MovieChat Forums > Protecting the King (2022) Discussion > Don't Get Your Hopes Up

Don't Get Your Hopes Up

posted 17 years ago by john-crisp
11 replies | jump to latest

I just viewed a screener of this film (mine was entitled "Riding with Elvis") and it's not only "not great," it's just plain bad. This biopic is not even worthy to be a Lifetime made-for-television movie.

Anyone who knows anything about the Stanley family shouldn't be surprised. It shows, once again, that they have the need to make themselves appear (more than) important in the life of Elvis. They're notorious for cashing in on the Presley name shamelessly and repeatedly*.

We're to believe that Elvis (who is never referred to by name in this production) actually relied on David Stanley as a bodyguard when he (Stanley) was nineteen years old, and was as an integral part of Elvis' entourage. One scene even has Stanley disarming a knife-wielding fan attempting to attack Elvis. In all of the biographies I've read about Elvis (barring any done by this family), Stanley has never been given much more than a mention, and certainly never elevated to the status of anything more than a hanger-on.

Though most names of the major characters were changed, we're also to believe that Stanley actually stopped a sexual assault by (who appears to be) the late Charlie Hodge (named changed to Darryl) on a female fan, and that he beat him (Hodge) within an inch of his life. This is only one of the more outrageous claims dramatized in the movie. The portrayal of who appears to be Joe Esposito (name changed to Ronnie) by Tom Sizemore is laughable, making Elvis' road manager to be little more than an angry thug.

In the end he seems to blame the wrong turn he took in life to the lifestyle that Elvis thrust upon him. His (Stanley's) failed marriage, addiction to drugs and lack of formal education (dropping out of school at 16 to go on tour) were all the price he paid because his mother married Elvis' father.

Of course, this film is all about Stanley. And it shows.

- -

*Dee Stanley, David's mother, once sold a three-part tabloid tell-all to the National Enquirer claiming that Elvis and his mother had a sexual relationship.

[–] v-overgaard 17 years ago

Very well said john-crisp, people has to know the real facts about Elvis to know what to avoid, and this one is certanly NOT the one to watch if anyone want to watch a movie ABOUT Elvis.
By the way the title of this movie has now changed again to "Protecting the king"

Want to watch a movie about Elvis, this one I`ll recommend highly:
The movie "This is Elvis" is to be released on a 2 DVD set soon, it`s a great movie telling the story about Elvis and it contains a lot of great Elvis footage.

[–] john-crisp 17 years ago

V-overgaard,

I agree that the release of "This Is Elvis" on DVD is the one to see, and it's long overdue. The two disc set will include the original theatrical release, uncut, as well as the longer but "cleaner" version that was released on VHS.

I personally don't care for the reenactments and poorly acted "interviews" with fans in "This is Elvis," but the candid footage of the King is priceless. It shows not only Elvis at his best, but his worst on-stage moment ("Are You Lonesome Tonight?" from the 1977 CBS Special) that has ever been released to the mainstream. Not to mention the saltier language you'd never expect from a project endorsed by the Elvis Presley estate. This is one I was certain would never see release to DVD.

[–] backofthevan 17 years ago

Thanks for the very informative posts. You've definitely saved me a couple of wasted hours. IMDB boards at their best!

[–] pd-42 17 years ago

i agree, great posts. please keep them coming.

[–] TorBo 17 years ago

Great posts guys!
I was just wondering what you ment by "worst on-stage moment": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEkgnElxF4c (right version?)
Seems like he's having a good time and the performance is alright as well..

..or did you mean the famous Rapid City version of the tour?

[–] mayfair0922 17 years ago

Thank you very much! Now I will not waste my time on this one. You did a great service by posting this.

[–] brazezig 17 years ago

Just watched this and was very disappointed. I don't know the history of the Stanley family and was interested in seeing something about the 'behind the scenes' events.

Got to say there were very few moments in this film that didn't just scream FAKE. The acting was so bad it made the whole thing feel unbelievable. Too bad the director didn't direct.

[–] hatr 17 years ago

Protecting the King?
More like `dissing the king'.
Thank goodness for fast-forward buttons.

[–] john-crisp 17 years ago

Yes, I'm referring to the version (assuming Rapid City) that was used in the film "This Is Elvis" (Theatrical Version). Elvis is stuttering and stammering the spoken part; obviously under the influence of something. I can't think of a worse on-stage moment ever released by EPE.

[–] poddoc97 16 years ago

I don't know one way or the other, but you seem to have a bias about what you think ( or know) about "all things Elvis". You made two claims about specific events in the movie, the knife and attempted rape, as being absolutely unbelievable or absurd. As I said, I personally dont know the history, but if you make a claim like that then please expand on why you say it. Are there facts that disprove Stanley's claim or does the lack of mention by others "prove" that something can't be possible. Acting and directing aside, I am just curious to see behind the scenes stuff that might not be that well known. Are you 100% sure that your claims are right?
Again, you may be right, but a counter-claim should be backed up when aired.

[–] onepeterdobson 16 years ago

yes, i'm the actor who potrayed elvis in "protecting the king" i knew when i took this role i would be blasted by a lot of people. first off let me say that david stanley did not want me to impersonate elvis in any way, he didn't even want me to wear a wig or do the capes because he was trying to show another side to elvis. a human side, i didn't agree at first with what he was doing because i had a tremendous amount of sucsess when i potrayed elvis in "forrest gump". this was a different matter, the movie is deffintley not for every one but i do respect that david stanley was trying to make a different kind of movie about elvis & not another shlocky t.v. movie were they use corn ball impersonaters fronm vegas, they always always screw it up. love or hate this film i can honestly say that at least stanley showed courage to do something different. there was, and is, and always will be only one elvis presley. the man is untouchable & i am a huge fan of evis. as an actor you do try to respect what the director is trying to convey, this is what stanley wanted & i went along with it. it's easy for people to critisize, hell, it's human nature, in this case every one is an expert on elvis, david stanley lived with the man for 17yrs and worked for him from 72-77. i thinks he has little more knowledge than most people, he didn't ask to be the step brother, when vernon remarried thats what happens & again love the guy or hate him, you certainly cant blame for writing about having the most famous step brother in the world, he did love elvis very much that much i do know, he was like every body else. so i give him dibbs for having the balls to do something different.