Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Michelle Ridley The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

newwaveknight1 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.

Randy199 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.

Super_Fu_Manchu 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.

hoodcsa 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 forthem. Duane Whitaker is good as Eddie, the broken down, would-be faux king of rockand 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.