Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” leaves much to be desired despite heavy praise

After my mother refused to go the “Minions” movie with me this summer, she came up with a compromise: Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis,” the latest in a series of music biopics intended to revive old rock stars’ legacies.

Having been thoroughly impressed by “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which delves into the personal life of Queen’s Freddie Mercury, and “Rocketman,” which showcases the indelible Mr. Elton John himself, I let myself get excited for “Elvis”. I was excited not only for the music aspect, but also for lead actor

Austin Butler, who I hadn’t seen on screen since my preteen years. Needless to say, my heartbeat did accelerate when he graced the theater display, his hair dyed dark and his waist belted. I was reminded of my mom being excited that “Top Gun: Maverick” hit the theaters this summer, as she’d grown up with a young Tom Cruise. When she told me she’d always had a crush on him, I asked if she thought he was cute at 60. She replied with a look that told me: he could still get it.

After I got used to Butler on screen, I was able to focus on the movie itself. There was plenty of time to do this, as the film spans a whopping two hours and 39 minutes. I don’t think my parents or I were aware of this going in; I had to take two bathroom breaks, and by the end of it I had accrued a case of legs-sweatily-glued-to-chair. This length is not the most unusual for a music biopic, but in “Elvis’” case, it seemed to drag on and on.

In regards to the film itself, it was undeniably dizzying. Prior to this, the only other Baz Luhrmann movie I’d seen parts of was “Moulin Rouge,” which immediately gave me a headache. I respect Luhrmann’s individuality in directing; however, it seems to only suit a very specific type of people, namely those that enjoy a style that is incredibly fast-paced, flamboyant and superficial.

What I enjoyed about “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Rocketman” was that they slowed down the high-energy, fast-paced rockstar lifestyle, and gave audiences a glimpse of the human within the celebrity. In “Elvis,” this didn’t happen; instead, I left the theater finding Presley unknowable, and therefore uninteresting.

With that being said, Butler did give a good performance as Elvis, especially on stage. His dancing, voice and overall demeanor proved that he had, indeed, done his research. Sadly, I cannot say the same of Elvis’s manager, the Colonel, who was played by Tom Hanks. I cannot believe I am saying this about the great Tom Hanks, but I actually had to stifle a laugh when he came on screen. His accent was horrible, and his character did not suit him at all. Hanks just does better in roles where he can encapsulate someone charming and lovable, like in “Forrest Gump” and “You’ve Got Mail.”

To be frank, this movie wasn’t what I thought it’d be. It fails to juggle race, sex, drugs and rock’n’roll all at once, and the result is something unpalatable. Its only redeeming qualities were the music performances and Butler’s efforts as Elvis, which is why I rate this movie a solid 3/10.

Perhaps one of the greatest markers of this rating was my parents’ reaction; my dad called it disappointing” and my mom called it “a downer.” Due to being full-time boomers, my parents hold a unique perspective on these latest biopics: they knew and loved these artists at their prime.

I can only watch stars like Elvis Presley through old clips; meanwhile, my mom grew up with Elvis on live TV, cut off at his waist so as to not upset parents with that hip wigglin’. Therefore, for them to remark that this film falls short of their juvenile experiences makes it seem not only inadequate, but also disingenuous.

Next time, I hope for a biopic that knows how to balance the star within the story as well as the story within the star. And in the meantime, I’ll be reviving my “Carrie Diaries” crush and listening to “Hound Dog.”