Biopic fatigue is more than likely, but your stronger point is how good he did going over their heads. They just don't know the smallest details of Elvis like his fans do. I know if they studied Elvis there is no way they all wouldn't go Austin's way. Over time some of them may come across Elvis interviews and performances and think Oh My, I remember Austin doing those things, I may have been wrong. "Elvis" getting shutout is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed.
Wow, the disdain you show for the success of the movie is rearing its very ugly head again. You must be delighted by Brendan Fraser, who as one Oscar voter said recently, "Will go down in history as winning the Best Actor Oscar for the worst movie in the history of the award ceremony, Lol.
Austin's emotional scenes didn't rely on prosthetics to get the point across. Fraser's dramatic scenes would still have been good if he were thin and dealing with depression, just like Austin's when he's upset or mad in his film
Sure it could. These are industry awards and Baz Lurhman is very popular and connected in the industry. And Elvis himself is one of the most popular US celebrities ever. The film would literally have had to be an unwatchable mess in order to *not* get many nominations.
Are you kidding? Most likely, this will be only slightly more remembered than the Elton John movie. And the only specific thing this movie will be remembered for is Tom Hanks' silly portrayal of the colonel. Some will ask if that's what he was really like, prompting those who actually know to explain the ridiculous creative decision behind it.
I'm aware but the "IMO" has become as weak as the "lol" when trying to sound less condescending than they're really being. At least IMO
How do you figure? The actor had prosthetics applied for every scene they're in the movie, clearly this was something Baz and co deemed necessary for the performance to be fully realized. I write as a person who doesn't have a problem with movies using makeup to help sell the look of a performance.
The emotional scenes by Austin don't rely on prosthetics to attempt to make those moments more authentic. He has none on or very very little in Gladys's closet or barely more at the bottom of the Graceland steps. Without the fat suit pushing the narrative of the character, Fraser's actual acting isn't as strong on its own merits
Hey, I am 63 years old, so don't call me dude. Like I said, you should be in a great mood celebrating the fact that the movie you didn't like did not win any awards. If you liked this movie, I would have to hate it on sheer principal, Lol.
I don't agree with this. The makeup needs the performer to bring it to life. Fraser's acting efforts were supported by makeup, Austin's acting efforts were supported by makeup, including the much lauded emotional crescendo to the movie (though to these eyes Unchained Melody was one of the weakest makeup jobs in the movie). And we're not even talking about Tom Hank's character. Arguably Elvis relied more on prosthetics to sell its story than The Whale did. Which is not a problem for me, makeup is part of the illusion in show business.
I didn't mention the Unchained Melody scene. I'm talking about when he loses his mom and wife. Those moments could have applied to any person not just Elvis. Fraser needed a fat suit to make his anger and depression feel more real
Maybe if I were 63-50, perhaps I might think that way? I'm not elated or down or otherwise about the Oscars. I just didn't think the Elvis movie was on the level deserving of the awards it ultimately didn't win. Austin will get his moment someday, I think he has it in him, Elvis wasn't it.
What an absolute off the mark take. You have to be trolling. The Whale was “fat suit” the movie. The whole movie is about the horror of the “fat suit” and turning it into a grotesque spectacle.
Let's remember that Rami Malek won for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury..and there was much better acting elsewhere that year
