PDA

View Full Version : cbs Elvis the mini series.



curtis simpkins
05-09-2005, 03:58 AM
I have seen few min, of this movie,
so far i have seen so some false plot,

when elvis went into sun to recorded his demo my happiness, they had sam recorded it,
what i have hard sam was'nt in that day,

so i dont think i be watching the rest of it.

i wish when they make a movie i would like them to do it right.
but i will be seeing the presley show this friday,
but on this mini series no way.

but i might see it little bit a time.

Captain Elwood David
05-09-2005, 04:29 AM
What you are watching, in essence, ........... is "Elvis-History" in the process of being rewritten & revised ........ to conform to THE MYTH - on a number of levels.

It is sometimes done unintentionally for artistic license ....... & also intentionally to either white-wash or pursue an agenda (mainly EPE, Pris., etc.).

Enjoy the movie(s) (mini-series / "Presley by the Presley's"), but ....... hopefully, discerning fans will also learn to think critically & seek out the true story (reality) using other resources (if they are able to or know how). (Unfortunately, most will not. It's a consequence in part secondary to the dumbing down of society in general ...... ;) ).

Generally speaking: It's easier to think & believe what others tell you to (especially when it sounds better, is simpler, or makes one feel warm & fuzzy inside as a result) ............ vs. ......... learning to actively think, question, challenge, face & accept "reality" for oneself instead. The former is an entirely passive effort, the latter requires an EFFORT.


......... And So It Goes, .......... Indeed .........



- Capt. "EL."

waymore44
05-09-2005, 05:48 AM
I think the film has had some pretty good scenes and a pretty decent job by Myers but it's still not as good as it could have been. I'm EXTREMELY bugged that Jonathan does some singing in the studio. Why did they need to do that? They could have used some false starts and alternate take snippets of the REAL Elvis. Scotty and Bill are TOTALLY TERRIBLE. The guys from the TV series were really good. Overall, I like Jonathan better than Kurt Russell because he is showing some of Elvis's sex appeal. Randy Qualid is the BEST Colonel to date. The new Gladys is the BEST Gladys. I still like Billy Greenbush best as Vernon. I thought that I would like them using Elvis's master recordings better than an impersonator but it's odd to hear the actual records being used in a live concert setting. For the TV appearances I wish they had used the versions that were used in This Is Elvis. Why no Sullivan Show?? I also wish they hadn't shown you the real Elvis in a couple of spots because it makes Jonathan so much less convincing. I was hoping that this would be Elvis's "Ray", but it's a far cry from it. BUT what can I expect from a CBS TV movie of the week?

nabelt24
05-09-2005, 06:18 AM
Waymore44

I was hoping that this would be Elvis's "Ray", but it's a far cry from it.



I wasn't expecting anything close to "Ray", but something more on the factual side as opposed to previous bio films. I think it's really not that bad... there's a lot of things that bug me like his hair, the moves are kinda spastic and awkward, and he shouldn't of tried to do that lip thing in that scene with the colonel. I wish they'd used the actual live recordings for certain scenes, as well. Other than those few complaints, it's kept true to a lot of the facts that I've heard or read about... there hasn't been too much exageration so far.
All in all, I think he's done a respectful job in presenting Elvis.

What bothers me most is the hair!!! THE HAIR, MAN, THE HAIR!!!!!!!!!

Captain Elwood David
05-09-2005, 07:12 AM
...... Other than those few complaints, it's kept true to a lot of the facts that I've heard or read about... there hasn't been too much exageration so far.
All in all, I think he's done a respectful job in presenting Elvis.
I agree, it should be enjoyed for what it is & it will surely create a whole new generation of fans (obviously one goal).

However, ........ don't forget, ...... the movie (according media articles) will not address the 70's EP (a critical decade omission to the whole story & understanding E's life in its proper perspective). Also, while the movie has been said to not shy away from Elvis' promiscuous tendencies & even allude to his early addiction problems -----> will it address the TRUE maneuvering that went on behind EP's eventual marriage to Priscilla & the true origins of his addiction problems (going back to Gladys, the stressors of super-stardom, & the critical events of October 1973 ...?).

----------------------------------

Presenting only one (skewed) side of events (ie: Priscilla's), ...... is also misrepresenting / revising the actual events / history.

I would love to see this angle addressed: Would Elvis had ever cheated on somebody he TRULY loved? Think about it, long & hard. Not making excuses for E the man, but ....... there are other perspectives that should be addressed.

Perspective - always a critical element: Considering the Official source (EPE's endorsement & heavy involvement / oversight) of this project, IMO, ....... makes it inherently FLAWED from the very outset.



- Capt. "EL."

Cryogenic
05-09-2005, 10:26 AM
Generally speaking: It's easier to think & believe what others tell you to (especially when it sounds better, is simpler, or makes one feel warm & fuzzy inside as a result) ............ vs. ......... learning to actively think, question, challenge, face & accept "reality" for oneself instead. The former is an entirely passive effort, the latter requires an EFFORT.

Words so blindingly true, it hurts! You're quite the philosopher, Captain El.

That said, it can be intensely overwhelming when one sets about attempting to learn the truth in the case of Elvis - one can end up no more enriched than when they started! The levels of myth, misrepresentation, disinformation, false recollections and over embellishments are staggering.

Still... I'd rather attempt to find my own answers than have them spoon-fed to me by a half-hearted mini series. ;)


I would love to see this angle addressed: Would Elvis had ever cheated on somebody he TRULY loved? Think about it, long & hard. Not making excuses for E the man, but ....... there are other perspectives that should be addressed.

This is something that has crossed my mind, too.

You can almost feel sorry for Elvis in some senses. Going all the way back to, I think, Dixie/June (who he could never have truly ended up with, but nonetheless...), he discovered she had quickly got herself engaged/married in his absence. Of course, Elvis himself had been fooling around something rotten while they were apart - but I can't help feel a tinge of sadness for him. He was part of one world; she another. I don't think he ever consciously realised it but people like Elvis were rallying against those antiquated social standards which he had sprung from. The fact that his divorce from Priscilla was the very first in the Presley family may have weighed heavily on his mind on multiple levels and in ways and means that we cannot possibly comprehend (i.e. it's not so much who the person divorcing him was - but the fact that someone was divorcing Elvis Presley as in "Elvis the man" and "Elvis the Presley").

As you would be able to tell if you've read any of my previous comments, I'm not particularly enamoured by this latest attempt at re-telling Elvis' life. I expect it to be an enjoyable piece of throwaway piece of entertainment and nothing more. It looks far more appealing on a visceral level ("You ungrateful hillbilly! I knew you'd betray me!") than a truly emotional or intellectual one. That's if I'm ever able to catch it in the UK...

Liverbobs
05-09-2005, 11:39 AM
Didn't Linda Thompson say she knew that Elvis was faithful the first year they weere together because they were together 24 hours a day? after that he started straying, I think that was the limit to Elvis being faithful, I don't think he could or even wanted to, It must be hard when you have beautiful women literally throwing themselves at you nearly everyday of the week (Chance would be a fine thing!! :lmfao: ) If Elvis ever met his "soul mate" then it would possibly follow the same pattern as Linda, I have friends, male and female who just can't keep their pants on, whereas others would never stray from their partners even if Angelina Jolie made a pass! (whereas I would only stray if Angelina asked me nicely :lmfao: ) monogamy is in the make up of the individual, you are what you are and EP was a "serial philanderer" for good or for bad. That's my twopennerth worth anyway!!!

Captain Elwood David
05-09-2005, 12:44 PM
Liverbobs -

I tend to agree with you on all points regarding Elvis. It just wasn't in him, because the man faced temptations that none of us can ever really relate to.

I'm under no delusions regarding EP, ...... & (as I've stated in the past) the "what-if, could've, should've" game is always a fruitless one .... that is best avoided.

EP's nature trapped him into Pris. in Germany. Pris. (IMO) trapped him into a marriage he didn't really want. Now, EP's Legacy is trapped in the clutches of Priscilla's claws spinning a new reality (her's) onto the story (for her sake, for Lisa's sake, & for EP's permanent epitaph; in all cases, for good & bad).

---------------------

Cryo -

Also, much agreed. It's just a "mini-series". In other words, .... a soap-opera.

"Throw-away Entertainment" does indeed sum it up succintly. Only problem is ----> many will be too lazy to even bother trying to look / search beyond it. Such is the nature of mindless TV.


- Capt. "EL."

Liverbobs
05-10-2005, 06:49 AM
I hear what you are saying Capt. El and I know you don't like the "should've, would've, could've" way but don't you think if Elvis had lived Pris would have been just one of several "ex -wifes" therefore lessening her importance in the Elvis world from the "Be All" and "End All" to just "The first of several". :lmfao:

A Question for you:Do you think that the real EP story will come out one day? or will we be forever burdened with these glorified/sanatised/misleading TV series/movies or are we as fans happy to sit back and wallow in this kind of stuff.

The truth is out there but with the passing of time is it getting harder and harder to dig for it, as you have said previously, memories fade and stories alter, I have always felt that the second Guralnick book doesn't appear to be as well written or researched as the first and there is still a book on Elvis' last 10 years crying out to be written,maybe one of our knowlegable scribes on this messageboard feels like narrating the story? ;) ;) :P many books have tried telling the story, it makes you wonder if any have come close to telling the actual truth.Rant over :P

curtis simpkins
05-10-2005, 08:12 AM
What do you guy's think Elvis had that gold suite on and wereing blue suede shoes.
I don't think he own a pair of blue suede shoes right.

Captain Elwood David
05-10-2005, 08:17 AM
.... if Elvis had lived Pris would have been just one of several "ex -wifes" therefore lessening her importance ....
Anything is indeed possible, but I'd like to think that EP had learned his lesson with marriage (on that note: IMO, he was playin' Ginger Alden like a fiddle ;) ).

If EP had wanted Priscilla to run things, he would have stated so in his will. It is what it is, though ...... because handing everything over to Pris. (for Lisa's sake) was Vernon's choice (and a good one in retrospect). Lisa has been well taken care of, ....... & that is probably all that ultimately mattered to EP.


Do you think that the real EP story will come out one day?
Would like to believe so, but it won't be from EPE.


The truth is out there but with the passing of time is it getting harder and harder to dig for it, as you have said previously, memories fade and stories alter, I have always felt that the second Guralnick book doesn't appear to be as well written or researched as the first and there is still a book on Elvis' last 10 years crying out to be written ......
Must agree with you on all points.

Joe Esposito's words relating to this kind of thing:

"We've all gotten older. All our memories are different. And maybe when you read things or believe certain things you read, which you know are not true but eventually they become real ..."

....... are ACCURATE & can be applied to MANY. JE, btw, ..... despite what some ignorant fans / collectors might say otherwise -----> is an honest & straight-shooter about things he both does & does not know; he also keeps it very simple. His words above are further direct evidence for this for all to see.

Reliability varies even amongst those who were there. Some admit it & can see it, others won't or can't.

------------------

With the passage of time, .... more & more opportunities will forever be lost.

The MYTH will overtake reality - it already is & has. The truth, however, will always be out there, for those that know where to look / how to find it.

If EP's last decade is to ever be told & told correctly, ..... I do know one thing: It will take the input of multiple sources piecing together different parts of the puzzle to complete the whole picture accurately.

(Guralnick's 2nd biographical volume fell well short of the mark he obtained with his first. EPE also had hand in the oversight of the second volume.)


- Capt. "EL."

Captain Elwood David
05-10-2005, 08:30 AM
What do you guy's think Elvis had that gold suite on and wereing blue suede shoes.
I don't think he own a pair of blue suede shoes right.
Don't expect a "mini-series" to be accurate - on a number of levels.

-------------------------

EP owned a number of pairs of "Blue Suede Shoes." (Graceland also has some as part of their own archives.)



- Capt. "EL."

paultoronto
05-10-2005, 04:04 PM
I'll throw my hat in the ring on this one. I enjoyed the mini-series. There were inaccuracies here and there, but overall, it was actually the closest to the real story I've seen so far. The characters were (mostly) well cast, though I still think they could have done better on Elvis himself. At times, he really did resemble Elvis, but why couldn't they have fixed his **** hair! Why go to all of the trouble of perfectly replicating his outfits, and then not fixing the hair!?

I really enjoyed seeing the detail they put into the gold lame suit, his 50's jackets, etc... even the instruments the guys used on stage (DJ's drum head with the cow skin), the guitars, Elvis' guitars, the leather cover, etc. The blue suede shoes... to my knowledge Elvis never wore them with the gold lame, so that was a little creative licence I suppose.

Johnathan at times moved a little like Elvis Presley, but as a person who watches specific footage of Elvis over and over and over to try and get the moves just right, there are some Elvis impersonators out there that are MUCH better at this sort of thing (for example, the moves during Hound Dog... these are signature, and could have been replicated better)... the question is, could they act. I know Dean Z (who was the runner up for the position), and he would have been awesome with the moves, voice, etc... his only downfall was being even a bit shorter than Johnathan.

Another small inaccuracy I noted... in the colonel's office, when Elvis comes to see him BEFORE he receives the Gold Lame.. there is a picture over Elvis' shoulder, of him wearing it... LOL!!! Also, I wish they had actually filmed Elvis' first live performance at the Overton Park Shell, I'm sure it would have been cheap or even FREE for them to film there.. and the park shell could really use the publicity.

That being said, I like that they chose to portray Gladys' drinking, Vernon's not-always-so-agreeble nature, Dixie Locke, etc... Overall... I really think this has hit the nail on the head much better than most other Elvis bio-pics. Plus the fact they really shot things at Graceland, etc... very exciting. If I'd been behind the wheel of this project there are things I would have done differently, but I still look forward to part 2.

quinn53
05-11-2005, 10:19 AM
I'm enjoying it. I think Randy Quaid is doing a great job as Tom Parker. I feel the same as Sam Phillips, I ain't calling him colonel. It was kinda funny that they had Elvis in his gold suit and not the gold shoes that he wore with it. The main feeling i'm getting from it is Parker took Elvis for everything he had and didn't give a **** aboout his talent.

Lonniebealestreet
05-11-2005, 04:27 PM
One thing I don't like is that I think many people will come away with the impression that Parker made Elvis. But I think that impression in people's minds will carry less weight after they see the tides turn and Elvis fall behind in the sixties, and Parker's stances on the inlvoled career moves (and lack thereof).

Jungleroom76
05-12-2005, 04:49 AM
Well now that I have finished watching the mini-series, I guess it's time to chime in with my two-cents! :)


Of course my MAJOR problem with the mini-series (I mentioned this before it even started) was that it only covered Elvis' life and career through the 1968 special. Obviously, the final years of Elvis' life were very tumultous, to say the least! But still, if you are going to do a mini-series on the life and career of Elvis, shouldn't the film cover his ENTIRE life? But then again, considering this project was sanctioned with EPE's blessing, should we have expected anything less? :hmm:

I am VERY IMPRESSED with the way The Colonel was portrayed in the film as the get-rich-quick con man that we all know he truly was! They really spent a lot of time showing just how mismanaged Elvis really was, particularly in the later years! I honestly wasn't expecting The Colonel to be portrayed that accurately, especially detailing how Elvis wanted certain things throughout his career and how The Colonel talked him out of those things almost every time! This is another reason I am disappointed that the movie didn't cover the years beyond the '68 special. Could you imagine how much worse The Colonel would have come across in this film if they had shown some of the truly self-centered deals The Colonel brokered for Elvis in the later years, like robbing Elvis of his future royalties on his pre-1973 songs when The Colonel sold the entire back catalog to RCA for one set price? Overall, I think the whole relationship between Elvis and The Colonel was handled very well in the movie, showing just how in-control of every facet of Elvis' life and career The Colonel truly was....even going as far as handling Elvis and Priscilla's wedding! If that one aspect of the film didn't illustrate just how tightly The Colonel was in control....NOTHING did!!! :mad:

As for my thoughts on the main actors/actresses in the film:

Right off the top, I have to say that I didn't care for ROBERT PATRICK'S portrayal of Vernon throughout the first half of the mini-series. I thought he appeared almost bored at times during the first half.....but I thought his performance improved dramatically in the second half!

I ABSOLUTELY LOVED CAMYRN MANHEIM'S portrayal of Gladys! Although there is very little real footage of Gladys available to compare Camryn's performance to, I thought she did an OUTSTANDING job! There were times I was watching her performance that I could swear I was watching home movies of the real Gladys Presley! Perhaps the BEST performance of the entire mini-series, in my opinion!

While I was skeptical of how well RANDY QUAID would handle his portrayal of The Colonel, I thought he did a VERY GOOD job! He really seemed to have the mannerisms of The Colonel down (compared to what little footage of the real Colonel we have to compare to, that is!). I think Randy did a good job of keeping a slightly mysterious edge to his performance of The Colonel, which worked really well considering what a shady character we all know The Colonel really was! I ESPECIALLY liked the confrontation between Elvis and The Colonel when Elvis demanded that The Colonel work his magic to obtain an emergency leave from the Army for Elvis, to go and see his ailing mother! That was the one time during the mini-series that The Colonel truly looked afraid to stand up to Elvis on something he wanted....and Randy pulled it off very well, I thought!

As far as ANTONIA BERNATH'S portrayal of Priscilla, I thought she did a fair job, but ROSE McGOWEN did a much better job with her performance as Ann-Margret, in my opinion. I think it would still be interesting to see what would have happened if Elvis and Ann had actually gotten together! :hmm:

And finally.....I move on to JOHNATHAN REYS-MEYER and his portrayal of Elvis. I have to say that in my opinion, it's a 50/50 split! I thought his performance in the first half of the movie was MUCH BETTER than the second half! I did feel he handled Elvis' speaking voice very well for the most part, and I thought his dancing was quite good. However, what was up with THAT HAIR?????? Elvis' hair was one of his most well-known features, especially in the early years, and Johnathan's hair was just plain AWFUL!!! And it certainly didn't get any better as the film went on! AND THEN.....there was the lip synching!!! Did Johnathan actually listen to any of these songs before he attempted to lip-synch them in the mini-series? As nice as it was to finally have an Elvis biography actually feature Elvis' own recordings, it was truly painful at times for me to sit and watch Johnathan try and lip-synch the songs. At times, he didn't appear to know the words, and at other times, his mouth seemed to be stretched into some strange, convoluted position. He really seemed to be over-emphasizing his mouth movements when "singing", which made it seem too obviously fake for me. THE WORST PART of his performance was during the '68 Comeback performances....the entire performance of LAWDY MISS CLAWDY during the "sit-down" portion of the show was REALLY overacted in my opinion, both in his lip-synching and in his overall body movements. But the BIGGEST problem with his performance for me came at the end, during IF I CAN DREAM!!! Not only was the lip-synching just downright awful, but his body movements were UNDESCRIBABLY HORRIBLE!!! At times, he looked stiff as a board, other times he looked like he was having some sort of a horrible body convulsion. If that wasn't the WORST performance in an Elvis biography (second only to Don Johnson's portrayal of Elvis in ELVIS AND THE BEAUTY QUEEN...but that is only because he was horrible throughout the WHOLE movie), then I don't know what is!!! So all in all....I give Johnathan a 50/50 split on his portrayal of Elvis! DEFINITELY better during the first half of the mini-series!

In terms of the overall production of the film, I thought it was decent. Again, the fact that they really focused on just how badly The Colonel mishandled Elvis' entire career was well done! And knowing there were certainly bad periods in Elvis' life, especially his medication problems and his legendary temper flare-ups, I thought these were handled well, for the most part. Some of the facts throughout the film were a bit questionable, most notably the whole situation with The Colonel being an illegal alien....none of that information was ever officially known during Elvis' lifetime, I don't believe. I am sure there was always speculation about something like that, due to The Colonel's absolute refusal to allow Elvis to go on a world tour....but I certainly doubt it was ever openly discussed as it was portrayed in the film. And what is up with the GLARING omission of Elvis' appearance on Ed Sullivan? BARELY a mention of it a couple of times throughout the film, despite the fact that Elvis' appearance on Ed Sullivan was seen by 52 million people!!! You would have thought they would have shown one of Elvis' appearances on the show....but as I said, BARELY a mention...maybe two or three times!

OVERALL....while I found the entire film to be enjoyable, I certainly hope that this mini-series will not be thought of as the "definitive" look at Elvis' life and career! Personally, I just have too many issues with the film for me to consider it a "definitive" biography! But considering they were able to use Elvis' actual recordings in the movie, it is certainly another step in the right direction!!! (y)

TCB!
Mike

Cryogenic
05-12-2005, 05:13 AM
Mike...

I want to let it be known that I enjoy your presence on this board immensely. You certainly have some very articulate opinions and know your stuff! (Your FTD reviews are a particular pleasure). Furthermore, I am still a newbie in the Elvis world so you and the other prominent posters of this board TROUNCE my knowledge. However...

As important as I feel it is to show how manipulative and plain invasive The Colonel was, I think it's just as vitally important - if not moreso - to present a fair and balanced perspective of the man and his relationship with Elvis. Not only would that significantly improve the veracity of any given account of Elvis' life story, but it would also invoke the best possible drama and elevate the status and magnificence of the film (the best films are, afterall, founded on moral ambiguity and present a rich cross-section of human behaviour). For example, whilst The Colonel was heinously interfering in Elvis' life by practically forcing him into marriage, he was also, in the words of Captain El, "saving his ***". The Colonel's sale of Elvis' catalogue in 1973 was also almost certainly done at the behest of Elvis who was in financial straits and needed money to pay off Priscilla. On a broader level, Elvis was far too ignorant and timid in business affairs to get very far without a crucial piece of his conscience that was missing - The Colonel was that missing piece.

Your assessment of Jonathan Rhys Meyers' performance as Elvis in the latter half doing "If I Can Dream" has seemingly confirmed my worst fears - he may have been able to embody certain traits of Elvis off-stage but it sounds like he could barely even adequately imitate (let alone embody) those essential on-stage traits. The still images that Cherokee posted of the segment in another thread were ones I took it upon myself to rip apart; sadly, it seems I was justified in doing so. Whoever suggested changing to the REAL Elvis at the close of the mini series for the "If I Can Dream" performance is a genius: it would really have been a nice way to wrap the entire thing up and would also have spotlighted that performance of Elvis' in a whole new way. Art within art. And from the sounds of it, it would also have spared us - and Rhys Meyers - from much squirming and embarrassment. Sadly, it's now nothing but a lost opportunity.

EDIT: It was Lonnie that made the suggestion. Bravo!

nabelt24
05-12-2005, 05:33 AM
Well,......... I have to say that it's a 50/50 split with me as well. Johnathan Rhys Meyers did a great job of playing Elvis off-stage, but as far as lip-syncing and the moves.... it was absolutely HORRIBLE!!!! And THE HAIR!!! THE HAIR, THE HAIR, THE HAIR!!! Why can't they EVER get that right??????? Everytime they make a movie about Elvis, they always overlook the hair? I don't understand? That was one of his MAIN TRADEMARKS!!!

Another problem was the guy that played Joe Esposito. What was the deal with that? The actor that portrayed him was taller than Elvis. In real life he was much, much shorter than Elvis. Not only that, but Scotty and Bill where portrayed wrong as well. In real life, Bill was the big guy and Scotty was the skinny guy. This was backwards in the film!!!

I was satified with the other actors mostly and I was impressed that they got alot of the facts pretty straight. The first time that's ever happened.

All in all, I didn't mind it, but it could have been ALOT BETTER!!! The end of the film was the WORST PART!!!!!

curtis simpkins
05-12-2005, 05:44 AM
To let you guys know i have allway's like ROSE McGOWEN , To let you also know
she did a great job on the tv series charmed, 2 years ago she sang Fever, and done a wonderfull job on it.

I taped the 2nd part of the mini series, and i am going to see it sometime tomorrow.

Lonniebealestreet
05-12-2005, 06:25 AM
Mike, I agree with about all of your assessments and said very similar things elsewhere.

Cryo, I was too busy tooting my own horn in another thread to see that you had already done some tooting :lol: for me. It's too bad they didn't go that route; the show would have ended on such a positive note that a lot of the shortcomings may have quickly been forgotten, replaced by a sense of awe and respect and a questioning of self by non-fans: "Elvis...yeah, where have I been all these years? This guy is the $h!t!"

Also, on top of how amazing that performance inherently is, add to that the way you would respond to watching an Elvis impersonator as an opening act, him finally walking off and then EP himself coming out and giving one of his finest performances.

Oh well, it certainly isn't time well spent to try to convince anyone of this now...unless they'd like to put this show out on DVD with an alternate ending.

quinn53
05-12-2005, 07:15 AM
Cryo,
Let's not forget that Tom Parker threw away millions gambling in Vegas.

Cryogenic
05-12-2005, 07:22 AM
Oh well, it certainly isn't time well spent to try to convince anyone of this now...unless they'd like to put this show out on DVD with an alternate ending.

I see a fan cut coming... :D


Cryo,
Let's not forget that Tom Parker threw away millions gambling in Vegas.

While Elvis threw millions away with his erratic and uncontrollable spending. He also had no investments to speak of

Really... they were each other's OWN worst enemies.

FrankieRider2
05-12-2005, 08:17 AM
For me, the basic rating for this CBS event would be.... "well, I've seen worse". I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to portray Elvis. The things that stuck out to me were....

1 - The lip-synching was terrible.... and something about seeing Elvis' voice come out of somebody else's mouth was just "wrong". Despite it being great to actually hear EP's recorded voice, that bothered me immensely.

2 - A lot of events in the film were "in the wrong time period". I suppose it would be terribly difficult to put somebody's career for the most part into four hours of TV, but there were some pretty big liberties taken on timing just to get some points/events in the film.

3 - THE HAIR.... Like everybody has said... what was up with that? For the most part, you couldn't have dented that 'do with a brick at close range. It definitely had that mid-60s thing going for the most part. The interesting thing was that in the promo screen logo, the hairstyle was correct. The falling locks in the front were very prominent.

4 - The fellow playing Elvis was too "effeminate". I have seen this a lot before. Elvis had a delicate, yet manly quality about his appearance that was not at all evident in this film, especially as he aged throughout. This "Elvis" was definitely more delicate than manly. Naturally, you can't expect anyone to correctly portray the facets of Elvis unique appearance.... but the mix was not there this time.

But maybe I'm nitpicking.... it was a decent overall look at Elvis and his rise to stardom, despite some glaring omissions. Like I said, I've seen worse portrayals be accepted as "the gospel".....

quinn53
05-12-2005, 09:57 AM
Yeah, I'm a prejudiced fan. I do wish there had been someone to manage all that money. Rednecks with all that money. Imagine!

Cryogenic
05-12-2005, 01:43 PM
FrankieRider, you definitely nailed another fallacy there: Rhys Meyers looked too furtive in the role when he was performing. While no one could ever have expected an exact match, one thing that is absolutely vital when portraying Elvis is to communicate that same sense of vigour and joy; from the bits and pieces I've seen and heard about, Rhys Meyers was utterly unable to do this.

waymore44
05-12-2005, 04:11 PM
I made a DVD of the miniseries. I think that I'm going to go back and edit the real Elvis singing "If I Can Dream" at the end of the film. I NEVER want to see the real ending again.

On a side note:

Did anyone notice how the army fatigues and dress uniform were too big for him and didn't fit well?

Jungleroom76
05-14-2005, 11:27 PM
Mike...

I want to let it be known that I enjoy your presence on this board immensely. You certainly have some very articulate opinions and know your stuff! (Your FTD reviews are a particular pleasure). Furthermore, I am still a newbie in the Elvis world so you and the other prominent posters of this board TROUNCE my knowledge. However...

As important as I feel it is to show how manipulative and plain invasive The Colonel was, I think it's just as vitally important - if not moreso - to present a fair and balanced perspective of the man and his relationship with Elvis. Not only would that significantly improve the veracity of any given account of Elvis' life story, but it would also invoke the best possible drama and elevate the status and magnificence of the film (the best films are, afterall, founded on moral ambiguity and present a rich cross-section of human behaviour). For example, whilst The Colonel was heinously interfering in Elvis' life by practically forcing him into marriage, he was also, in the words of Captain El, "saving his ***". The Colonel's sale of Elvis' catalogue in 1973 was also almost certainly done at the behest of Elvis who was in financial straits and needed money to pay off Priscilla. On a broader level, Elvis was far too ignorant and timid in business affairs to get very far without a crucial piece of his conscience that was missing - The Colonel was that missing piece.

Your assessment of Jonathan Rhys Meyers' performance as Elvis in the latter half doing "If I Can Dream" has seemingly confirmed my worst fears - he may have been able to embody certain traits of Elvis off-stage but it sounds like he could barely even adequately imitate (let alone embody) those essential on-stage traits. The still images that Cherokee posted of the segment in another thread were ones I took it upon myself to rip apart; sadly, it seems I was justified in doing so. Whoever suggested changing to the REAL Elvis at the close of the mini series for the "If I Can Dream" performance is a genius: it would really have been a nice way to wrap the entire thing up and would also have spotlighted that performance of Elvis' in a whole new way. Art within art. And from the sounds of it, it would also have spared us - and Rhys Meyers - from much squirming and embarrassment. Sadly, it's now nothing but a lost opportunity.

EDIT: It was Lonnie that made the suggestion. Bravo!

FIRST AND FOREMOST:

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for your kind words Cryogenic...I am truly speechless and humbled by your most generous and kind words! :blush:

As for being a "newbie" in the Elvis world...most importantly, we are just happy that you ARE a part of the Elvis world, regardless of whether you are a "newbie" or a seasoned fan! And don't worry in the least about being a "newbie" to the legend that is Elvis Presley....with all of the vast knowledge that is shared here on a daily basis, you should be up-to-speed in NO TIME!!! ;)

Being new to the board, the most important rule that I can share with you is NEVER, EVER, EVER be afraid to post a question here on the board....everyone here LOVES to share their knowledge and love of Elvis, and will be happy to answer any questions that you may have!!! (y)

AS FOR THE SUGGESTION ABOUT INSERTING THE ACTUAL ELVIS PERFORMANCE OF "IF I CAN DREAM" INTO THE MINI-SERIES.....LEAVE IT UP TO BOBBY (LONNIE) TO SHOW OFF AND COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF AN OUTSTANDING IDEA!!! :D ;)

I agree with you wholeheartedly that a balance of The Colonel's role in Elvis' life and career (good and bad) is ESSENTIAL when telling the Elvis Presley story! And, I guess in my mind, the good side of The Colonel's role in Elvis' life was shown fairly well in the mini-series....even if it didn't stand out as obviously as the bad side did. In terms of the good side of The Colonel's role on Elvis' career, it was The Colonel who was able to convince RCA to sign Elvis. It was The Colonel who booked Elvis on all of the biggest television shows of the 1950's to give Elvis the exposure he needed to take his career to the next level. It was The Colonel who was able to get Elvis into the movies, even if it didn't all work out the way Elvis had hoped it would. It was The Colonel who was able to keep Elvis' name, face and music in the public eye while he was away serving in the Army! Most Elvis fans (including those here on the board) generally share the same opinion of The Colonel....that during the early years of Elvis' career, he did LOTS of good things for Elvis! Yes, there were the occassional creative differences between the two of them (like Elvis wanting to star in "The Rainmaker" and "West Side Story"), but for the most part, Col. Parker made Elvis Presley a household name in the 1950's!

But....it's the LATER years of Elvis' career where The Colonel's decision making became more self-centered for The Colonel's best interests than working in the interest of Elvis' career, and it's those decisions that were so grossly negligent...they stand out far and above the good decisions that were made on behalf of Elvis' career during the 50's! Perhaps the most negligent decision made in the later years (and one that was not mentioned in the mini-series, surprisingly) was the contract Elvis signed with The Colonel for a 50/50 split of ALL profits!!! Now certainly some blame for this could easily fall on Elvis for not negotiating a different contract with The Colonel....BUT if The Colonel was truly working in Elvis' best interests and being a good manager, this contract would have never been suggested, let alone allowed to be agreed upon!!! In my opinion, NO MANAGER is worth 50% of EVERYTHING!!!! And despite the good business moves that The Colonel made for Elvis during the early years of his career, they still weren't worth 50% of EVERYTHING...again, in my opinion.

I do agree that some decisions that were made by The Colonel on Elvis' behalf were probably made to save Elvis' ***....could you imagine the scandal that would have erupted if Elvis had not followed through and married Priscilla after living with her for years? It could have effectively ended Elvis' career, no doubt! And I certainly can understand that considering Elvis' lavish spending habits, by the time The Colonel struck the deal with RCA to sell Elvis' back catalog, Elvis probably did need the money (of course, if The Colonel wasn't taking 50% of everything, Elvis probably would have had more money....but I digress....)! But still....a good manager would have come up with some other idea to help Elvis raise the money he may have needed (even if it was in the form of a suggestion to obtain a bank loan, no matter how crazy that may have sounded) then to sell ALL of Elvis' back catalog, thereby robbing Elvis of all future royalties on those songs! And what about the whole world tour theory?? Is there any doubt that Elvis would have easily made MILLIONS of dollars by going on a world tour? But because of The Colonel's shady past, Elvis' dream of going on a world tour never came to be....again, all because of The Colonel.

So, while I do agree with you Cryogenic that a fair and balanced look at The Colonel's management of Elvis is necessary (both good and bad) to help tell the Elvis Presley story in a complete way, I really do believe personally that the good AND bad were told in the mini-series....but as I mentioned above, the bad business moves were so grossly negligent that they far-and-away stand out above the good decisions made on Elvis' behalf!

And yes, Cryogenic, you are justified in ripping Johnathan's performance apart, especially on the performances from the '68 Special....they were simply HORRIBLE!!!! :'(

Once again, Cryogenic....THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for your kind words! I am glad you enjoy reading my opinions and my reviews of the various FTD releases....that means a lot to me! :notworthy

Again....MANY, MANY THANKS!!! :blush:

TCB!
Mike

Jungleroom76
05-14-2005, 11:55 PM
Mike, I agree with about all of your assessments and said very similar things elsewhere.

THANKS PAL!!!! (y)

Glad you enjoyed my review....and once again, we have renewed the "separated at birth" theory with our similiar reviews of the mini-series!! :cool:

TCB!
Mike

Jungleroom76
05-15-2005, 12:01 AM
For me, the basic rating for this CBS event would be.... "well, I've seen worse". I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to portray Elvis. The things that stuck out to me were....

1 - The lip-synching was terrible.... and something about seeing Elvis' voice come out of somebody else's mouth was just "wrong". Despite it being great to actually hear EP's recorded voice, that bothered me immensely.

COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE ON YOUR TWO POINTS I HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE FRANKIERIDER2!!! :)

I have seen MUCH worse in terms of Elvis biographical movies (again I refer back to the Don Johnson fiasco known as "Elvis And The Beauty Queen"), and this one certainly doesn't rate as the WORST biography -- I would probably rate this one as middle of the road to slightly above average, if only for the fact that I was impressed by the surprisingly revealing look at the whole Elvis/Col. Parker relationship!

And you are RIGHT ON TARGET about watching someone lip-synch to Elvis' songs....I couldn't agree more that hearing Elvis' voice come out of some actors lips is REALLY WRONG!!! :supriced:

TCB!
Mike

FrankieRider2
05-15-2005, 07:09 AM
The best way for the producers to vastly improve the quality of this mini series would have been to edit in Elvis' actual musical performances where warranted.... which could have been done easily enough. It is not prudent to expect anyone to be able to come anywhere close to realisticly recreating any of Elvis' on-stage performances under any circumstances.

I had very little problem with the non-musical portrayal of Elvis; I felt that for the most part Rhys-Myers captured the essence of Elvis enough for his portrayal to be decent. Some of the problem areas could have been addressed better (the hair, the mannerisms, etc.) while some of the other ones (lip curling on the wrong side of his face, etc.) could not have been prevented simply because of the basic difference in human beings. But he was not all bad.

But the musical perspective is what really brought it down in my view.... and that, being the real essence of Elvis, is a shame because it could have been prevented.

On-stage = Elvis, off-stage = Rhys Meyers would have been the best way to have gone, IMO.

Jungleroom76
05-18-2005, 11:16 PM
Good thought FrankieRider2! Editing Elvis' actual performances into the special might have been just what the mini-series needed to save it from being the laughing stock that it has become!

I agree with you completely that, for the most part, JR-M did a decent job as Elvis during the non-musical portions of the movie. And the little things that seemed to bother most fans (the hair, the mannerisms) could be overlooked for the most part. But considering the meat of the whole Elvis legacy is the music, the musical portions of the movie ranged anywhere from tolerable to horrible, and they seemed to get worse and worse as the years went on! I didn't think JR-M did too bad of a job on the 50's musical segments....the dancing was adequate, although the lip-synching was slightly off. But the '68 special segments were just plain AWFUL!!!!

But I do like your suggestion of Elvis on stage and JR-M off stage....interesting!!!

TCB!
Mike

Menwithbrokenhearts
07-13-2006, 06:57 AM
Any positive comments I may have had about this movie , I now recant, in light of recent comments made by JRM. If I had an inkling to watch it again, every time I saw him I would think about that. Not a good enough movie for that!

ForeverTheKing
07-13-2006, 08:00 AM
Good thought FrankieRider2! Editing Elvis' actual performances into the special might have been just what the mini-series needed to save it from being the laughing stock that it has become!

I agree with you completely that, for the most part, JR-M did a decent job as Elvis during the non-musical portions of the movie. And the little things that seemed to bother most fans (the hair, the mannerisms) could be overlooked for the most part. But considering the meat of the whole Elvis legacy is the music, the musical portions of the movie ranged anywhere from tolerable to horrible, and they seemed to get worse and worse as the years went on! I didn't think JR-M did too bad of a job on the 50's musical segments....the dancing was adequate, although the lip-synching was slightly off. But the '68 special segments were just plain AWFUL!!!!

But I do like your suggestion of Elvis on stage and JR-M off stage....interesting!!!

TCB!
Mike


I have the same opinion about everything!(y)
Decent job (y) in general with the acting...but the '68 performances..(n) I can't describe them!:supriced: :blink:
Anyway...it's sure that J.R.M. is not one of my favourite actors...but I can't be totally negative about his performance....he tried to do his best...:hmm:

songs4u
07-15-2006, 07:59 AM
From the hype they were putting out about this movie I was expecting more than what it was. I saw the actor portraying Elvis interviewed promoting the movie before it was aired and I thought, man, he does resemble Elvis but, I lost that thought when I watched the movie.

I may be too pickey but, the guy was not tall enough to play Elvis. Someone hit on the fact that the person playing Joe Esposito was taller than Elvis. This was so true. That was probably the first thing that took the illusion of Elvis away for me. Also, watching this guy do "If I Can Dream" really turned me off. I know Elvis was so unique that it would be hard to get someone to play him but, I was disappointed with this performance. Elvis' infamous "curled lip" was exagerated by this actor I thought. I started losing interest before it was half over. When you're taking on a project like this and choosing an actor to play the "King of Rock 'n Roll" you need to get it right. Like how Jamie Foxx nailed the part of "Ray".

Someone mentioned about maybe having Elvis' actual performances put in the movie for the musical parts. This would have made it better, I think. I've seen this with other movies and it worked pretty well.

Why is it that no major motion picture company has made a production of "Elvis" like has been made of "Ray" and "Ali"? Not a movie for television like all the rest about him have been. Do you think EPE has had something to do with this? I can't believe no one has come up with this idea.

Donut
07-15-2006, 10:41 AM
For me one of the worst imitations of Elvis. They even didn?t bother to pick a guy that looks just a little like Elvis or made him look like him. I wouldn?t have noticed it if in the midle of the series they would have cut JRM part and replace him with a pig.

ForeverTheKing
07-15-2006, 10:58 AM
For me one of the worst imitations of Elvis. They even didn?t bother to pick a guy that looks just a little like Elvis or made him look like him. I wouldn?t have noticed it if in the midle of the series they would have cut JRM part and replace him with a pig.



Jonathan..........a pig..................??:hmm: :blink:

14148 14149


THE PIG IS BETTER!!!!:lmfao:


I'm kiddin', of course......poor Jonathan!:lol: He's not so bad....:P

Anyway...I don't want to be so critical but I agree with Gayle...they could work better to this miniseries and try to find someone who could have a small resemblance with Elvis, although it's really hard!;)

Anyway, you can like or not the series and Jonathan but for one point we all agree...................IF I CAN DREAM WAS AN INSULT TO ELVIS....
I hope Elvis was busy up there when they broadcasted that scene........:lmfao: (n):wallbash:

graceland123
07-16-2006, 02:10 AM
dale midkiff was the worst elvis in my opinion nothing like him in any way hes the worst for me.
don johnson is the second worse.

ForeverTheKing
07-16-2006, 09:38 AM
dale midkiff was the worst elvis in my opinion nothing like him in any way hes the worst for me.
don johnson is the second worse.


I totally agree about Dale Midkiff!(n)

He's a good actor...also very handsome but he had nothing of Elvis and was terrible in that role....but maybe Cilla had told him how she wanted him to act!:angry:

riley
07-16-2006, 11:27 AM
Here in Belgium I will probably never have the chance to see CBS the miniseries.

I know the reviews are not that great and Jonathan is not looking at all as Elvis but I would liked to have seen it.

Better to see one film about his life then to see nothing at all I guess.

I did see the performance of him If I can dream on youtube and it was VERY dissapointing.

I guess that is normal, when we hear that song we immediately see our Elvis looking really at the peak of his beauty in our mind and we really expect so much of it when we see those red letters and that man in the white uniform and then suddenly we see Jonathan and that is so dissapointing.

I would really not want to be in any male actors shoes to play Elvis.

Never ever will there be a one looking like him and stand up to the great expectations all the fans will have of him.

Perhaps that is why that we will probably never will have a quality picture of his life like for instance walk the line.

Elvis can't be played by nobody. An actor can have the looks or the voice or the charisma which I even doubt but the whole package.

No way, never again.

He was unique. And the looks and the "presence" is something we will never witness again in our lifetime.

0349054
07-16-2006, 02:24 PM
It was released on DVD in Sweden as far as I know.