Lauran123 Still ruminating on this one. The film tries to compare the career of Elvis Presley to the rise and fall of the American dream. While taking a road trip in one of Elvis' Rolls Royce's (not a trademark Cadillac) and interviewing celebs, people who knew him, and people who didn't but live near where he did. Ambitious. Thought provoking. Originally called Promised Land then changed to The King. Just like the change of the title, the allegory doesn't quite work.

Joe Stemme Unorthodox documentary not so much "about" Elvis Presley, but about how Elvis affected --and was affected by -- American culture. The gimmick Director Eugene Jarecki employs is that he purchased Elvis' actual Rolls Royce, and then films interviews of a wide variety of folks in that vehicle as it travels across the places that Elvis himself stayed at various points in his life, from his hometown in Tupelo Mississippi to Memphis (although, curiously, Graceland is barely mentioned) and places in between. Even though Jarecki doesn't give us a straightforward biography of Presley, THE KING does a pretty fine job of covering the bases, even if indirectly. The most effective part of the Doc comes early on in a discussion of whether Elvis was a cultural appropriator of black music, culminating in his early crowning as The King Of Rock And Roll. The movie gives a fair-minded balance of pro and con with people like Presley's guitarist Scotty Moore, Emmylou Harris and John Hiatt on one side and rapper Chuck D on the other (he, of the infamous song lyric: "Elvis was a hero to most. But he never meant **** to me you see."). There's also a clip of Big Mama Thornton's blistering original version of "Hound Dog". Jarecki then follows Elvis' travels to NYC and even bigger fame and riches. Then, it's off to the Army and Presley's decline into B movies and Vegas schmaltz. The clips of 'fat Elvis' at the end are truly shocking even all these decades later. Where Jarecki over-reaches is that he isn't satisfied just showing Elvis' effect on the public, but then tries to tie it in with today's culture wars. Shot during the 2016 campaign with such guests as Alec Baldwin, Van Jones and James Carville, Jarecki makes tenuous connections. VERY tenuous connections. No question that Elvis was a seismic force when he hit, but, save for the brief glory period after the '68 Comeback Special, Presley can hardly be looked upon as a central artistic force after the very early 60s. While significant figures can certainly have a long influence, the fact that Elvis passed on in 1977 makes it a stretch to say that he is symbol of our Red-Blue state America today. If anything, Elvis is the very definition of 'Purple' celebrity - equally loved by all demos. Even with this central flaw, there is no question that THE KING is a dense, engaging Documentary. One can't help but feel that they have gone on some sort of journey itself, much like Elvis's well-traveled Rolls itself.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Promised Land" is the most recent filmmaking effort by award-winning American filmmaker Eugene Jarecki. It runs for 105 minutes and is of course a documentary movie that focuses mostly on Elvis Presley. And with that comment i want to say that this is also where the film was the very strongest, namely when it was entirely about the King, his art, his work, his struggles, his life and his views. I believe that one big strength here is that the film was pretty critical about him, also in terms of how he positioned, or did not position himself I should say, on global issues, while fellow other defining artists of their eras like Marlon Brando or Jane Fonda did not mind to get involved. Or the critical reference about how he basically only got as famous as he did as he took Black people's music and turned it into perfection and commercial success while these Black people had no chance to achieve the same because of racial prejudice, where I must say I was genuinely impressed by Chuck D's insightful comments on the subject because he really nailed it I think with his statement that offered all kinds of shades on the subject and not just black-or-white and I really liked that they also included people who were genuinely critical about Elvis. This is not a movie about adulation and praising him to the skies. Now I mentioned already one interviewee and these interviewees really were the ones who broke or saved the film. Ethan Hawke was as insightful as one could hope. Mike Myers impressed me too and his parallel abot Elvis having cloth over his head first that they would not see him and panick because of how much they loved him and later on about how he had the same cloth that he would not see how hardly anybody was there anymore was one of the best, saddest and most touching moments about the film. And then there is Ashton Kutcher who adds basically nothing but pretense and stays only memorable because of how some people next to him scream how much tehy love him. I have no idea why they included him, maybe to get younger audiences to watch the film? I don't know. But I would have preferred the film to take place completely without him. Same goes for Alec Baldwin, who in my opinion only used it to promote his SNL Donald Trump persona. The final statement by him and Hawke is really the perfect example how one nails it when Hawke elaborates on Presley's take on financial over creative decisions and Baldwin almost destroys it with the most random reference about President Reagan in the most desperate attempt to make this film as political as it can be. I already mentioned Trump and I really wished the film would not have elaborated on him at all because the filmmaker's intention to make a parallel between Elvis' demise and America's demise was nothing more than an attempt that in my opinion was doomed from the very beginning and it takes away a lot from this otherwise really inspired documentary that is at its best when it tries nothing other than giving an insight into who Elvis was and why he did what he did. The best example is when we have a bunch of Black Guys at a bar or so randomly talk about the evil that Mr. Trump brings upon America and with a reference back to said parallel, it also does not make any sense as these are the ones who really love Obama and this means that 2 years ago everything was great and glorious and perfect and honestly nobody can say that. It's another film that turns Trump into the big scapegoat the way media have been doing for a long time now without really offering anything substantial. But this film did not need to. It was really good enough otherwise for what it was. The only somewhat really good moment away from Elvis in here I liked is when we see a female interviewee talking about how basically nothing has changed in decades. Living costs are far higher, but people tend to forget, so they are tricked into believing that the economy is on their side only because their wages and salaries are higher. That was really a very smart statement that got me thinking a lot. Is being tricked into thinking we're fine not even worse than not being fine? Or is it better if we don't see through this scam? It's up to you to decide. Overall, this documentary gets a thumbs-up for me. I am still disappointed with how many wrong notes it hit and how it did not turn out as essential as I wanted it to be, even if I take a great deal of positivity for me from watching it. Go see it.

ssyuval This film can't decide whether it's an Elvis documentary or social commentary and these two subject don't intermingle very well.The stated objective of the director is to explore how America has gone from Elvis to Donald Trump, and attempts to portrait the rise of fall of the King as an allegory for the demise of the American dream. The framework for relaying this story is a road trip in Elvis' Rolls-Royce Phantom V through parts of the South but also New York City and the West, while juxtaposing interviews with locals, actors, and other social commentators with historic footage of Elvis. As a brief biography of Elvis the film does an okay job, though it basically skims the surface of the known narrative - roughly what would appear on Wikipedia. There are no groundbreaking revelations.But as social commentary, the film fails to deliver upon its promise. All the interviews, documentary footage and narration fail to come to a cohesive thesis about what's changed. General exclamations about "an empire in decline" are repeated several times.