Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Michael Ledo 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.

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.

Derek Williams 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.