The formula was simple: Elvis had some glamorous job, he sang a few songs to fill a soundtrack album and there was always some unapproachable hot woman which fate seemed to be holding just out of Elvis' reach. In the better Elvis formula pictures, the details made everything palatable. Here you get the bare minimum.
Viva Las Vegas was arguably the best of these, and as such makes for a useful comparison study. Las Vegas in that picture is presented attractively, but on a travelogue level and with little local cultural or social content to enrich the experience. Acapulco gets much the same superficial treatment here, but with worse colour cinematography and no real eye for found local imagery, which Viva had albeit in limited quantities. In Viva, Elvis played a racing driver, setting up a lengthy road race for its exciting action climax. Here, Elvis enters a cliff diving contest, which while still pretty spectacular fills a lot less screen time. Viva had multiple memorable great song and dance numbers; this one has Bossa Nova Baby and not much else. Fun in Acapulco simply seems to have less of everything, and worse.
Which brings us to the primary attraction in any Elvis picture... the romantic fantasy dream girl. The comparison is hardly a fair one. Ann-Margret in Viva was a singing and dancing dynamo with personality and charm for days. Ursula Andress had one previous screen appearance prior to this one (Dr. No), no formal theatrical training and could neither sing nor dance, and spoke limited English with a deep accent. Her whole bit was looking icy and distant, and that wears thin quickly. Just ask Anita Ekberg. The side romance with the lady bullfighter seemed like pointless filler.
A viewer could fall asleep five minutes into the movie, when Elvis swims ashore, wake up in time for the high diving and not have missed much. The cast, it should be noted, includes Oscar-winning European actor Paul Lukas! Yeah, he does basically nothing. Waste.
Viva Las Vegas was arguably the best of these, and as such makes for a useful comparison study. Las Vegas in that picture is presented attractively, but on a travelogue level and with little local cultural or social content to enrich the experience. Acapulco gets much the same superficial treatment here, but with worse colour cinematography and no real eye for found local imagery, which Viva had albeit in limited quantities. In Viva, Elvis played a racing driver, setting up a lengthy road race for its exciting action climax. Here, Elvis enters a cliff diving contest, which while still pretty spectacular fills a lot less screen time. Viva had multiple memorable great song and dance numbers; this one has Bossa Nova Baby and not much else. Fun in Acapulco simply seems to have less of everything, and worse.
Which brings us to the primary attraction in any Elvis picture... the romantic fantasy dream girl. The comparison is hardly a fair one. Ann-Margret in Viva was a singing and dancing dynamo with personality and charm for days. Ursula Andress had one previous screen appearance prior to this one (Dr. No), no formal theatrical training and could neither sing nor dance, and spoke limited English with a deep accent. Her whole bit was looking icy and distant, and that wears thin quickly. Just ask Anita Ekberg. The side romance with the lady bullfighter seemed like pointless filler.
A viewer could fall asleep five minutes into the movie, when Elvis swims ashore, wake up in time for the high diving and not have missed much. The cast, it should be noted, includes Oscar-winning European actor Paul Lukas! Yeah, he does basically nothing. Waste.