Eddie Presley (1992) User Reviews

The quest for one man's identity on the lower end of the Hollywood food chain.

[chadthor · 28 November 1998]

A minor masterpiece of borderline genius. Duane Whitaker's play comes to cinematic fulfillment in EDDIE PRESLEY, a paegn to Hollywood Bottom Feeders. Loaded with quiet power and insight, EP is the story of a Presely impersonator with a wounded psyche, unflinching in his quest to keep the King's spirit alive. He bets it all on one night of glory, a headlining spot at dingy Tinseltown dive. He ends up losing his girlfriend, his job, his chance, but not his pride, as he engages in a cathartic Lenny

bruce-esque confession that celebrates the poetry of the angles while exorcising his own demons. A must for anyone whoever spit in the face of certain demise.

The movie Lawrence Tierney calls 'Eddie Depressly'

[Super_Fu_Manchu · 7/10 · 31 March 2005]

There are a number of reasons to see Eddie Presley; it strikes a realistic if depressing tone, and doesn't dive out of this realism for the sake of the third act. The film portrays the monotony of living life on the ropes, and the futility of seeking fame that eludes so many. Whitaker is convincing as the main character in the film based on the play which he wrote. His attachment to the writing is clear; he allows the audience to see all sides of his character, uncomfortable yet involving viewing.

Ultimately though, the film refuses to make judgments on its principal character; his narcissism and vanity go unchecked. We see him totally ignoring the advances of a woman who is meant to be his perfect match; the caring co-worker type who indulges his self centered fantasies. We see him use the services and faith of his friends without thanks. We see him expect fame rather than truly deserve it. The main character is so deeply flawed, yet the film only reflects on his depression and possible mental handicap (portrayed in incongruous flashbacks), without judging his motivations. Long shots of Eddie whimpering or sighing to himself, losing himself in the past, do little for the film. The audience of his show within the film are rightly falling asleep, but he continues his ramble about how sad it is for him, his past etc. This faces the film's actual audience with a difficult choice; do we too simply fall asleep while this man feels sorry for himself? The filmmakers are too in love with their central character to detach themselves from him enough to actually make a satisfying flick. I admit I became attached to the character, particularly in the first hour (significantly stronger than the second half, where Eddie plays his show to a bored audience). However, as the film progressed I found myself getting frustrated at Eddie's self delusion; one which the filmmakers become so involved with, its hard to see whether they themselves were even conscious that it's a delusion either. It's hard to even refer to this flick as a character-study, since it rarely actually studies the character - rather it gets swept along by his narcissism, before ultimately drowning in his own self-interest. This is reflected by the movie's initial running time of 3 hours, which was inevitably cut down to a more manageable 95 minutes.

Those seeking the tooted cameos will probably be disappointed by the blink-and-you-miss-it appearances of Bruce Campbell and Quentin Tarantino, which are literally glances. Neither has a line in the film either. More entertaining is Lawrence Tierney's cameo; a role he was made for. Also on show is Ted Raimi, brother of 'Evil Dead' director Sam Raimi, who is amusing as always but catastrophically miscast.

Overall this is a picture that wears its faults on its sleeve, much like Eddie himself. Whilst it never quite reaches the melancholy brilliance of a Jarmusch movie, it does have its moments, and is worth checking out. It's also of interest to the low budget filmmaker, given its shoe-string budget.

This movie SUCKS

[juliolugo143 · 1/10 · 29 December 2006]

This was One of the worst movies I'v e ever seen. There were a few interesting characters but most of them made no sense to me. First was the odd dude in the coffee shop? What was that all about? He was always looking in the napkin dispenser. Then there was the old dude security guard. I guess he was one of the few believable characters in the film and he's done some other good work. Unfortunately, his part was far too small. OK, then there was Doc's club. Now this could have been played a lot more. The talent was rough. I personally enjoyed the ventriloquist. He was a metaphor for this film : HE SUCKED. About the only thing I liked were the two old ladies watching the show at Docs' They were cute, and I suspect related to the director or maybe the blue-haired investors that forked over the dough for this film and got a cameo. Who knew they would be the two best actors in this film! I also want to give a Golden Globe nomination to the rabbit that bit the magicians finger. He was really in character. Obviously, he is a star and probably regrets appearing in this stinker

Long live The King.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 23 July 2019]

Character actor Duane Whitaker scripted this little film, based on his stage play. It's a sensitively handled character study, and combination of comedy and drama, focusing on that fickle little thing called fame. It's also about one broken mans' attempt to make meaning of his life and struggle to hold on to his self-respect. Whitaker plays the title person, a former Elvis impersonator who lands a gig at a decidedly minor venue. However, an agent (Clu Gulager) will be in attendance, and this could mean Eddies' ticket back into the big time.

Director Jeff Burr is better known, at least among genre fans, for his horror sequels ("Pumpkinhead II", "Stepfather 2", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre III", etc.), but he's never quite gotten enough credit for "Eddie Presley". It's a shame it's not better known. Certainly, you'd think that the cast assembled here would qualify the picture for a major cult following. And everybody here does a fine job, including Willard E. Pugh and Ted Raimi as Eddies' loyal friends, and Harri James (a veteran script supervisor and sometime actress) as his awkward admirer. The brief appearances by Tim Thomerson and Lawrence Tierney are very funny. Gulager is amusing as the smarmy agent; he wears a wig that looks hilariously preposterous.

Ultimately, this movie belongs to the under-rated Whitaker, who reacts in an understandable way to a setback at his concert. He doesn't exactly handle the situation with grace, but when he pours out his heart and soul to a largely indifferent audience, it's hard not to feel some sympathy for this guy. You definitely cannot deny his passion and commitment to the music of The King. If the character weren't sympathetic, this kind of turn in the story wouldn't work so well, but Whitaker makes him a vivid, flawed, flesh-and-blood human being, one that the viewer will remember after the closing credits finish. His tribute song "That's What the King Means to Me" is quite touching.

If you're curious about the "special guest star" appearances by Quentin Tarantino and Bruce Campbell (who play asylum attendants), be advised that you have to pay attention; you could easily miss them.

Seven out of 10.

What's that sucking sound?? Oh Yeah, it's This Movie!!!

[newwaveknight1 · 1/10 · 24 January 2008]

At the beginning of the info page for this movie on IMDb, it said that there was no plot synopsis for this movie. I honestly thought that it was a review of the movie, and whole-heartedly agreed with it. If VH1 and Blender magazine were to follow up their list of the most awesomely bad songs ever with an identical list for movies, this would top at number one. The movie was like a bad party. It was boring, dull, and when the last guest arrives (in this case, what little plot there was), everyone had already left. In normal movies about performers, we find out about the main character's dark past BEFORE The END OF THE MOVIE!!!! The dialogue is like having to make awkward chit-chat with a friend of a friend of a friend while everyone you know is in the restroom. Then, it's as if the entire plot that should have been happening in the rest of the movie all occurs in a monologue that seems to last 12 hours. Hey, here's a little information. No real performers stop their show when a technical difficulty hits AND TELL THEIR FREAKIN" ENTIRE LIFE STORY!!! There is a quick scene with some woman sucking on another woman's nipple while the monologue is going on. i suppose that this serves as a cup of coffee for this long road trip of a monologue that nobody cares about. I suppose the job of a movie is to show us what it's like as certain characters, and what better way to put you in the heads of these bored nightclub customers than to have a monologue drag on like that. I am a huge Bruce Campbell fan, and when a movie drags so long that i can't even find him in the film, it must suck. I would buy this movie only so I can play Mystery Science Theatre 3000 with my friends while watching it.

Sad and involving

[hoodcsa · 8/10 · 4 August 2004]

Usually the presence of an Elvis impersonator guarantees a movie is a piece of crap. "Eddie Presley" is an exception. There are plenty of rough edges, but the fine moments more than make up for

them. Duane Whitaker is good as Eddie, the broken down, would-be faux king of rock

and roll. Whitaker wrote the play the film is based on and it's obviously a very personal project. His Eddie is memorable. Director Jeff Burr delivers a fine looking movie and as is his usual strength, gets some fine performances out of the supporting cast. The underrated Glu Gulager, Roscoe Lee Brown and Daniel Roebuck are exceptional. "Eddie Presley" has some very funny moments, but the humor is like a lifeboat tossed on a sea of despair and desperation. An independent film with an independent spirit and a big heart.

Moving film about a down-on-his-luck Elvis impersonator.

[filmbuff1974 · 10/10 · 21 November 2004]

I just loved this bittersweet film about a down-on-his-luck Elvis impersonator who plans his big comeback at a small-time seedy Hollywood night club.

The film has a supporting cast of equally touching characters who are clearly just barely existing on the fridges of the Hollywood show business community.Yet despite this sad state of existence there is a inner dignity to Eddie Presley and the other characters that is touching and wonderfully uplifting.

If you like movies about show business and especially that of show business in Hollywood, then this film is definitely worth a look.

You have no messages.

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 21 March 2018]

The story centers around Eddie Presley and the low income inhabitants of his street life in Hollywood. Eddie is a contractor security guard who lives in his van. He wants to be an Elvis impersonator. Finally he gets a gig.

The movie consists of many stereotypical Hollywood type people, including the vulture agent with a bad hair piece and plaid jacket named Sid. It was unusually well done for a Tempe film. The acting was better than any Tempe film. It ranks 8 stars on the Tempe scale, about a 4 star movie otherwise.

F-bomb. Brief sex and nudity.

surprisingly great indie film

[Randy199 · 10/10 · 13 August 2005]

I'd never previously heard of this 1992 film before literally stumbling across it recently on Amazon.com, while doing a search for a different movie title, and based on what I read about it, I decided to take a chance and ordered it on DVD. Well, what a pleasant surprise, as I found "Eddie Presley" to be an absolutely wonderful film! This has got to be one of the most powerful, and realistic films I've ever seen about the "harsh realities" of trying to make it in the entertainment business,(music in particular), or really life in general, and I was completely taken aback by the power of it, though I'll admit it was quite depressing in many ways as well. The emotional feelings I got from it actually reminded me a lot of how I felt watching "Raging Bull",which happens to be one of my all time favorite films, and I can't recommend "Eddie Presley" highly enough!! 10 out of 10.