via-helena

I enjoyed this as a piece of TV in the 'War' / 'Action' genre but the writer, director & producers are certainly not too obsessed with historical detail; perhaps they should have included Julius Caesar in a DeLorean?

The cinematography wasn't bad, the CGI & special effects were good. Most of the actors made a fairly decent fist of things although Jack O'Connell seemed woefully mis-cast. It made me want to learn more about the real people behind these characters which is something.

The main thing that messed this film up for me was the soundtrack which contained a lot of out-of-period blaring rock, pop, heavy metal (etc.) music which was totally incongruous with the screenplay, very annoying.

This is a slightly flawed work of genius, lovingly crafted with Butler's turn a tour-de-force. Great detail has been stitched into every frame of this film and it's hard to escape the conclusion that the writers and director were huge Elvis fans.

Butler, quite rightly, has received huge praise worldwide for bringing Elvis back to life for this epic. I'm sure that his meticulously researched and well observed performance will shortly translate into a a cabinet full of industry gongs. Probably the biggest tribute is from Presley's family who were 'blown away' by his portrayal.

So, what lets this down (a little)?

(1) Butler is a pretty decent singer and did all the vocals, some worked out OK but most did not. We have to remember that Elvis was called THE KING for good reason, he had one of the most remarkable singing voices in performing history. Characterised by a deep dark timbre, huge range from bass to falsetto, his use of vibrato, powerful projection, etc. Butler could not match Elvis for many of the songs and was pushing his voice to the limit, it was a bit shouty and I'm surprised that he didn't strain his vocal chords. This was a Director error, Luhrmann should have realised that Butler's (decent) voice wasn't anywhere near special enough to reflect Elvis' talent and original recordings should have been used.

(2) Right up until the 'final performance' scene, Elvis was still the stick thin figure of his youth which detracted from the film's accuracy and authenticity. Prosthetics or CGI should have been used to show the effect that fried banana, bacon and peanut sandwiches or Fool's Gold sandwiches will have if consumed regularly enough. Again Director error.

(3) I love Tom Hanks but his portrayal of The Colonel wasn't remotely in the same league as Butler's Elvis. I can't help thinking that he was mis-cast. More director error. Would John Goodman have had the versatility to pull this role off?

(4) it was all a bit muddled, supposedly to reflect Elvis' chaotic life, but it made the film difficult to follow at times.

(5) I watched this in a Cineworld cinema, the picture quality wasn't as sharp as you'd expect of a film in this day and age. I don't know if this was a projection thing or the cinematography itself?

Apparently there was nearly 3 hours of usable footage / scenes which didn't survive the cutting room. I'd have quite happily sat through those 3 hours!

On its own, as a stand-alone film with different characters, I'd probably be describing this as opulent, delightful and engaging and rating it 8/10 BUT it's a sequel of an A-grade kid's vintage classic.

Poor songs, most of which are immediately forgettable.

The story is fair.

It's not well cast, rrrolling her rrr's all over the place and doing a wooden turn, Emily Blunt isn't the worst casting but Samuel L Jackson might have played Mary Poppins better?

Everything else is pretty good.

Better they'd made it as an original (non Mary Poppins) film with a competent casting director!