The Elvis Movie Is Too Glitz And Glamour For Its Own Good

Elvis movie

Film Name: ELVIS Copyright: © 2022 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. All Rights Reserved. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures Caption: (L-r) AUSTIN BUTLER as Elvis and TOM HANKS as Col. Tom Parker in Warner Bros. Pictures’ drama “ELVIS,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

I’ve never really appreciated the directing style of Baz Luhrmann. He’s a director who definitely loves the pizzazz and flash in his films. I suppose in a feature that tells the story of Elvis, that works out to his benefit. My issue with this film isn’t the glitz and glamour of Luhrmann’s directing style and the bright lights of Las Vegas, it’s the flawed pace and editing that keeps me from calling this a masterpiece.

For a film that’s been so well received, I’m honestly a bit flabbergasted at how nobody seems to point out how disjointed this picture is. Elvis doesn’t necessarily come across as a biopic of Elvis. You’re misled from the very start (conned if you will). The story in fact is told through the eyes of Colonel Rob Parker (Tom Hanks), Elvis’ manager. However, after about 30 minutes, that perspective sort of fades away.

I enjoyed the thought of the film through Parker’s eyes, however, I was expecting, from what was portrayed at the beginning, that Elvis was going to be portrayed as more of a villain instead of the egomaniac, Parker. I’m not entirely sure why that opening existed. The film would have served a greater purpose starting with the upbringing of Elvis (with a remastered version of “In The Ghetto”). Not to mention, the editing and cinematography in the opening scene made for some rather confusing and headache-inducing moments. This became a theme with the picture.

More Entertainment: Was Vader the Balance in Star Wars All Along?

Luhrmann really made my head spin with all of the constant changing of scenes. I said when I saw “The Kings Daughter” this year, I’d never seen a film with worse editing than that. Welp, Elvis might give it a run for its money. Don’t get me wrong, the film looks beautiful, and the emotional impact some of the scenes portray is phenomenal. My issue, Tom Hanks gave an Academy Award performance. However, those powerhouse moments were cut short and not given time to marinate in my mind. Not to mention, the background music in spots made it difficult to appreciate the acting on screen.

As it relates to acting, Austin Butler was fantastic. I’d argue he nailed Elvis so perfectly that it wasn’t even acting. His voice is so similar and reminiscent of the King. The progression of his character was apparent by his acting, however, not necessarily in the script.

I did wish to see more of the rise of Elvis. The ending of the film’s first act was a bit abrupt. Not in the case of it happening at a bad time, just everything happens so quickly. The film begins (after the horrible opening scene with Parker in the hospital), rather slow, and then ramps up too quickly (with more confusing and headache-inducing editing) to showcase the rise of Presley. It isn’t until the second and third acts that the film begins to slow down just a smidge. The unfortunate side of things, that first act, the rise of Elvis, is the real meat and potatoes of the story.

Luhrmann accelerated the best parts of Elvis’ career in favor of the more dramatic and emotional scenes. That’s a typical Hollywood poppycock maneuver. There are many uplifting and lighthearted moments in the second and third act, but, my argument, is that it really brought down the film, especially when, once again, it’s the rise of Elvis that’s the true money maker. Everything after that was just kind of ho-hum. Had I heard the words, “Here Comes Santa(e) Claus” uttered by Tom Hanks one more time, I was going to detour to the snack bar and opt for overpriced beers to get me through the final hour and 10 minutes.

I’m not one to bash films that are so widely acclaimed as this seems to be. I’ll give an honest opinion and go with how I see it, despite what critics and fans think. The film tried to be too showy and fast for its own good. At certain points, I didn’t know who the film was based on, was it Elvis or Rob Parker? Regardless, Elvis isn’t a terrible film by any means. It’s also not an outstanding biopic. It tries to tell the story to a new generation. That’s great, however, it’s Elvis. He was already showy and flamboyant enough. Tell the story as it should be told.

Image Source: Warner Bros Pictures