Disturbing yet enthralling

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Oh boy. Probably you know this movie is tortuously bad. You will not need me to tell you this. But you know, it almost could have been not so, because we all have a bit of groupie in us. We allow great latitude to filmmakers who go where we secretly wish we could, perhaps simply because it is forbidden. Offhand, I can think of three films — all seriously damaged — that were groupie films that we allowed and even think are pretty good.One of these you may not know. It was about Gram Parsons, a documentary that was structured as a groupie experience, even down to explaining why there was no sex. (He was chronically too doped up to perform.) It ends with a groupie stealing his body and burning it in the desert. Based on real events, home movies and interviews with the entourage, its almost perfectly designed as an ersatz tour.Then there's "The Doors." Stone makes flashy but empty movies, but this one resonated because the focus wasn't the suicidal son of a dumb admiral, but on the girl who would give everything just to feel his skin. Its about the only thing Meg's dewy face and manner is good for.Probably the one that seems the best but is the worst is "Almost Famous" because though it collected the whole audience in a grouping of groupies, and it had the sex with the simpleton girlies, it had the guys as well. This opened things up, because by the very act of watching we were joining that group. But the very act of thinking about it, we joined the autobiographical author/filmmaker as he (thought he) was thinking about the music and its place in the world.(I won't get into the intricacies of "Bubba Hotep.")So even this drek, this moronic project could have been subtly adjusted to fool us, especially because it centers on the plastic nature of Elvis-love. I think the exercise would not be worth it except to prove a point in film school. But I think a different edit, different dialog with the same scenes and a remote narration could retool this into acceptable groupieland.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I could not believe how bad this movie was, first- the guy who played Elvis looked and sounded nothing like him, second- why wasn't his weight gain preceding his death portrayed- when they showed his death in 1977 he was the same size as when the movie begins 1969. third- why is Elvis only referred to as "Boss", could they not get permission by EPE? fourth- why have the names of his entourage been changed, red and sonny west are referred to as Jeff and Frank and who I presume to be Joe Esposito is referred to as Ronnie. Don't waste your time on this piece of trash. Elvis would be ashamed that his one time stepbrother would do such a poor job portraying him. 0/10.

Based on a true story. What exactly was David Stanley taking this time? Everyone has an opinion; Stanley writes, directs and produces this proverbial t#^d in a punch bowl. Why would Elvis put his life in the hands of a teenage hanger on? If Mr. Stanley wants us to put credence in his self-serving story, why would he change the names, dates and situations? It doesn't take long to realize that this is another attempt at bleeding money from Elvis' legacy. In any respectable book about Elvis, you'll find Stanley a mere "gopher". Tom Sizemore representing a character based on Joe Esposito is an embarrassment. Dee Stanley Presley should feel honored being played by someone with the looks of Dey Young. And the only thing I can say about Peter Dobson playing "The King"; he did better than Don Johnson and Dale Midkiff. After saying all this; kudos to Matt Barr, who actually is the best actor in this film. This really is not a movie about Elvis; its about David Stanley and his self conception.

The life of the great Elvis Presley is fascinating and worth a look. The story is alright but the acting falls short. Elvis is not believable and his younger brother's "narrative voice" doesn't help the cause any. The film is probably only suited for fans of The King, and even then don't expect a lot. It's not even clear the true intent of the film. There is no interesting dialog in any scene involving The King. The director never creates any insight into the character, really falling short on what this entire production should have been based on. The more I write the more I realize what a waste of time that 90 minutes was.