "Rocketman" and thought that Baz Lehrman would be perfect to replicate that dreamlike frenzy. Whatever "Elvis" started off as in someone's mind, the end resultSo, I'm pretty sure the only reason "Elvis" exists is because a producer watched "Rocketman" and thought that Baz Lehrman would be perfect to replicate that dreamlike frenzy. Whatever "Elvis" started off as in someone's mind, the end result is a total dumpster fire. It looks like it was shot as a completely traditional music bio-pic, and then had a bunch of zany chyrons plastered on top of it to try to give the impression that creativity was put into this mess. Where "Rocketman" had exquisitely choregraphed music segments, "Elvis" just shows a performer on stage and rapidly scans the camera around the audience to attempt to give the impression of excitement. It would be one thing if the camera was steady and just tried to show a concert ala "Bohemian Rhapsody", but "Elvis" seems like it really wants you to think there is some elevated concept happening on top of the action, but all that is happening is that the camera is panning around quickly, with no notable choreography. If you want a by the numbers music bio-pic, "Bohemian Rhapsody" will meet your needs better, but for the far superior dream-like experience, stick with "Rocketman".… Expand