Paul C. (PACman66) From head to toe, this is one huge stink-burger of a film. Easily the worst movie about Elvis, and I've seen them all. With the WORST Elvis impersonator I've EVER seen on film. (Peter Dobson makes DON JOHNSON look like Elvis personified! Hell, I think Ron Howard could have done a better "King" ) Dobson looks like Charlie Sheen with a dead skunk sitting on his head, and he sounds more like Sly Stallone when he talks, over Presley. Because of the simple fact that you NEVER hear or see the name "Elvis", and never even hear instrumental muzak versions of ANY Elvis song, (all you hear is just bad/generic blues riffs…) Plus, ALL the names seem to have been changed… Why? The main person who would watch this flick would most likely already be an Elvis fan, and would already know who the "characters " are anyway. This all makes me doubt the whole story… What's B.S and what's real. It's like filming a movie about Watergate, yet calling the president at the time Jonathon Smith. I have an easier time believing Bubba-Hoetep was real, over this… (At least Bruce Campbell DID impersonate Elvis surprisingly well!)I'm not being "Pollyannaish", I know Elvis was messed up individual, I've read every book I could get my hands on regarding "The King", including David Stanley's book. What's interesting is, Stanley's book was a testimonial on the evils of drugs, and how he became a born again Christian. You wouldn't ever guess that through watching this movie… It's a sea of excess, with only a passing reference to his spirituality at the very end. It's as if David Stanley saw Boogie Nights, saw what a GREAT film is, regarding sex, drugs & rock & roll, and figured he could do the same type of picture, as there's already a built-in audience. Instead of the Porn world, it's rock and roll. Boogie Nights, which was a TOTAL immersive experience, with perfect acting, realism, fashions and music, I really felt I was in the late 70's watching that film (I'm 43, so I ought to know!) This film, however, is a sad wannabe. Serving Stanley's pocketbook and ego instead of honoring Elvis' memory. Sad and pathetic. The ONE good thing about this garbage dump of a movie? Danielle Keaton. She was really good in this pic... She kept me from giving this film the big goose egg.

tedg 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.

verbusen I was very interested to watch this DVD versus all the other DVD's my friend had (typical Hollywood action crapola), and it didn't disappointed as I stayed with it the whole way. I remember the day Elvis died, not the actual date but where I was when I heard the news, thats saying a lot for a entertainer as he's the only one that sticks in my mind, I was 13 years old at summer camp and I was in a state of shock, I really loved Elvis and it was a huge let down. This movie is focused on his step brother which is news to me, I didn't even know he had one, so there you go, I'm not an Elvis fanatic just a fan. It is from his perspective so I can understand why those who know more about the subject will pan this film if it's total bs, but hey, if you didn't know all the minutia it's pretty interesting to enter his step brother's world. I was also interested in seeing a recent role by Sizemore and I was thinking how if he in real life had not gone so deep into meth himself that he could have been playing the King himself in this flick. He looks like a wreck, they must have saved money on makeup when it came to him playing a wreck. I give it 7 stars because I'm not aware of many films that deal with the womanizing and lifestyle that MUST have been with the Elvis entourage, I can see why so many pan a self serving film for his step brother but I was still entertained and Elvis's world for me as a casual fan is clouded in secrecy, secrecy of the Memphis Mafia.

Michael O'Keefe 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.