Please don't spend money on this.

Load of rubbish!!

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

From head to toe, this is one huge stink-burger of a film. Easily the worst movie about Elvis, and I've seen them all. With the WORST Elvis impersonator I've EVER seen on film. (Peter Dobson makes DON JOHNSON look like Elvis personified! Hell, I think Ron Howard could have done a better "King" ) Dobson looks like Charlie Sheen with a dead skunk sitting on his head, and he sounds more like Sly Stallone when he talks, over Presley. Because of the simple fact that you NEVER hear or see the name "Elvis", and never even hear instrumental muzak versions of ANY Elvis song, (all you hear is just bad/generic blues riffs…) Plus, ALL the names seem to have been changed… Why? The main person who would watch this flick would most likely already be an Elvis fan, and would already know who the "characters " are anyway. This all makes me doubt the whole story… What's B.S and what's real. It's like filming a movie about Watergate, yet calling the president at the time Jonathon Smith. I have an easier time believing Bubba-Hoetep was real, over this… (At least Bruce Campbell DID impersonate Elvis surprisingly well!)I'm not being "Pollyannaish", I know Elvis was messed up individual, I've read every book I could get my hands on regarding "The King", including David Stanley's book. What's interesting is, Stanley's book was a testimonial on the evils of drugs, and how he became a born again Christian. You wouldn't ever guess that through watching this movie… It's a sea of excess, with only a passing reference to his spirituality at the very end. It's as if David Stanley saw Boogie Nights, saw what a GREAT film is, regarding sex, drugs & rock & roll, and figured he could do the same type of picture, as there's already a built-in audience. Instead of the Porn world, it's rock and roll. Boogie Nights, which was a TOTAL immersive experience, with perfect acting, realism, fashions and music, I really felt I was in the late 70's watching that film (I'm 43, so I ought to know!) This film, however, is a sad wannabe. Serving Stanley's pocketbook and ego instead of honoring Elvis' memory. Sad and pathetic. The ONE good thing about this garbage dump of a movie? Danielle Keaton. She was really good in this pic... She kept me from giving this film the big goose egg.

**SPOILERS** The film "Protecting the King" covers the last five years in the life of Rock & Roll legend Elvis Aaron Presley,Peter Dobson, who now some 30 years after his death has become a far bigger star, if that's humanly possible, then he ever was in life.Were given the inside scoop on Elvis' last wild and drug addicted years by his young step-brother and personal bodyguard David Stanley, Matt Barr, who also happened to be, according to the movie info, the youngest bodyguard in Rock & Roll history. Stanley who loved and idolized his big brother Elvis soon learned that he was as human as anyone else in his hangups about his insecurity as well as dependence of prescription drugs. Supplyed to him by his personal physician Dr. Stern, Scott Vandiver.Kind personable and very understanding to those around him at first Elvis soon developed a dark side when his wife Piricilla left him for his personal karate instructor Ed Parker, Larry Tatum. This all had Elvis up his drug and pill intake to as much as 25 pills a day! This together with his craving appetite for fating and unhealthy junk food started to dangerously clog up Elvis' arteries and bloat up his once slim and athletic looking body where he was almost unrecognizable when preforming, and programming very badly, on stage. As the year 1977 came around Elvis was a total wreck of a man not able to even rememberer the worlds to his songs when doing his many sold out concerts as well as, in many cases, just not showing up at all. The end came for Elvis on August 16, 1977 in his Graceland Estate as his heart finally gave out from the abuse he put it under and died at the young age of 42. Which just happened to be almost the exact date that his beloved mom Gladys died on some 19 years, on August 14 1958, earlier!What we get from David's personal revelations about Elvis is not really all that new but still very interesting in how the man self-destructed and how drugs, in Elvis' case legal not illegal, played a major role in his demise. Despite his immense fame and fortune Elvis was always a little boy at heart and thus not able to fully comprehend the grown up position, with tens of millions of fans and admirers of all ages, that it put him into. As his fame grew Elvis started to doubt, being the very religious person that he was, if he was worth all that attention and started to feel terribly insecure in the position, as the "King of Rock & Roll", that he found himself in.From what we see in the movie it was after he fired his life long friends and personal bodyguards-together with little brother David- Jeff & Frank, Brian Krause & Mark Rolston, that Elvis' life quickly started to come apart. Not having the heart to do it himself it was Elvis' father, and David's step-father, Vernon played by John Bnnett Perry who handed the two their pink slips that started a firestorm withing Elvis' inner circle of what was then called the "Memphis Mafia".More then anything else it was both Jeff & Frank's plans to write a tell all book about Elvis' drug addition far more then his womanizing, which in reality was more fiction then fact, that drove Elvis to let himself go in his drug and junk food addictions. That all lead Elvis to end up or go straight, inside a body-bag, into the Memphis City hospital morgue!

Oh boy. Probably you know this movie is tortuously bad. You will not need me to tell you this. But you know, it almost could have been not so, because we all have a bit of groupie in us. We allow great latitude to filmmakers who go where we secretly wish we could, perhaps simply because it is forbidden. Offhand, I can think of three films — all seriously damaged — that were groupie films that we allowed and even think are pretty good.One of these you may not know. It was about Gram Parsons, a documentary that was structured as a groupie experience, even down to explaining why there was no sex. (He was chronically too doped up to perform.) It ends with a groupie stealing his body and burning it in the desert. Based on real events, home movies and interviews with the entourage, its almost perfectly designed as an ersatz tour.Then there's "The Doors." Stone makes flashy but empty movies, but this one resonated because the focus wasn't the suicidal son of a dumb admiral, but on the girl who would give everything just to feel his skin. Its about the only thing Meg's dewy face and manner is good for.Probably the one that seems the best but is the worst is "Almost Famous" because though it collected the whole audience in a grouping of groupies, and it had the sex with the simpleton girlies, it had the guys as well. This opened things up, because by the very act of watching we were joining that group. But the very act of thinking about it, we joined the autobiographical author/filmmaker as he (thought he) was thinking about the music and its place in the world.(I won't get into the intricacies of "Bubba Hotep.")So even this drek, this moronic project could have been subtly adjusted to fool us, especially because it centers on the plastic nature of Elvis-love. I think the exercise would not be worth it except to prove a point in film school. But I think a different edit, different dialog with the same scenes and a remote narration could retool this into acceptable groupieland.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Based on a true story. What exactly was David Stanley taking this time? Everyone has an opinion; Stanley writes, directs and produces this proverbial t#^d in a punch bowl. Why would Elvis put his life in the hands of a teenage hanger on? If Mr. Stanley wants us to put credence in his self-serving story, why would he change the names, dates and situations? It doesn't take long to realize that this is another attempt at bleeding money from Elvis' legacy. In any respectable book about Elvis, you'll find Stanley a mere "gopher". Tom Sizemore representing a character based on Joe Esposito is an embarrassment. Dee Stanley Presley should feel honored being played by someone with the looks of Dey Young. And the only thing I can say about Peter Dobson playing "The King"; he did better than Don Johnson and Dale Midkiff. After saying all this; kudos to Matt Barr, who actually is the best actor in this film. This really is not a movie about Elvis; its about David Stanley and his self conception.