Jump to content

Elvis. The movie


Recommended Posts

Ohhhh, nahhhhh. I do not want to see this movie. I know the story and saw before.

 

HOWEVER, THIS MOVIE IS GOOD. A DIFFERENT TAKE.

 My judgement on a movie is , is it worth your time and money?
 Yeah. The movie is good. Entertaining. Different twist by Baz Lurman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, jimisbatman said:

Loved it. How true was it? 

As a big Elvis fan who's done a lot of research on him, I'd call it "true-ish" 😂 

I went into the movie VERY cautiously optimistic and ended up loving it. 

They did the usual biopic thing where they jumbled some things together and messed around with the time line here and there BUT none of it was egregious, at least in my opinion. 

There were a lot of highlights not the least of which was Austin Butlers overall performance. A huge highlight for me personally was the use of the CBS Special. It really hammered the previous scene home when he talks to Priscilla for the last time. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EvanG said:

Yeah, it was good, especially the second half. Hearing Suspicious Minds and If I Can Dream in a theatre was pretty epic.

And hearing Tom Hanks as Colonel Parker swearing in Dutch during one scene sure made me giggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, EvanG said:

And hearing Tom Hanks as Colonel Parker swearing in Dutch during one scene sure made me giggle.

:lol: Is he any good at it? I've only seen the trailer and I thought his accent wasn't Dutch. It made me think about Tom Hanks saying that today he wouldn't be able to play a gay guy like in Philadelphia. But apparently playing a Dutch immigrant in the US is still fine. I wonder if in 20 years time that will be completely not done too. How would a purebred US citizen know what it's like to make it in the USA as an illegal immigrant from Breda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lio said:

:lol: Is he any good at it? I've only seen the trailer and I thought his accent wasn't Dutch. It made me think about Tom Hanks saying that today he wouldn't be able to play a gay guy like in Philadelphia. But apparently playing a Dutch immigrant in the US is still fine. I wonder if in 20 years time that will be completely not done too. How would a purebred US citizen know what it's like to make it in the USA as an illegal immigrant from Breda?

just curious: why wouldn't he be able to play a gay guy today like he did in Philadelphia? also I think if you're a good actor, you have ways to figure out how to find your voice in the role even if you never had the real experience of being in a certain situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rovim said:

just curious: why wouldn't he be able to play a gay guy today like he did in Philadelphia? also I think if you're a good actor, you have ways to figure out how to find your voice in the role even if you never had the real experience of being in a certain situation.

Oh, I completely agree with you. The whole point to me is you're an actor, you aren't the character. But Tom Hanks himself said it in a recent interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/16/tom-hanks-says-couldnt-play-gay-role-today-philadelphia

And it made me think about where to draw the line. Apparently you can play a Dutch immigrant, but if colonel Parker would've been a Mexican, maybe that would've been different? For sure if he had been black, colonel Parker wouldn't have been Tom Hanks. Don't get me wrong, if it's a black character, I think it should be portrayed by a black actor. And I'm not saying it should have been a Dutch actor or an immigrant, it was just an observation. I found it funny that apparently Tom Hanks can't play a gay man, but he can play someone with really low IQ and other challenges and he can play a Dutch immigrant. And I wonder if the line will move more in the future, as other minority groups will make themselves be heard more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Lio said:

:lol: Is he any good at it? I've only seen the trailer and I thought his accent wasn't Dutch. It made me think about Tom Hanks saying that today he wouldn't be able to play a gay guy like in Philadelphia. But apparently playing a Dutch immigrant in the US is still fine. I wonder if in 20 years time that will be completely not done too. How would a purebred US citizen know what it's like to make it in the USA as an illegal immigrant from Breda?

Well, all he said was ''godverdomme'', and I think I heard of course the hard G, but from what I understand he came from Breda originally and they don't speak with a hard G there, so I was kinda disappointed, because as a soft G speaker myself, not everyone in this country speaks with that speech disorder, as a lot of people from other countries often seem to think. So yeah, he should have done some more research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Lio said:

Oh, I completely agree with you. The whole point to me is you're an actor, you aren't the character. But Tom Hanks himself said it in a recent interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/16/tom-hanks-says-couldnt-play-gay-role-today-philadelphia

And it made me think about where to draw the line. Apparently you can play a Dutch immigrant, but if colonel Parker would've been a Mexican, maybe that would've been different? For sure if he had been black, colonel Parker wouldn't have been Tom Hanks. Don't get me wrong, if it's a black character, I think it should be portrayed by a black actor. And I'm not saying it should have been a Dutch actor or an immigrant, it was just an observation. I found it funny that apparently Tom Hanks can't play a gay man, but he can play someone with really low IQ and other challenges and he can play a Dutch immigrant. And I wonder if the line will move more in the future, as other minority groups will make themselves be heard more.

yeah. seems like a lot of people disagree with what Hanks said in that interview. This part kinda stood out to me:“Let’s address ‘Could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now?’” said Hanks. “No, and rightly so. The whole point of Philadelphia was don’t be afraid. One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man. We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.” 

why "rightly so"? maybe one of the points of that movie was to take what would be considered a risk back then, but just because it's less acceptable now to be a homophobic piece of shit doesn't mean it was the only value in casting him in a gay role or that it was the only thing that made it valid to do it back then. It ignores all the other great shit an individual can bring to a role, their personality and everything that has nothing to do with being straight or gay. Sad really. Gays should be able to play straight roles and gay roles and if a straight actor is perfect for a gay role, why would you look for a gay actor to do it? it doesn't make sense to me to offer any role based just on if a person is gay/straight/trans.

Russel T. Davis's comment that "only gay actors should play gay roles" is ridiculous imo. 

Forest Gump, same shit. I thought he did a great job playing a character with a low iq. I don't see anything wrong with that. Talented actors with low i.q. could do their thing too, I don't see why it would be offensive to pull a Forest Gump nowdays. That's the whole point of being a good actor, clearly.

much better integration of more minority groups in films and tv shows is a great thing and even long overdue, but I feel like a lot of people in the industry including actors and directors are losing sight of what makes this art so interesting and one of the important factors I think, is judging the artist as a whole person and the potential brilliance they can bring to it and not reduce it just to 1 aspect of  the actor.

It seems a lot of people are putting shit in boxes again, defining what is right and what is wrong according to their percieved ideals of what is fair which is, of course, dangerous to the quality of the art and they're just limited to pulling from a smaller pool of talent for a specific role if the criteria doesn't really have anything to do with the role. 

don't care if you're gay/straight/trans if you can pull it off and I believe it. It actually makes it easy for movie makers to miss on more perfect castings just like they missed so many chances of making a lot of money and make great films cause they did not give gays certain roles just because they were gay.

every actor should get the chance to play any role in films as long as the finished product is believable and is actually good imo.

 

Edited by Rovim
  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Butler was stunningly good as Elvis. I've seen tons of on stage and behind the scenes footage of Elvis and Austin absolutely nailed most if not all the mannerisms. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 11:26 PM, RussTCB said:

As a big Elvis fan who's done a lot of research on him, I'd call it "true-ish" 😂 

I went into the movie VERY cautiously optimistic and ended up loving it. 

They did the usual biopic thing where they jumbled some things together and messed around with the time line here and there BUT none of it was egregious, at least in my opinion. 

There were a lot of highlights not the least of which was Austin Butlers overall performance. A huge highlight for me personally was the use of the CBS Special. It really hammered the previous scene home when he talks to Priscilla for the last time. 

Thanks. I loved the fact that it touched on the drugs and the fact that he wanted to tour abroad, but that was troublesome for the colonial.

Rumor has it, Baz made an extended cut of 4 hours and has the crazy stuff like his journey to the white house and the k-razy drug stuff. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 6:00 PM, jimisbatman said:

Thanks. I loved the fact that it touched on the drugs and the fact that he wanted to tour abroad, but that was troublesome for the colonial.

Rumor has it, Baz made an extended cut of 4 hours and has the crazy stuff like his journey to the white house and the k-razy drug stuff. 

I saw an interview with Baz the other day about that. He said that yes, a lot more footage was shot but he doesn't have any plans to assemble it as an extended cut. 

He did say that he could see changing his mind eventually but it would be a few years until if / when he does it. 

I'm good with that honestly. I like the movie we got. I plan to watch it more than a few times once it comes to HBO Max in the first week of August. 

Then there's the new Netflix animated Elvis series coming too. So there's going to be plenty of Elvis stuff going in for a bit until Baz feels like doing the extended cut. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
4 hours ago, F*ck Fear said:

I thought it was a great film. I've already watched it 3 times since it went digital.

I hope the 4 hour cut sees the light of day sometime.

I've only seen it once so far, in the theater. I plan to watch it MANY more times once I get the blu-ray. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, F*ck Fear said:

The movie is so damn good. 

I just read that actress Shonka Dukureh (who played Big Mama Thornton) has passed. It was her debut film, too.

Oh, that's really sad to hear! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great movie. Sad too. 

Wasn't born when Elvis was alive, but my mom remembers him when she was little in the 60's. I know Elvis hated doing those movies but she loved them. 

Seeing this movie and seeing how that manager screwed Elvis over was very upsetting to me. I bet if his mom had lived she would have been better looking after him. His dad was weak and that manager was very manipulating.   Honestly, I think Priscilla should have stayed with Elvis and tried to help him. I know it's hard but he needed someone by his side to look out for him.

Such a talent. Happy he got to do what he wanted by his end.

The actor who played Elvis was awesome. He should get the Oscar for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

Pretty disappointed. Was mostly delivered with the vibe of a shallow corny TV-movie. Direction and editing were horrendous.

3/5 and that's probably being a bit generous.

I was very happy with it, especially the last hour which was told much much better than the section of his life is usually treated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...