Elvis Presley is one of the most modern mythological figures in the history of popular music. That makes him worth making a biopic about.
Everything we know (the rise & fall and all that came with it) is SO well known, that when one makes a movie, the challenge is being original and more unique than past endeavors.
We had the direct TV movie biopic (original network : ABC) in 1979 with Kurt Russell, which goes right in th order of Elvis's life, start to finish but was still incredible to watch. The 1990's short lived TV series, 'Elvis' (also ABC , 13 episodes. - February 6th to May 19, 1990) was very good as well but didn't stay on long enough to reach the end .
If a person is seeking a "perfectly factual" account of Elvis, then there was the 1981 Documentary called, 'This Is Elvis' , I truly recommend any of them.
Baz Luhrmann's "Elvis" is a superbly energized but organized, 2 hour and 39 minute movie. That gets to the points we know and tells us more about what we don't know. Luhrmann as a director, has NO interest in making a standard biopic that almost 'any' director an studio could create.
Elvis's movie career? We know all about that but we finally find out the why he was doing these instead of making new music. We get into the source of Elvis's showbiz heat and how it was rooted in the genius of Black musical forms (which was the term back then) and meeting those influences.
The biggest of Elvis fans, know his story from start to finish as well, so there's nothing new that will present itself, except what we find out here.
"Elvis" is breathtakingly different. In it's approach to telling this story.
We see a young man whose life, is practically mapped out but, along comes the detour that takes him to dizzying heights of fame but , all the while he's enjoying it.....Parker is pulling strings to have things done his way for the ultimate in selfish reasons. Presley, here in the movie, is blissfully unaware until he starts to see the reality too late.
Austin Butler who plays Elvis, has nailed the king's moves and his voicing of Elvis's drawl, plus bringing out Elvis's danger. Elvis had a come hither demon glare nestled within that smile.
Luhrmann tells us in the first moments of "Elvis," lets us know that it's going to be a more risk taking venture than a walk in the park life story. This is more so the Elvis saga or even odyssey.
We see Elvis as a boy sneaking into a Black tent-show revival, fusing with the writhing gospel he encounters there, or hearing Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup (Gary Clark Jr.) sing "That's All Right Mama" in a slow high blues wail. Then we hear what Elvis did with that music, syncing it to his own speedy spirit.
Narrated, yes, by the person who took Elvis to the next level (despite his underhanded ways of going about it.)
Col. Tom Parker was and still is an unsavory figure but he did play a huge part behind the scenes. His suggestions are in part based on knowing the human psyche but also in part of keeping a brake on his money train. The Col.'s debts, as stated in the film, were pretty much paid through Elvis's career...but never paid off.
The opening is a fanfare of split screen imagery, showing us how Elvis loomed at every stage, but mostly as the Vegas showman who grew into legendary status. Elvis never toured outside the U. S. , because of Parker's non residency. ...and Elvis could not do or say much because of it as well.
Luhrmann is out to capture how Elvis, the smoldering kid whose hip-swiveling, leg-jittering gyrations knocked the stuffing out of our sexual propriety, was a one-man earthquake...who remade the world.
Yet Elvis's transformation of the world was, in fact, so total and triumphant that it may now be close to impossible for a movie to capture how radical it was. Elvis was busting down racial barriers and much of America was outraged.
"Elvis" in it's even more revved up half, is what was going on inside Elvis Presley. Parker ( real name : Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk ) as a master flim flam artist who saw himself as the P. T Barnum of Rock 'n' Roll, revels in being a corrupt showman who will do and say anything.
Parker latches onto Elvis in 1955, then turned Presely into a hard working show horse, despite finally seeing him for what he is, he can't break loose of Parker and spends the rest of his life rebelling against him.
The movie shows us how Elvis's career, after its blast off in 1956 ,became a series of defeats and escapes. To calm the controversies that Elvis first set off , the Colonel forces him to be "the new Elvis" in an embarrasing tuxedo and (we don't see the performance) singing to a sad eyed basset hound.
The film leaps ahead from Elvis in the military in Germany, his movie career and into the changing times of the 1960's to Elvis's 1968 comeback special and the backstage politics.
Which involve Parker promising NBC that they're going to be getting a Christmas special, a plan we see undermined at every turn by Elvis and the show's director, Steve Binder (Dacre Montgomery).
The comeback special was, of course, a triumph.
What comes off with startling power is the final third of the movie, which is set in Las Vegas during Elvis's five-year residence at the International Hotel.
Sad to say now, even still, he was on drugs the whole time. (As well as eating at a very unhealthy level.) The Vegas years, in their white suited glitz way, were trailblazing and the film captures how Elvis did some of his greatest work as a singer in those 5 years.
Yet as "Elvis" dramatizes, Vegas also became Presley's cage , because Parker nailed him to a merciless contract. The Colonel needed Elvis at the International to pay off his own mountainous gambling debts, even if that meant that the singer, offstage (and, ultimately, onstage), became a slurry, pill-popping shadow of himself.
Our identification with Elvis only deepens as we realize that he's "caught in a trap." The film's richest irony is that Butler's performance as the young Elvis (the one who's far closer to his own age) is as close to reviving Elvis into reality as we can ever hope to.
I applaud this film for doing something very original in the world of 'celebrity biopics'. Once again, many a director could make the kind that we long time movie goers know very well.
Early life, middle and the ending, chronologically. Luhrmann touched on the most important times in Elvis's life and at the same time, showed how Parker's prescence not only affected them but brought them about.
It's true what Hanks says as Parker, without him, (maybe) there'd be no Elvis Presely (the King of Rock and Roll.) Then again, who knows how far Elvis could have gotten with a different kind of manager?
I knew going in, this was not strictly just about the life of Elvis, but also about how one man can alter that life as well. Having read up on the film beforehand it set the proper expectation and I feel I had a fantastic and very original movie going experience at the theater.
10 Stars from me for everything. (END)
Everything we know (the rise & fall and all that came with it) is SO well known, that when one makes a movie, the challenge is being original and more unique than past endeavors.
We had the direct TV movie biopic (original network : ABC) in 1979 with Kurt Russell, which goes right in th order of Elvis's life, start to finish but was still incredible to watch. The 1990's short lived TV series, 'Elvis' (also ABC , 13 episodes. - February 6th to May 19, 1990) was very good as well but didn't stay on long enough to reach the end .
If a person is seeking a "perfectly factual" account of Elvis, then there was the 1981 Documentary called, 'This Is Elvis' , I truly recommend any of them.
Baz Luhrmann's "Elvis" is a superbly energized but organized, 2 hour and 39 minute movie. That gets to the points we know and tells us more about what we don't know. Luhrmann as a director, has NO interest in making a standard biopic that almost 'any' director an studio could create.
Elvis's movie career? We know all about that but we finally find out the why he was doing these instead of making new music. We get into the source of Elvis's showbiz heat and how it was rooted in the genius of Black musical forms (which was the term back then) and meeting those influences.
The biggest of Elvis fans, know his story from start to finish as well, so there's nothing new that will present itself, except what we find out here.
"Elvis" is breathtakingly different. In it's approach to telling this story.
We see a young man whose life, is practically mapped out but, along comes the detour that takes him to dizzying heights of fame but , all the while he's enjoying it.....Parker is pulling strings to have things done his way for the ultimate in selfish reasons. Presley, here in the movie, is blissfully unaware until he starts to see the reality too late.
Austin Butler who plays Elvis, has nailed the king's moves and his voicing of Elvis's drawl, plus bringing out Elvis's danger. Elvis had a come hither demon glare nestled within that smile.
Luhrmann tells us in the first moments of "Elvis," lets us know that it's going to be a more risk taking venture than a walk in the park life story. This is more so the Elvis saga or even odyssey.
We see Elvis as a boy sneaking into a Black tent-show revival, fusing with the writhing gospel he encounters there, or hearing Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup (Gary Clark Jr.) sing "That's All Right Mama" in a slow high blues wail. Then we hear what Elvis did with that music, syncing it to his own speedy spirit.
Narrated, yes, by the person who took Elvis to the next level (despite his underhanded ways of going about it.)
Col. Tom Parker was and still is an unsavory figure but he did play a huge part behind the scenes. His suggestions are in part based on knowing the human psyche but also in part of keeping a brake on his money train. The Col.'s debts, as stated in the film, were pretty much paid through Elvis's career...but never paid off.
The opening is a fanfare of split screen imagery, showing us how Elvis loomed at every stage, but mostly as the Vegas showman who grew into legendary status. Elvis never toured outside the U. S. , because of Parker's non residency. ...and Elvis could not do or say much because of it as well.
Luhrmann is out to capture how Elvis, the smoldering kid whose hip-swiveling, leg-jittering gyrations knocked the stuffing out of our sexual propriety, was a one-man earthquake...who remade the world.
Yet Elvis's transformation of the world was, in fact, so total and triumphant that it may now be close to impossible for a movie to capture how radical it was. Elvis was busting down racial barriers and much of America was outraged.
"Elvis" in it's even more revved up half, is what was going on inside Elvis Presley. Parker ( real name : Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk ) as a master flim flam artist who saw himself as the P. T Barnum of Rock 'n' Roll, revels in being a corrupt showman who will do and say anything.
Parker latches onto Elvis in 1955, then turned Presely into a hard working show horse, despite finally seeing him for what he is, he can't break loose of Parker and spends the rest of his life rebelling against him.
The movie shows us how Elvis's career, after its blast off in 1956 ,became a series of defeats and escapes. To calm the controversies that Elvis first set off , the Colonel forces him to be "the new Elvis" in an embarrasing tuxedo and (we don't see the performance) singing to a sad eyed basset hound.
The film leaps ahead from Elvis in the military in Germany, his movie career and into the changing times of the 1960's to Elvis's 1968 comeback special and the backstage politics.
Which involve Parker promising NBC that they're going to be getting a Christmas special, a plan we see undermined at every turn by Elvis and the show's director, Steve Binder (Dacre Montgomery).
The comeback special was, of course, a triumph.
What comes off with startling power is the final third of the movie, which is set in Las Vegas during Elvis's five-year residence at the International Hotel.
Sad to say now, even still, he was on drugs the whole time. (As well as eating at a very unhealthy level.) The Vegas years, in their white suited glitz way, were trailblazing and the film captures how Elvis did some of his greatest work as a singer in those 5 years.
Yet as "Elvis" dramatizes, Vegas also became Presley's cage , because Parker nailed him to a merciless contract. The Colonel needed Elvis at the International to pay off his own mountainous gambling debts, even if that meant that the singer, offstage (and, ultimately, onstage), became a slurry, pill-popping shadow of himself.
Our identification with Elvis only deepens as we realize that he's "caught in a trap." The film's richest irony is that Butler's performance as the young Elvis (the one who's far closer to his own age) is as close to reviving Elvis into reality as we can ever hope to.
I applaud this film for doing something very original in the world of 'celebrity biopics'. Once again, many a director could make the kind that we long time movie goers know very well.
Early life, middle and the ending, chronologically. Luhrmann touched on the most important times in Elvis's life and at the same time, showed how Parker's prescence not only affected them but brought them about.
It's true what Hanks says as Parker, without him, (maybe) there'd be no Elvis Presely (the King of Rock and Roll.) Then again, who knows how far Elvis could have gotten with a different kind of manager?
I knew going in, this was not strictly just about the life of Elvis, but also about how one man can alter that life as well. Having read up on the film beforehand it set the proper expectation and I feel I had a fantastic and very original movie going experience at the theater.
10 Stars from me for everything. (END)