With Elvis now streaming on HBO Max, fans can relive the excitement of The King's meteoric rise to stardom against the fantastical backdrop of Baz Luhrmann's signature film making style. Audiences have praised the musical biopic for its depiction of Elvis Presley's fame, from his early Memphis days on Beale Street to his troubled residency in Las Vegas, anchored by an intense and authentic performance by Austin Butler and a hypnotic attention to detail.
For all the praise that the film has received over the last several months, there are fans who have taken to Reddit to voice their unpopular opinions about its execution. From the acting and creative choices, to the omission of certain aspects of Elvis's life, their perspectives are as wild as Elvis himself.
It Doesn't Deserve Such A High Rating On IMDb
Elvis currently sits with a 7.6/10 rating on IMDb, a respectable score for a biopic about a controversial figure in music history and directed by an equally controversial director. Due to their distinctly exaggerated artistic styles, it's difficult to have lukewarm opinion about either Elvis Presley or Baz Luhrmann. Some fans believe the rating is too high given the way the subject matter was portrayed.
One Redditor was "expecting a biopic about Elvis Presley… Not an over dramatised, minimal dialogue, mediocre movie with no character development." Luhrmann's vision might be sensational, but so was Elvis's career and public persona. Also, it should be noted that many details of Elvis's life were well-researched, and even if the movie's aesthetic wasn't universally liked, Austin Butler's powerful central performance across three decades can also be attributed for the movie's overall higher score.
It's Not Accurate
Some fans hoping for a more accurate depiction of Elvis's life may find the biopic lacking in that area, but Luhrmann has never gone on record as setting out to make the most accurate musical biopic about The King's illustrious — and ultimately tragic — career. Luhrmann had to be judicious with what he set out to include, and what information to omit from his focus.
Typical_Ranger_1684 thinks that aside from being "inaccurate it tries to present Elvis as someone that did stuff about social issues like civil rights when he never did which is just disrespectful." Elvis may not have been as outspoken as other musicians during the Civil Rights Era, but performing "If I Could Dream" during the '68 Comeback Special was his contribution to the movement and an homage to Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy.
The Movie Was Like A Fever Dream
Given the fact that Luhrmann's movies are well-known for their kaleidoscopic aesthetic, it's not surprising that the same style would be applied to a musical biopic, especially one including one of the most popular entertainers of all time. Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby already conveyed that even when dealing with period pieces, Luhrmann often employs a dazzlingly frenetic style of filmmaking.
For some fans like JeanEBH the film just reminds them of "a fever dream" that comes too fast, with a lot of "back and forth, close ups, and having Col Parker creeping around in the background with the snowman topped carnival cane." The majority of fans appreciated the spectacle of the movie, even if they didn't always understand it.
It Was Too Cheesy
Biopics as a genre can sometimes feel manipulative when they explore their central figure through rose-colored glasses, or even feel a bit glib. Elvis had a lot of emotional scenes with depth to them, none of which were intentionally funny, but some fans still found them to be oddly cheesy.
All4monty thought it "reached unintentional comedy status" because it was "extremely cheesy and...Hanks character and acting was goofy af." While Hanks as Colonel Parker has some hammy moments, they're necessary to juxtapose against Butler's intensity.
It Left A Lot Of Things Out
No biopic will be able to explore every aspect of a figure's life, and therefore must jump quickly across eras in a "Greatest Hits" fashion or focus on one period in particular. Many things about Elvis's life the movie didn't show, such as his meeting with President Nixon, would have pulled attention away from more important aspects that serviced the plot.
Darkobscurities thought the movie "took inaccuracy and creative liberties to an extreme. It was absolutely soulless." Given that the movie was made with the blessings and assistance of the Presley estate, it's not surprising that certain aspects of Elvis's life would be downplayed, particularly anything that didn't paint him in a sterling light. Nevertheless, his drug use is not glorified in any way or pushed under the rug.
Its Live Performances Didn't Reflect Real Life
Live performances abound in Elvis, each intending the capture the sheer pandemonium that erupted during an Elvis concert. The screaming crowds might seem inconceivable, but they accurately reflect what happened when the hip-shaking hunk took the stage.
Huntday4 was made very "uncomfortable" by the behavior of the young women from the very first performance scene. "Just feels like another attempt at making an old story 'modern' and 'different'." Actual Elvis footage shows just how frantic the fans could get, some even sobbing uncontrollably in his presence, so if anything, the film isn't trying to compare Elvis to the behavior seen at modern concerts, but show perhaps where that sort of behavior originated.
It Had A Bad Soundtrack
Since Elvis is about one of the most venerated singers of the 20th century, it's soundtrack features a lot of Elvis songs, but it also showcases new talent with original songs as well as remixes and collaborations with The King's material. Some fans didn't think that the soundtrack did justice to Elvis, his music, or the time period.
Paultheschmoop "could’ve done without the 2 or 3 random Elvis remixes with rap verses that completely took me out of the movie." Most fans realize that Luhrmann's choice to include anachronistic songs, particularly for the Beale Street sequences, was to evoke the vibe and energy of the new music coming out at that time that was rebellious and shocking.
Tom Hanks Was Good As Colonel Parker
Most fans feel that with his heavy makeup and prosthetics, as well as his accent of dubious Eastern European origin, Tom Hanks was the weakest part of Elvis. Since the movie was told from his perspective, he was an omniscient presence, but some fans thought he excelled in the role.
To Redditor SweetTeaHasPerks "Tom Hanks was really good." While there can be no doubt Hanks prepared for his role with all the diligence of previous performances, he didn't completely disappear into the role and was seen as more of a distraction than anything else.
It Glossed Over Elvis's Demons
Elvis was as fallible as any one of his fans, and by no means a perfect person. He made mistakes, and the movie shows how his disassociation with his wife Priscilla, constant substance abuse in his later years, and misguided faith in Colonel Parker destroyed many close relationships, a promising career, and his spirit.
And yet, MindfulDisobedience felt that "this biopic lacks Elvis having serious demons. The way they handle the eventuality of him being an overweight alcoholic drug addict is so light to the touch." Considering the latter half of the movie is devoted to his slow, depressing descent into a tragic death after losing everything (and everyone) around him, most fans feel it focused very specifically on his demons.
It Was Too Long And Poorly Edited
Luhrmann movies tend to run long, and at almost two and a half hours in running time, Elvis carries the torch. It also has the signature rapid Luhrmann editing style which, given the length of the movie, actually makes it seem like it flies by.
More_Acanthisitta_73 thinks it was too long and "poorly orchestrated. Too much visual spinning and turning and loud bumping and reminded me of a batman meets circus clown." It's first half is decidedly fast-paced, but it also reflects the excitement of Elvis's rise to stardom, versus the second half that grinds to a laconic crawl, revealing the quagmire Elvis's career has become.