Nah, I've let a few go in this thread but I'm not having Elvis. If anything he's vastly underrated, since he was one of the best and most innovative arrangers of the time. You simply can't compare his versions of Hound Dog or Blue Suede Shoes to the original. Also, as the first artist to bring country and the traditional Italian ballad style to rhythm and blues there's a strong argument he essentially invented what we think of as modern rock n'roll. And that's before you get on to his amazing voice and some of the greatest personal charisma of any musician who ever lived. Even the early films are pretty good.
i've watched tons of documentaries about elvis and they all point at him being quite child-like (man, that theme again), an immature mummy's boy and a serial adulterer, drug user
as an entertainer and as a celebrity he was born for 'those' roles - the quality of his films and his acting can be argued over - as in being so was an icon for the musical change that formed modern music
i wouldn't say he solely 'invented' that but he was no doubt one of the chief instigators of it
it doesn't bother me that he didn't write his own songs - even though it would have been cool if he did - but he was a singer a performer not a writer
as an artist he's brilliant - as a man and as a human being? so-so
I'll tell you what is overrated, since I saw a bit again the other night, is the movie version of American Psycho, which seems to be really highly rated by a lot of people. It's meant to be a depiction of wealth in one of the most grandiose eras in modern history but everything looks cheap even considering the budget, the sound editing is awful (the fact it's even noticeable is a sign of how bad it is), horribly miscast in most parts, buffoonish performances and tonally all over the place to the point where it can't decide whether it wants to be a satire, a farce or a character study. Bale plays Bateman like an exaggerated version of Miles from This Life, though it's still probably better than De Caprio would have been.
But its most monumental failure is that it either doesn't understand, or doesn't have the guts to engage properly with the source material, a satire on the darkness behind the American dream and how money and good looks essentially make anything excusable, even if it's in plain sight. I'm guessing it's the former, since swathes of dialogue from the novel are reproduced without the context to make them meaningful. The film was crying out for Verhoeven, or at the very least someone like Roger Avary who did a terrific job adapting The Rules of Attraction.
i'm along the line of thinking that at least the movie was made and that in itself is a success
whether the viewer would understand its premise is another thing - the same can be said of fight club as its message was lost amidst 'cool' scenes and violence
i actually enjoyed bale in the role as his character always made you feel uneasy, but as i've said, i guess the 'average' movie fan will no doubt remember the 'cool' scenes unaware of its message
we can argue - and i regularly do - that movies can be made 'better' these days, but sometimes that original version has its place and, as with the original 'chainsaw' movie, the way it was produced can have its own charm
