The Elvis Presley movie Roger Ebert couldn’t stand: “I was miserable from beginning to end”
Was Elvis Presley a good actor? It’s a debate that’s been ongoing for decades, and it’s a difficult one to answer, since he wasn’t really given the opportunity to prove himself. However, Roger Ebert knew exactly which side of the fence he fell on, since he didn’t have much praise for the icon’s dramatic chops.
Quentin Tarantino is adamant that ‘The King’ had the potential to become one of his era’s definitive movie stars, and as prone as the filmmaker is to hyperbole and exaggerating opinions that are expressly his own, you can see where he’s coming from, whether you believe him or not.
Elvis showed some range and talent in his earlier roles, but since his overbearing management sought to capitalise on the persona that sent his fans into hysterics, he wasn’t given many chances to stretch himself, instead being shoehorned into a string of formulaic and forgettable musicals that didn’t ask much more of him than using that megawatt charisma to make audiences weak at the knees.
By his own admission, Ebert should have been an Elvis fan. He acknowledged that he was 13 years old when ‘Heartbreak Hotel’ was released in 1956, but he didn’t understand the hype. In fact, he revealed that he’d never seen a single one of Presley’s films or bought a single one of his albums, but a sense of professional duty ensured the former changed when he broke his duck with 1967’s Easy Come, Easy Go.
It was a screening he approached “with heavy heart and faltering step,” and he wasn’t impressed. “It was my duty, and I did it,” he wrote. “I sat down with the kids and the teenage couples, and I saw the movie. And if you think this has all been an elaborate build-up for some unexpected surprise, like I liked it, you’re wrong. I was miserable from beginning to end.”
The cynicism of the entire enterprise was seeping through the screen, with Ebert denouncing the picture as being “obviously produced with a minimum of care and with the sole purpose of contriving a plot, any plot, to fill in between when Elvis sings,” which is something you could say about most of his ’60s flicks, to be honest.
In this case, Elvis plays a Navy diver who uncovers buried treasure, partnering up with his buddy and a go-go dancing yoga expert to retrieve it, as one does. Naturally, he’s required to burst into song at every available opportunity, with ‘The King’ belting out no less than six tracks across the movie’s 95-minute running time. Surprisingly, not many people cared, since Easy Come, Easy Go failed to recoup its budget at the box office and the soundtrack only shifted 30,000 copies.
One person who definitely didn’t give a shit was Ebert, who ended his one-star review by savaging Presley’s lack of onscreen evolution. “Elvis looks about the same as he always has, with his chubby face, petulant scowl, and absolutely characterless features,” he noted. “Here is one guy the wax museums will have no trouble in getting right,” which was prophetic if nothing else.
“He sings a lot, but I won’t go into that,” he shuddered. “What I will say, however, is that after two dozen movies, he should have learned to talk by now.” Needless to say, Ebert’s first experience of watching a Presley-led feature did not convince him that he had to see another one.
